Drones War Pros And Cons
U.S. Drones
What is the price of freedom? To the United States, it is protecting its borders from threats foreign and domestic with as little casualties as possible. The United States military has been using a method that reduces threats and minimizes American casualties to virtually zero. Since 2004, American forces have been using new technology in drone warfare to eliminate believed terrorists with unmanned aircrafts in Pakistan. It seems like there can only be positives for the world with terrorists dying and no human cost. Drone use does have its negatives and one major downfall is the human cost. The use of drones has taken a toll on the people of Pakistan physically and mentally. Many innocent people have been affected, hurt, and even killed from U.S. drones. The United States believes it is protecting their people but in turn can be creating more hatred and future terrorism by the prominent use of drone warfare.
Since the attacks of 2001, the United States has put much more focus on national security. To ensure the protection of U.S., drones have been used in Pakistan killing suspected terrorists since …show more content…
2004. One of the main issues of drone warfare is to make sure exactly who it has been killing. It has been reported by UN human rights investigator Ben Emmerson that there have been over 330 drone attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas since 2004. Of those attacks 2,000 people have died and 400 of them were civilians.1 So many innocent lives have been taken by these faceless drone attacks in effort to protect America. In a detailed report written by Amnesty International, investigators watched and followed the use of drones in Northwest Pakistan. There were many heart wrenching stories of innocent people dying from drones. One in particular was that of 18 laborers that were killed by drone missiles after coming home from work. They were eating dinner in a tent when fired upon and minutes later when people tried to help the injured they were fired upon again. The original 18 men were not associated with terrorist groups.2 The price of American freedom is coming from the spilled blood of innocent Pakistan people and affecting so many civilians.
The issue of drone warfare has spread into politics. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited with President Obama to discuss the growing economy in Pakistan and ended up mostly discussing drones. Mr. Sharif and Pakistan are concerned for their safety as a nation and do not wish to live under the fear of a potential drone attack. Although they have issues against U.S. military tactics, Pakistan has been receiving aid from the United States through finances and also the military. Obama recently offered $2.5 billion dollars in aid to Pakistan.3 It is hard to fight against a country while accepting money and military aid. This only complicates the situation more.
How far is the United States allowed to go while saying their actions are in self-defense? International human rights groups have brought light to the drone attacks and asked for someone to claim responsibility. In a speech in May, President Obama defended the framework of the legality of the use of drones. Yet still according to Amnesty International’s report, there are several instances of civilians being targeted and not meeting any of the legal requirements for a missile attack.4 Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns looked at the legality and consequences of drones. He said that “while drones are not illegal, they can easily be abused and lead to unlawful loss of life…it is crucial that international legal limitations that govern the use of lethal force are strictly observed in the use of drones”.5 Pakistan has also spoke out to the U.N. council for justice. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan expressed the opposition of the use of drones and that it is counterproductive. He believes that it will only inspire terrorists to retaliate. He was also concerned with the way in which civilians were being targeted. Khan goes on to say “Killing unarmed, innocent civilians is a clear breach of international law. We call for the immediate cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan”.6 The U.N. should create a specific international law that can prevent future tragedies and civilian casualties. Since the technology is relatively new, the U.N. needs to update its policies. The vague term of self-defense and national security is what allowed tragedies to strike innocent civilians. International law created by the U.N. could slow the use of drones and make the military become more conservative on attacks.
These attacks by drones are impacting the people of Pakistan physically and mentally.
For every person killed by drones there are multiple people affected and many turn resentful. This could lead to more terrorism towards the United States. The stories that Amnesty International and other international human right groups are publicizing are going to ruin a lot of American soft power. A story like this will make other middle powers rethink what the United States is doing in Pakistan and how they are doing it. Australia who has been a longtime ally of American forces in the Middle East has recently decided to pull their troops.7 It’s possible they have seen what the United States has done (or hasn’t done) and decided they no longer want to associate with them. The U.S. loses soft power with its struggles in the Middle East
constantly.
