DRONES 9
Running head: DRONES 1
Drone Program Policies
Student’s name
Institution
Drone Program Policies
Introduction
Since 2002, the United States started using remotely piloted aircraft, or drones, to launch missile strikes against targets suspected of affiliations with terror groups or taking part in activities perceived as threats to US national security. As the US began to rely upon drone strikes aggressively, a public debate emerged over the program’s strategic ethics, legality and effectiveness. Although they appear to offer short term tactical successes by eliminating threats without human casualties drone strikes in Yemen, have coursed a lot of civilian death in collateral damage.
Notably, the effectiveness of drones has been under scrutiny begging questions as to whether their success is synonymous to long-term strategic effectiveness. The notion that drone effectiveness began to take hold in which targeting effectiveness has been equated to vital efficiency. However, there has been little evidence to determine whether or not the actions being taken by the US are strategically effective at addressing the sources of extremist violence in Yemen.
Purportedly, drone technology is the most effective strategic tool to the United States, but issues regarding lack of transparency on exactly how each of the strikes carried out has led to the complete dismantling of extremist groups command hierarchy or eliminated their operational capabilities. Lacking any measures of success, the promotion of drones as strategically useful serves merely as an ideological trigger designed to garner public support.
The ethicality of the US drone program has been evaluated in terms of just warfare, but its legality has been questioned both in terms of international and US domestic law. Furthermore there have been concerns about signature strikes, targeting of Americans, civilian casualties, the lack of transparency and whether the administration has a preference for cold blood killings.
Criticisms of drone programs have been made by US political officials, foreign agencies and governments, international humanitarian organisations. Through the Obama administration, the US government sought to address concerns through a series of speeches that attempted to address concerns about these programmes.
The US drone campaign has had a substantial physical impact on civilians. From 2009, there have been over 500 drone strikes carried out against people in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. More strikes have taken place in support of military operations in countries such as Yemen, with an estimated 350 drone strikes. As of 2016, the United States owns over 7,000 drones, most of which are armed according to new America foundation.
Moreover, the centre for the study of targeted killings estimated that 3,500 people had been killed by hundreds of US drone strikes. The most common targets of US drone strikes are adherents and affiliates of terror groups that are seen as a threat to the US or a hindrance to their agenda. These targets are identified through multiple intelligence sources to be categorised as valuable targets. High-Value Targets usually known as HVIs require authorisation under the command of the executive branch.
However, due to the lack of accountability and transparency over how each strike is authorised and carried out, it is impossible to understand how often drone operators or their immediate supervisors are called upon to act immediately in a time-sensitive situation where various patterns of suspicious behaviour have been identified (Tandler, 2015). As a result, some strikes have targeted US citizens believed to be cooperating with or detained by terrorist organisations as well as innocent civilians.
Critique of Policy Options
Undeniably, the loss of innocent life is just but one of many public criticisms that have been made against the US drone program. Additional examination of the current drone policies it needs to be placed on understanding the procedures that take place before ordering a drone strike. Furthermore, there is a need to understand precisely how US drone policies account for the loss of innocent lives. I believe that to do so; we must focus on improving current systems as well as highlight the political legitimation of these strikes through critical discourse analysis.
There have been serious allegations of the drone program in regards to the loss of innocent civilian’s lives and the potential strategic consequences for global security. The following paper builds on prior research by looking specifically into the broad features that enhance legal theories through ideological premises and mental conceptualisations that purpose to encourage increased oversight and accountability for each drone strike that might potentially spell the loss of innocent lives.
One of the most significant political apprehensions that have been raised by advocates is whether drone strikes are illegal both international and US laws. Officials from both sides of the government have raised concerns have questioned the legality of drone strikes. For instance, Dennis Kucinich, along with six others, argued that drone strikes violate an executive order that prevents any person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States government to participate in assassinations (US Congress 2010).
Moreover, diplomats from allied nations claim that drone strikes are a violation of human rights. UN officials have reported that attacks violate international law and using drones that kill innocent civilians is equivalent to extrajudicial killing. These criticisms are valid and informative and capture the concerns of many people that believe that drone strikes pose a threat to global peace. However, the government in its defence alleges that critics of drone strikes fail to examine how violence is foundational to law critically. By focusing on the violation of rules by drone strikes the legitimacy of state killings become masked.
Arguably, drone strikes are seen as a preference to kill operations over capture. Some people have even gone as far as to accuse the US government as the murderers due to the sheer number of people that have died as a result of drones. US Senators, such as Saxby Chambliss, have argued that the administration prefers to kill terrorist leaders instead of dealing with the legal issues associated with taking prisoners.
For instance, the Human Rights Watch said that certain attacks in Yemen could have been capture operations where there were some strikes did not even meet the pre-set thresholds required to launch a strike (Franke, 2014). Some have argued that the desire to end torture led to the increased use of pf drones and consequently made death more attractive. Ultimately, one click of a button has so much power even to destabilize a government. Although the US government denies these allegations, evidence on the ground suggests otherwise given the number of insurgents that have been killed in Yemen.
