Position Paper

Ben Malone

The UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle), more commonly known as the drone, is just the
next weapon of choice for the U.S. government. Recently, drones have been used to perform
aerial strikes as a part of the war on terror. The United States started using drone strikes against
Middle Eastern terrorist groups in 2004. Over the 12 years that the program has been active,
frequency and size of strikes have only increased especially since the introduction of the
Obama administration. There is much controversy surrounding the use of strikes, mostly
stemming from the fact that it is very common that civilians are killed by drone strikes. People
either view collateral damage as a necessary cost of the war on terror or as something that the
United States should not actively cause through the use of drones. What we must realize is that
the cons created by the program heavily outweigh the pros and that if we continue to let the
program go on, even more innocent lives will be lost. The United States should not continue
with its drone strike program in the Middle East.
Drone strikes are military operations that are done without approval from congress and
usually without the approval of the nation in which it is conducted. Drone strikes violate the
sovereignty of nations by imposing force without their consent and are vastly unpopular around
the world. The government of Pakistan has long said that they do not consent to nor approve of
U.S. drone strikes in their country. The United Nations special rapporteur on human rights and
counter-terrorism, Ben Emmerson, met with Pakistani officials and came to that same
conclusion. He stated that the drone campaign involves the use of force on the territory of
another State without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistans sovereignty (Leiby).
The United States launches military action upon another state without formally declaring war
upon it and without its consent. Doing so, the U.S. violates the sovereignty, the authority of a
state to govern itself without interference from another, of nations in which they launch drone
strikes against. The blatant use of force against another state is justified by the U.S. by saying
that the strikes are against certain individuals and groups that are not affiliated with the state but
merely residing within it, however, the strikes are still conducted within the territory of that state,
therefore undermining its authority over its own territory. Drone strikes are also very unpopular
in countries all around the world. The Pew Research Center found in its Global Attitudes Project
that In 39 of 44 countries surveyed, majorities or pluralities oppose U.S. drone strikes targeting
extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and that Israel, Kenya and the
U.S. are the only nations polled where at least half of the public supports drone strikes(Pew).
This means that nearly ninety percent of surveyed countries had majorities that do not support
drone strikes. The only countries wherein more than half of the population support drone strikes
were Israel, Kenya, and the United States. The support of said countries is not unexplained
either; Kenya has had immense success with using drones to prevent poaching and Israel is the
worlds largest exporter of drones and has used drones to combat Palestinian combatants
(Fuller). Drone strikes are heavily unpopular and the only countries that approve of them are
ones that have heavy affiliation with their use. The use of drone strikes violates the sovereignty
of nations in which they are inflicted upon and are incredibly unpopular in all but a few select
countries.

Its no secret that drone strikes kill innocent civilians, it just becomes a question of
whether or not the loss of life is worth what it accomplishes. I think that in any case the death of
an innocent person is unacceptable and isnt something that the United States should actively
support through drone strikes. Its troubling that someone who has done nothing wrong,
someone who doesnt deserve to die, can perish and just be counted as a necessary cost of the
war on terror and therefore an acceptable loss. Even more disturbing is just how common
civilian casualties are with drone strikes. Leaked intelligence documents suggested that During
one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the
people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets (Blake). A major argument for the use of
drone strikes is that they are much more accurate than any other strikes, but obviously
examples like this show that that is not always the case. In this one drone campaign, more often
than not, innocent people who had no reason to die were killed by drone strikes. It is very
common that these targeted killings performed by drones kill way more people than intended.
For example, one campaign to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people
(Ackerman). It is clear that these strikes are obviously not accurate enough to prevent the loss
of life of people other than the target. While this is just one example, and there are cases of
drone strikes not killing anyone other than the intended target, civilian casualties are still a
commonality with drone strikes. There have been plenty of studies to try and find out just how
many civilians have been killed, however numbers can range quite a bit because of how hard it
is to find definitive information on the ground. These studies do provide some insight and
estimates of just how deadly these strikes are to civilians. Studies by the New America
Foundation, Bureau of Investigative Journalism, and Columbia Law Schools Human Rights
Clinic found that the percent of people killed by drone strikes that were civilians ranged from
eight, twelve, and eleven percent to fifteen, thirty-five, and thirty-four percent respectively
(Singh). There is obviously no definitive answer to how many people are killed by drone strikes,
but we do know that over the course of the drone campaign in the Middle East there has been a
large loss of life and that quite a few of the people killed by these strikes have been civilians.
The drone program has killed way too many people who had no reason to die and will continue
to do so if nothing changes.