The U.S. presence in the Middle East is hardly unnoticed. There is dominance of force portrayed almost daily there and especially in Pakistan. These drones are a tactic that plays into psychological warfare so much so that it is destroying the country. The drones are so involved in civilian life that it haunts the people affected. The Amnesty International report was titled “Will I be Next?” which was a quote from a 9 year-old girl whose grandmother was killed by drones and was personally scared.8 The United States needs to have less of a dominant presence in Pakistan to avoid deterioration of soft power and its reputation there.
After the recent U.N. talks and the Obama and Sharif meeting, drone warfare has emerged as an immediate issue in world politics. Pakistan wants their people to live free from the chaos that comes with drones and the United States wants to eliminate terrorist groups in Pakistan. There needs to be a solution that will work for both sides. If the U.S. wanted to keep what soft power they have left, they would cut back on the use of drone attacks. There has been so much research proving that not all of the attacks have targeted terrorists and it does not make the U.S. military look very noble. Pakistan also has to realize that there are many terrorists living there who do pose a threat to America. The best possible solution is for the U.N. to require a briefing of sufficient evidence of suspected targets pre and post attack, a restriction on attacks per year, and release of information of all drone attacks. This will create an international community that exposes the abuse of drones in poorer countries and allow certain embargos for countries that do. The U.N. needs to make this a more publicized case and make notice of the violence that has been directed towards civilians. The United States has been attacking this country and exhausting the patience of the people for too long.
Basheer, Margaret. "At UN, Pakistan Calls for End of Drone Use on Its Territory." VOA. N.p., 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Landay, Jonathan S. "2 Human Rights Groups Question Legality of U.S. Drone Strikes."McClatchy DC. N.p., 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Mercer, Phil. "Australia to Pull Troops Out of Afghanistan." VOA. N.p., 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Saul, Heather. "Amnesty International Warns US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Could Be Classed as 'war Crimes'" The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013
Walsh, Declan. "Drone Issue Hovers More Than Ever, Even as Strikes Ebb." New York Times. N.p., 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Will I Be Next? US Drone Strikes in Pakistan. Publication. London: Amnesty International, 2013. Print.
What is the price of freedom? To the United States, it is protecting its borders from threats foreign and domestic with as little casualties as possible. The United States military has been using a method that reduces threats and minimizes American casualties to virtually zero. Since 2004, American forces have been using new technology in drone warfare to eliminate believed terrorists with unmanned aircrafts in Pakistan. It seems like there can only be positives for the world with terrorists dying and no human cost. Drone use does have its negatives and one major downfall is the human cost. The use of drones has taken a toll on the people of Pakistan physically and mentally. Many innocent people have been affected, hurt, and even killed from U.S. drones. The United States believes it is protecting their people but in turn can be creating more hatred and future terrorism by the prominent use of drone warfare.
Since the attacks of 2001, the United States has put much more focus on national security. To ensure the protection of U.S., drones have been used in Pakistan killing suspected terrorists since …show more content…
2004. One of the main issues of drone warfare is to make sure exactly who it has been killing. It has been reported by UN human rights investigator Ben Emmerson that there have been over 330 drone attacks in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas since 2004. Of those attacks 2,000 people have died and 400 of them were civilians.1 So many innocent lives have been taken by these faceless drone attacks in effort to protect America. In a detailed report written by Amnesty International, investigators watched and followed the use of drones in Northwest Pakistan. There were many heart wrenching stories of innocent people dying from drones. One in particular was that of 18 laborers that were killed by drone missiles after coming home from work. They were eating dinner in a tent when fired upon and minutes later when people tried to help the injured they were fired upon again. The original 18 men were not associated with terrorist groups.2 The price of American freedom is coming from the spilled blood of innocent Pakistan people and affecting so many civilians.
The issue of drone warfare has spread into politics. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif visited with President Obama to discuss the growing economy in Pakistan and ended up mostly discussing drones. Mr. Sharif and Pakistan are concerned for their safety as a nation and do not wish to live under the fear of a potential drone attack. Although they have issues against U.S. military tactics, Pakistan has been receiving aid from the United States through finances and also the military. Obama recently offered $2.5 billion dollars in aid to Pakistan.3 It is hard to fight against a country while accepting money and military aid. This only complicates the situation more.