Policy Recommendations
Undoubtedly, public concerns and protests demand increased oversight and transparency of the drone programs. For instance, there is a need for control over future presidencies when deploying drones. Arguably, drone strikes against American citizens should have an additional oversight process which could be either judicial or congressional. One recommendation is the creation of a court that grants authority to conduct drone strikes based on a case by case basis as dictated by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Furthermore, there is a need for increased oversight; there have been occasions when an increase in legal propriety is deemed possible. Currently, drone strikes are carried out stealthily without subject to public oversight due to the agency’s civilian status. The effort to limit drone strikes by the C.I.A. has been supported by both activists and politicians as a way to increase transparency since C.I.A. strikes are conducted covertly. In my opinion drone, strikes should be authorized under a joint task mission where no single government agency has absolute powers to carry out a hit.
For instance, The Senate Intelligence Committee should propose bills that increase oversight for drone strikes. According to such legislations, spy agencies would be required to release data such as causality statistics, and there would be stricter scrutiny for attacks against US citizens even on foreign soil. Moreover, Congress should not shy away from oversight regarding national security out of fear of the political blowbacks in the event of an attack. I argue that fear of political blowback is adopted, in part, through the notion that emphasizes on negative aspects of the potential consequences of increased regulation to elicit fear of possible terrorist attacks.
The need for war continues not because of the US is under imminent threats but as a result of political discourse used to draw forth national support. Consequently, administrations keep telling the citizens stories that justify various wars the US is actively involved in. For instance, the discourse produced during the Obama administration alluded to cancer, fear, and time which a nutshell meant there is no end in sight for these wars. In my opinion, reducing the number of conflicts is another approach that might help in preventing civilian casualties resulting in drone attacks.
Prior research shows how the political legitimation of past governments entrapped the Americans into military engagements that were ultimately not beneficial to the US or those regions subject to the intervention, such as Nicaragua. Forthcoming governments should consider overhauling some of the policies that have forced America to participate in wars that have no meaning or value to the welfare of American citizens. Such vulnerability to entrapments has coerced various administrations to use excessive force at times to send a message to purported enemies of the United States.
Furthermore, changing drone policies must begin with transforming the simple narrative of the US being bent on the absolute annihilation of its enemies. It is no doubt that the government often closes itself from other options that are undeniably suited to bring peace. However, the US legitimizes the use of drones as a method of ensuring order failure to which enemies are vulnerable to attacks. There is a need to change the narrative of the current social-political tale before developing anti-drone policies.
Surveillance plays an integral role in transforming national security. Practices such as the military research on visualizations suggest that drones are but one component in a more massive changing military-industrial complex. Incorporating the wide availability of personal recording devices, such as digital cameras and microphone technology can turn the combatant and citizen into a point of surveillance that makes drones strikes more transparent. For this reason, it would become a strategic priority for the state to acquire accurate information and combine it with precision weapons to create a complex actionable form of surveillance with a centralized command system.
Consequently, the end goal would be a typical picture of the battlespace that encourages the coordination of a variety of actors. For instance, the partnership of government agencies and private companies would allow room for accountability is because private military corporations are run by citizens sometimes not affiliated with the government (Luppicini, 2017). Furthermore, public and private sectors can come together to create national security needs through consumption of the newest technology that ensures the accuracy of information before issuing drone strikes.
The legality of drone strikes should also be made clear. Currently, those defending drone attacks argue that people killed from countries in war with the US are not considered as extrajudicial killings. In my opinion, the lives of women and children who have non-capabilities of participating in wars should be defended. Clear legal structures that prohibit the use of drones in public places should be put in place as a checkpoint against killing innocent civilians.
Executive Summary
Without a doubt, drones have become an integral part of the US military enabling the country to have control over volatile enemy territory. The ability to control these places without losing soldiers only solidifies the need for drones. However, additional oversight to drone programmes encourages accountability for each strike. There is a need to revisit drone policies and develop those that prevent innocent civilians from losing their lives. Furthermore, drone programmes must focus not only on the accuracy of their strikes but also on the information leading to the authorization of a drone strike. Hopefully, this will help in reducing civilian casualties.
References
Luppicini, R., & So, A. (2016). A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technology in Society, 46, 109-119.
Franke, U. E. (2014). Drones, drone strikes, and US policy: The politics of crewless aerial vehicles. Parameters, 44(1), 121-131.
Freiberger, E. (2013). Just war theory and the ethics of drone warfare. E-International Relations.
Henriksen, A., & Ringsmose, J. (2015). Drone warfare and morality in riskless war. Global Affairs, 1(3), 285-291.
Tandler, J. (2013). Known and Unknowns: President Obama’s Lethal Drone Doctrine. Notes de la FRS, (7), 1.
Walsh, J. I., & Schulzke, M. (2015). The Ethics of Drone Strikes: Does Reducing the Cost of Conflict Encourage War?. Army War College Carlisle Barracks PA Strategic Studies Institute.
Kaag, J., & Kreps, S. (2014). Drone warfare. John Wiley & Sons