U.S. Drone Policy: Legality, Civilian Casualties, and Counterterrorism

Introduction: The Controversy Over U.S. Drone Policy

The current use of drones to fight terrorism appears to be yielding negative results for the U.S. administration. A recent drone attack on families and friends traveling to a wedding in Yemen only cements the worrying trend of adverse consequences stemming from the drone policy adopted by the government. Worse still, the Obama administration dramatically escalated targeted killings by using drones as a core element of its counterterrorism strategy (Wojtanik, 2014). Recently, the government began revealing more of its drone policy through public statements by various top officials. Although the public has welcomed this transparency, it has not fully addressed public concerns. The number of civilian casualties, coupled with a lack of clarity about whom the government considers a civilian in these circumstances, has given the drone policy a deeply negative image. These concerns, together with the absence of sufficient public information surrounding the policy, demand that the administration explain both the policy and its legal foundation.

Today, individuals can be killed simply by pushing a button from a remote aircraft. For this reason, the legality of drones has become a controversial matter in most countries around the world. This paper contends that drones are an illegitimate weapon of war. Drone strikes kill not only militants but also noncombatants. During the Obama administration, drone attacks killed between 900 and 1,200 persons, approximately 700 of whom were civilians. This translates to an estimated civilian fatality rate of 34%—a colossal proportion. Drone attacks have caused more harm to civilian populations than to militants. The following analysis disputes the U.S. drone policy on the grounds that drone strikes pose an immense threat to humanity.

Drone Strikes and the Violation of National Sovereignty

Drone strikes raise serious concerns about the violation of national sovereignty, questions of legality, and the international tensions they generate (Rogers & Hill, 2014). CIA drone attacks on targets have led to far-reaching civilian casualties that exceed what the American government has publicly acknowledged. Sovereign nations maintain the long-standing position that they have not consented to the remote-launched missile campaigns that form the centerpiece of the American strategy to eliminate militants. The drone policy entails the use of force on the territory of another nation and therefore constitutes a violation of that nation's sovereignty.

Rebuttal

Proponents of the drone policy argue, on the contrary, that drone strikes do not constitute a violation of national sovereignty. Their argument has two dimensions. First, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is said to legalize the use of drones because it permits nations to use force within a sovereign territory where a condition of ongoing armed conflict exists—meaning that drone force is being used against a "shared enemy" (Rogers & Hill, 2014). For instance, a drone strike in 2004 killed Nek Muhammad Wazir, the leader of a Pashtun militant network alleged to have posed a significant threat to Pakistan. Second, however, the manner in which surgical strikes are carried out does raise legal concerns. Predator drone strikes do not fully comply with the IHL principles of proportionality or discrimination as stipulated in the Geneva Conventions of 1948. The principle of discrimination holds that a nation using force must distinguish between civilians and military combatants. The proportionality clause, meanwhile, restricts the permissible degree of force relative to the threat posed and requires that targeting decisions in military operations avoid excessive civilian casualties in relation to the anticipated military advantage.

High Civilian Casualty Rates

Civilian casualties are a major issue associated with drone strikes. The primary source of public controversy regarding drone policy concerns who, precisely, is being killed in these strikes. Studies present widely varying estimates of how many civilians have been killed versus militants. For instance, Daniel Byman of the Brookings Institution estimates that for every one militant killed, ten civilians are also killed. Yet, according to a report released by the CIA, not a single civilian has been killed by drones since 2009. The New American Foundation conducted an in-depth analysis of drone attacks and found that between 2005 and 2020, drone strikes killed between 900 and 1,200 persons, with serious civilian casualties among them (Wojtanik, 2014).

The numbers of civilians killed in drone attacks raise two serious issues for those following drone policy. The first relates to the legality of drone strikes; the second, to their overall efficacy. Research indicates that only one out of every seven U.S. drone attacks kills a militant leader, and fewer than two percent of all strikes have resulted in the deaths of militant group leaders. As the Obama administration increased the number of drone attacks, the number of low-ranking militants and civilians being killed rose accordingly (Woods, 2014).

Drone strikes also serve to alienate local populations and motivate recruitment into militant organizations. The drone policy, as currently practiced, is largely focused on killing. In other words, the U.S. counterterrorism campaign has been reduced to showering remote communities with missiles. Drones are killing people in a near-indiscriminate manner, providing otherwise non-threatening citizens with a justification to take up arms. ISIS, for example, has used the drone policy as a recruitment tool. Such activities have destabilized countries like Pakistan. Moreover, drone strikes serve as an impetus for revenge among those who have been harmed by them, thereby encouraging retaliatory terrorist attacks within the United States. A striking illustration of this dynamic is the attempted Times Square bombing by Faisal Shahzad, an American-Pakistani citizen. Drone strikes could also drive militants out of their tribal areas and into major cities, triggering a corresponding increase in urban violence. As drone strikes rise, so too may militant violence in populated centers.

Rebuttal

Proponents of the drone policy argue, however, that it is possible to achieve precision strikes against high-value militants without deploying troops into the field to kill or capture targeted individuals. Pakistan illustrates this point well: the country is experiencing considerable public sensitivity to the presence of U.S. troops on Pakistani soil. While U.S. drone strikes aggravate many Pakistanis by infringing on Pakistani airspace and sovereignty, they represent a smaller and less visible footprint than U.S. troops entering Pakistan to capture or kill targeted militants. The Pakistani reaction to the matter of foreign troops was clearly demonstrated during the raid that killed Osama bin Laden. Proponents argue that drones are an approach that can dampen public anger when operations are not conducted in open collaboration with Pakistani officials (Rogers & Hill, 2014).

Conclusion

As outlined in this paper, the U.S. use of armed drones and the ongoing worldwide controversy make clear that the results of drone proliferation for other nations—and its effects on U.S. interests—will be significant. As with other technology-driven international governance challenges, the longer the United States delays action, the less influence it will have in shaping the rules of the road, and the less likely it becomes that a broad coalition of nations with growing drone capabilities will agree to any framework governing armed drones.

Regulating the use of armed drones will not necessarily require new treaties or new international rules, because sufficient legal instruments already exist—such as the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)—though these instruments require clarification. The global and domestic politics surrounding treaty ratification, the removal of drones from the MTCR, and the development of a new international agreement would only create additional obstacles to a workable international framework. Among nations that possess or are seeking armed drones, a more broadly shared understanding of how specific legal conditions are interpreted and applied is essential, along with more reliable and transparent compliance with those conditions. In the near term, the U.S. government can play a significant role in shaping what those rules look like, if it commits to helping develop and define them. Some U.S. officials and experts suggest that the widespread proliferation of armed drones is inevitable and that any initiative to govern their use is destined to fail—but the cost of inaction may prove far greater.

References

Cortright, D., Fairhurst, R., & Wall, K. (2015). Drones and the future of armed conflict: Ethical, legal, and strategic implications. University of Chicago Press.

Dworkin, A. (2013). Drones and targeted killing: Defining a European position. European Council on Foreign Relations.

Mohammadi, M., Shahri, A. M., & Boroujeni, Z. M. (2012). Modeling and adaptive tracking control of a quadrotor UAV. International Journal of Intelligent Mechatronics and Robotics (IJIMR), 2(4), 58–81.

Rogers, A., & Hill, J. (2014). Unmanned: Drone warfare and global security. Pluto Press.

Wojtanik, A. (2014). Should the U.S. be training and equipping African armies? Africa Conflict Monthly Monitor, 9–12.

Woods, C. (2014). Sudden justice: The true cost of America's secret drone war. C. Hurst & Company Publishers.