An argument for drone strikes is that they keep American personnel safe by putting
drones in harms way instead of soldiers. This is a reasonable argument to make because it is
completely logical to say that putting an unmanned vehicle in the air is not as dangerous as
having a pilot in the air do the same mission. However, the argument that U.S. military
personnel are safer is arguing the wrong thing; it serves as an argument for drones as opposed
to manned flights, but it is not an argument for drone strikes in the Middle East. Most everyone
can agree that drones are a wise alternative to manned flights when it concerns surveillance
and even military strikes, but does that mean that the U.S. should continue its program of drone
strikes in the Middle East? The motion is not should we use drones instead of manned flights,
but rather the motion is should we continue with the drone strike program in the Middle East and
saying that pilots are safer if drones are used doesnt answer that. The argument that military
personnel are not in danger when we use drones operates under a very specific assumption. It
assumes that if we do not continue the current program of drone strikes, manned aircraft will

replace the drones and strikes on the Middle East will continue which is not necessarily and
most definitely should not be the case.
Drones serve as a great alternative to manned military planes and the fact that they are
slowly replacing them is not a bad thing, but how they are currently being used in the Middle
East is. The fact that the U.S. actively supports the loss of innocent lives through the use of
drone strikes is deplorable. Strikes are vastly unpopular all around the world and their use
negatively affects peoples outlook on the United States. They do not even accomplish their
purpose of taking out high value targets enough to be justified. Drones are not an issue, in fact,
they serve as an incredible alternative to using manned flights, but how they are being used in
the Middle East right now is an issue and should not continue.

Works Cited
Ackerman, Spencer. "41 Men Targeted but 1,147 People Killed: US Drone Strikes the Facts
on the Ground." The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 24 Nov. 2014. Web. 15 Apr.
2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill1147>.
Bergen, Peter. "Drone Is Obama's Weapon of Choice." CNN. Cable News Network, 19 Sept.
2012. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obamadrone/>.
Blake, Andrew. "Obama-led Drone Strikes Kill Innocents 90% of the Time: Report." Washington
Times. The Washington Times, 15 Oct. 2015. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
<http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-dronestrikes-in-afghani/>.
Entous, Adam. "Special Report: How the White House Learned to Love the Drone." Reuters.
Thomson Reuters, 18 May 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-

pakistan-drones-idUSTRE64H5SL20100518>.
Fuller, Jaime. "Americans Are Fine with Drone Strikes. Everyone Else in the World? Not so
Much." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 15 July 2015. Web. 24 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/07/15/americans-are-fine-withdrone-strikes-everyone-else-in-the-world-not-so-much/>.
Leiby, Richard. "U.N.: U.S. Drone Strikes Violate Pakistan Sovereignty."Washington Post. The
Washington Post, 15 Mar. 2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2016.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/un-us-drones-violate-pakistansovereignty/2013/03/15/308adae6-8d8a-11e2-adca-74ab31da3399_story.html>.
Pew Research Centers Global Attitudes Project. Pew Research Center, 14 July 2014. Web. 15
Apr. 2016. <http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillanceand-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/>.
Singh, Ritika. "A Meta-Study of Drone Strike Casualties." Lawfare. Lawfare Institution, 22 July
2013. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <https://www.lawfareblog.com/meta-study-drone-strikecasualties>.