Should the U.S. Continue to Attack Terrorists With Drones?

Robotic drones have been in use by the United States as a strategy of attack against terrorist groups for several years now, beginning in the administration of George W. Bush. They have been effective and yet there is and has been controversy with the use of these robotic technologies. This paper will point to the criticisms and the supportive positions as well.

In this paper the writer uses opinion articles by Daniel Byman and Kenneth Anderson to point to how drones actually work and to arguments against the continued use of drones as well as arguments in support of the policy of using drones. This paper supports the use of drones as a very successful way to combat and kill certain key terrorist leaders who use violence to kill innocent people as they push their twisted Islamic ideologies on society.

There is no doubt that innocent people have been killed during targeted drone strikes, and while that is very unfortunate -- and the U.S. should make reparations whenever possible -- that is not reason enough to shut down the program. What are the advantages, the positives, of the drone program? Byman makes the case that drones "have done their job remarkably well" and have "devastated al Qaeda," without putting U.S. forces in harm's way and at "little financial cost" (Byman, 2013).

Byman correctly posits that the United States -- in a constant battle with terror groups in many parts of the world -- "…simply cannot tolerate terrorist safe havens in remote parts of Pakistan and elsewhere." The data that the New American Foundation has come up with through 2013 shows that 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist operatives have been killed by drones, Byman points out (Byman, p. 2).

Of course Byman and Anderson published their articles before the ISIS terror movement had taken hold, and it would be interesting to see what each of them have to say about drones and ISIS. But meantime, Byman mentions how risky it is when the U.S. needs to "capture or eliminate an enemy"; even if the operation was a success, and a terrorist was captured, Byman wonders what the U.S. would do with the detainee, given that the problem at Guantanamo Bay (what to do with those imprisoned).

There are those (like the United Nations' Ben Emmerson) who believe that more focus should be placed on "…factors that might contribute to extremism and terrorism, such as poverty, unemployment, and authoritarianism"; while Byman has empathy for that approach, he says it is "far from clear how Washington could execute it" (p. 3). Interestingly, the White House just recently conducted a conference with representatives from 60 nations that focused on exactly what Emmerson, a UN human rights advocate, was proposing.

The factors that do contribute to radicalizing young men into becoming terrorists were key parts of the Obama Administration's conference, which, by the way, was loudly criticized by conservatives. Byman explains that while some politicians in the Middle East and in Pakistan loudly criticize the U.S. drone program, in reality many foreign officials "have supported it"; in fact Pakistan has been willing to host U.S. drone facilities (Byman, p. 4). The leaders in Pakistan have actually asked the U.S.

At times to provide "…continuous Predator coverage" because the enemies of the U.S. (Taliban and other militants) also happen to be the enemies of Pakistan (Byman, p. 4). Still, while the leaders of Pakistan support U.S. drone strikes, some 74% of Pakistani citizens "viewed the United States as their enemy" in a 2012 poll; the main reason why citizens oppose the U.S. may be because of the drone program, which has caused the deaths of innocent civilians (Byman, p. 5).

The unintentional killing of civilians is a definite downside to the drone program, and it's no wonder Pakistani citizens are upset and angry. According to Anderson's article, between the years 2004 to 2012, the U.S. used 344 drone strikes in Pakistan, and those strikes killed "between '2,562 and 3,325 people, of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians'" (Anderson, 2013). This data was retrieved from Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, who admitted that there are studies that show fewer civilians killed by drones. One great concern that is raised by Byman is the spread of drones.

What happens when terrorists get drones, or drones come into the hands of ruthless dictators like Syrian President Bashar al-Assad? It is inevitable that terrorists or criminals at some levels will get their hands on drones and that "cannot be stopped," Byman writes (p. 6). As of the publishing of Byman's article, China had already begun to manufacture drones and certainly some of the countries that China would sell drones to are not friendly towards the U.S., so that is a festering problem for the future.

Who are the opponents of the drone program and why do they oppose it? U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) has made it one of his attack issues when it comes to opposing the policies of President Barack Obama. It should be noted here that Paul has presidential aspirations, he's a conservative Republican, and he has opposed Obama's presidency at every turn. So it is no surprise that he would take issue with Obama's use of drones.

But what is Paul's specific complaint against drone warfare? After an American drone took out the radical cleric (who was killed in Yemen) Anwar al-Awlaki, there were voices raised in criticism, including Paul's voice. It turns out al-Awlaki was an American citizen who had been radicalized and had turned away from democracy and the West and had led attempts to kill innocent people through terrorism in several instances.

Writer Kenneth Anderson points out that al-Awlaki was the principal instigator of the horrific mass murder at Fort Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009, that took the lives of 13 soldiers and injured more than thirty others. Anderson also points to al-Awlaki's effort to "…detonate a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day… and [al-Awlaki was] deeply involved in a plot to load printer ink with explosives" that would be detonated on a passenger jet (Anderson, 2013).

American or not, al-Awlaki was a terrorist and was part of plots to kill as many Americans as he could. And yet Paul asserted that killing al-Awlaki violated "due process" (as set out for U.S. citizens in the Constitution). Paul went so far as to stage a "13-hour filibuster on the question of the legality of drone strikes" on the U.S. Senate floor (Anderson, p. 3).

Although Paul's verbal attacks on the drone program "delighted many conservatives and libertarians," the fact is that as president, Obama has "many and capacious constitutional powers" when it comes to foreign policy, Anderson points out. Moreover, were.