On November 5, 2002, a C.I.A. Predator Drone flew over Yemen, and on the command of someone hundreds of miles away, the pilotless aircraft fired a missile that would obliterate a Jeep carrying six people. Among those six people was al Qaed Senyan, an alleged conspirator in the attack on the USS Cole. This was the first time that the United States used an unmanned aircraft to kill someone outside a theatre of war, but it wouldn’t be the last. Drone warfare has become the United States' go-to means for fighting terrorism, and the technology has advanced rapidly. The Predator has been phased out in favor of the more advanced Reaper Drone, which most notably carries four missiles instead of two. The swivel cameras on today's drones can pinpoint and follow a suspect for hours, displaying their image with staggering fidelity. Drones allow our military to make precise and consistently-lethal attacks on suspected terrorists without putting our own men at risk, seemingly a win-win for those in possession of the technology. Opponents of drone warfare disagree, suggesting that the practice violates international law, wrongfully endangers the lives of innocent civilians, and may actually be counterproductive, generating vengeful terrorists at a faster rate than they can be callously exterminated. The United States continues to build its fleet, however, and other nations are beginning to follow suit. Thomas McDonnell reports, in his essay for George Washington Law Review, that fifty different nations possessed military drones as of April 2012, yet it seems that The United States is the only one really flexing its muscles. Perhaps this is because the benefits of drone warfare are dubious at best, and are outweighed significantly by the moral cost.
While it is true that Predator Drones and their successors, the Reaper Drones, are incredibly accurate and superficially effective, it is also true that the United States operates their drones with an itchy trigger finger. Estimates of civilian casualties vary widely, but in any case they are significant and disturbing. A study by the New America Foundation in 2009 reported that drone strikes had killed at least 725 people, 502 of whom were classified as militants. This 30% civilian casualty rate is contrasted by a separate study, conducted in 2011, that estimated only a 5% civilian casualty rate. Yet another study estimated a fifty-to-one ratio, fifty dead civilians for every confirmed militant. The gaping disparity in the numbers results from the definition of “confirmed militant.” Victims of drone strikes are not given a trial of any sort; they are targeted based on the CIA's interpretation of the evidence. International law states that a nation may only cross borders to take lethal action if they are drawn into an armed conflict or a threat is proved to be imminent. George W. Bush was able to circumvent that law, claiming that the United States was engaged in armed conflict with Al Qaeda, which would give us legal pretense to kill confirmed members of the organization wherever we found them. Barack Obama repeatedly used the same logic to his defense, and Bush's critics might be surprised to find that the number of drone strikes per year increased dramatically after Obama took office-- five-fold by a 2012 estimate. American drones fired 74 missiles in 2007, 183 in 2008, and 219 in 2009, nearly a three-fold expansion in as many years. Pakistani tribal regions are the most heavily affected, having endured over 300 drone strikes between January 2008 and April 2012.
With this impersonal form of warfare and disgustingly high numbers of civilian casualties, it is unsurprising that rural Pakistanis and people from around the world are drawn toward anti-American sentiment and hostility. To someone who has lost an innocent family member to extra-judicial drone strikes, the United States must look like an tyrannical society on-par with the most frightening science-fiction dystopias. Drones are an undoubtedly terrifying concept, particularly for those caught in the line of fire. Circling like vultures for hours, even days, drones emit an unsettling hum and rain down death at the whim of a person many miles away. For every person killed by a drone— militant or farmer, parent or child— there will be countless individuals devastated and enraged by the loss. The apparent arrogance and moral apathy of their assassins will only add to the mounting vendetta. Imagine, if you will, the United States using a predator drone to eliminate the Tsarnaev brothers, the alleged perpetrators of the Boston bombing. Even if they were struck without collateral damage, which would be virtually impossible, the public would still never stand for such brutal force, and with good reason. Retribution, particularly violent retribution, is unacceptable on American soil without fair trial. By refusing to extend the same courtesy to suspects abroad, our aggressive military strategy is inviting the rest of the world to look upon our nation with an entirely rational sense of resentment and ire. Without such animosity, it would be far more difficult for terrorism to perpetuate itself.
Cover Photo: Image Source