How far is the United States allowed to go while saying their actions are in self-defense? International human rights groups have brought light to the drone attacks and asked for someone to claim responsibility. In a speech in May, President Obama defended the framework of the legality of the use of drones. Yet still according to Amnesty International’s report, there are several instances of civilians being targeted and not meeting any of the legal requirements for a missile attack.4 Special Rapporteur Christof Heyns looked at the legality and consequences of drones. He said that “while drones are not illegal, they can easily be abused and lead to unlawful loss of life…it is crucial that international legal limitations that govern the use of lethal force are strictly observed in the use of drones”.5 Pakistan has also spoke out to the U.N. council for justice. Ambassador Masood Khan of Pakistan expressed the opposition of the use of drones and that it is counterproductive. He believes that it will only inspire terrorists to retaliate. He was also concerned with the way in which civilians were being targeted. Khan goes on to say “Killing unarmed, innocent civilians is a clear breach of international law. We call for the immediate cessation of drone attacks inside the territorial borders of Pakistan”.6 The U.N. should create a specific international law that can prevent future tragedies and civilian casualties. Since the technology is relatively new, the U.N. needs to update its policies. The vague term of self-defense and national security is what allowed tragedies to strike innocent civilians. International law created by the U.N. could slow the use of drones and make the military become more conservative on attacks.
These attacks by drones are impacting the people of Pakistan physically and mentally.
For every person killed by drones there are multiple people affected and many turn resentful. This could lead to more terrorism towards the United States. The stories that Amnesty International and other international human right groups are publicizing are going to ruin a lot of American soft power. A story like this will make other middle powers rethink what the United States is doing in Pakistan and how they are doing it. Australia who has been a longtime ally of American forces in the Middle East has recently decided to pull their troops.7 It’s possible they have seen what the United States has done (or hasn’t done) and decided they no longer want to associate with them. The U.S. loses soft power with its struggles in the Middle East
constantly.
The U.S. presence in the Middle East is hardly unnoticed. There is dominance of force portrayed almost daily there and especially in Pakistan. These drones are a tactic that plays into psychological warfare so much so that it is destroying the country. The drones are so involved in civilian life that it haunts the people affected. The Amnesty International report was titled “Will I be Next?” which was a quote from a 9 year-old girl whose grandmother was killed by drones and was personally scared.8 The United States needs to have less of a dominant presence in Pakistan to avoid deterioration of soft power and its reputation there.
After the recent U.N. talks and the Obama and Sharif meeting, drone warfare has emerged as an immediate issue in world politics. Pakistan wants their people to live free from the chaos that comes with drones and the United States wants to eliminate terrorist groups in Pakistan. There needs to be a solution that will work for both sides. If the U.S. wanted to keep what soft power they have left, they would cut back on the use of drone attacks. There has been so much research proving that not all of the attacks have targeted terrorists and it does not make the U.S. military look very noble. Pakistan also has to realize that there are many terrorists living there who do pose a threat to America. The best possible solution is for the U.N. to require a briefing of sufficient evidence of suspected targets pre and post attack, a restriction on attacks per year, and release of information of all drone attacks. This will create an international community that exposes the abuse of drones in poorer countries and allow certain embargos for countries that do. The U.N. needs to make this a more publicized case and make notice of the violence that has been directed towards civilians. The United States has been attacking this country and exhausting the patience of the people for too long.
Basheer, Margaret. "At UN, Pakistan Calls for End of Drone Use on Its Territory." VOA. N.p., 25 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Landay, Jonathan S. "2 Human Rights Groups Question Legality of U.S. Drone Strikes."McClatchy DC. N.p., 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Mercer, Phil. "Australia to Pull Troops Out of Afghanistan." VOA. N.p., 29 Oct. 2013. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.
Saul, Heather. "Amnesty International Warns US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Could Be Classed as 'war Crimes'" The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 22 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013
Walsh, Declan. "Drone Issue Hovers More Than Ever, Even as Strikes Ebb." New York Times. N.p., 26 Oct. 2013. Web. 28 Oct. 2013.
Will I Be Next? US Drone Strikes in Pakistan. Publication. London: Amnesty International, 2013. Print.