Are drones hitting their targets?
As new reports on civilian deaths from drone strikes released, the drone issue has been raised again with the programâs effectiveness being questioned. It has fueled anger over the US drones.
The use of drones has been always controversial. Is the drone good or bad policy? And in reality, do drone strikes do more good than harm?
After Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are tired of spending money and blood in fighting on the ground. So drones, the unmanned US aerial vehicles, seem to be the best choice for the countryâs counter-terrorism efforts for years to come for its ability of lessening the need to send troops into harmâs way and reducing the number of US casualties.
Yes, the use of drones has proved to be saving American lives. But they have killed innocent people. So how should we judge it?
Although âthe drone strikes were legal because of the right to self-defenseâ under the international law, as stated by US State Department legal advisor Harold Koh, Congressman Dennis Kucinich said that the US was violating international law by carrying out strikes against a country that never attacked the US.
Another much discussed issue is the way the Obama administration has carried out hundreds of strikes through a secret process sealed off from other branches of government. President Obama approves each strike himself through âkill listsâ in some cases and the standard of evidence to carry out these attacks is not known. His administration has not provided public reports on the targets and results on drone strikes.
But the more controversial aspect of the drone strikes is their collateral damage. The strikes did not only kill targeted militants but also innocent civilians.
According to the New America Foundation, there were approximately 300 civilian deaths from US drone strikes between 2004 and the present. But the number seems much greater than what the US government has reported, approximately 700 since 2004, including nearly 200 children, according to a recent survey by human rights experts at Stanford Law School and the New York University School of Law.
âSignatureâ targeting, the CIAâs practice of approving strikes in Pakistan based on patterns of suspicious behavior, has been the source of controversy. The change in tactics, introduced in 2008, has resulted in fewer deaths of high-value targets and in more deaths of lower-level fighters. Drone critics make the claim that regular citizen behaviors can easily be mistaken for militant signatures. The Anti-War Committee asserted that âthe physical distant between the drone and its shooter makes lack of precision unavoidable.â
Together with civilian casualties, the weaponized drones have eliminated 22 of al-Qaedaâs top 30 leaders. âThe drone attacks were effective and would continue,â stated Senators John McCain and Joe Lieberman. But with that high number of innocent civilians killed, the effectiveness of drones is being questioned.
The âdrone warâ has therefore resulted in a rise of anti-American sentiment in Pakistan, where 95 per cent of US drone strikes have occurred. Almost all Pakistanis (97 per cent, according to Pew polling from June) expressed disapproval and believed they kill too many innocent people (94 per cent). âDrone strikes may well contribute to the extremism and terrorism the US seeks to deter,â said Congressman of Minnesota Keith Ellison in New York Times.
After a September drone strike that killed 13 civilians, a local Yemeni activist told CNN, âI would not be surprised if a hundred tribesmen joined the likes of al-Qaeda as a result of the latest drone mistake. This part of Yemen takes revenge very seriously.â A Yemen villager named Mohammed told The Washington Post, âIf the Americans are responsible, I would have no choice but to sympathize with al-Qaeda because al-Qaeda is fighting America.â
We donât know how long it will take to end this War of Terror and how many innocent civilians will die before the drone strikes can eliminate all Talibans and al-Qaeda militants.
But we are afraid that if it continues to kill innocent civilians, it will increase hatred among those who lost their family members and friends. They will in return plot revenge and take revenge, like what the Yemen villagers said.
Is it sowing the seeds for the next 9/11 just as the Americaâs intervention in the Middle East showed the seeds for the last?
At the end of the day, itâs war that kills, not the specific weapons.