Problem
Should America Carry Out Drone Attacks against Terrorists?
One of the elements of America's strategy to fight terrorist groups is the increased use of drones-small, pilotless aircraft that fly into foreign airspace, monitor the activities of terror suspects on the ground, and launch missiles against these targets. Over the last decade, drone attacks in countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan have decimated the leadership and infrastructure of terrorist groups and inflicted significant casualties on lower-level fighters. Drones also played a key role in identifying the safe house in Pakistan where Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was located, making possible the attack that resulted in bin Laden's death in 2011. Drone surveillance and attacks have played a key role in the Syrian conflict. However, the use of drones by American forces continues to be highly controversial inside the United States and throughout the world.
Drones are an effective tool. Drone attacks allow the United States to combat terrorists throughout the world without putting American troops at risk. Drone attacks are also less expensive than conventional forces. For example, rather than sending a special operations unit across the world to attack a target in the Middle East, American crews working at a base in Nevada can remotely control drones launched from a secure base in Saudi Arabia. Because drones have no crew, they can be small and quiet and stay in the air for long periods of time, making a surprise attack more feasible. Even if an attack is not being planned, drones allow the United States to monitor suspected terrorists and deter future operations.
Describing drones as a tool also highlights their similarity to other examples of military force. How different is it if a terrorist camp is attacked by a drone rather than U.S. ground troops? Any argument against drones (the danger of civilian casualties or that terrorists can publicize the attack as a way of galvanizing public opposition to the U.S. strategy) can be applied just as well to other ways the United States might attack terrorists.
Drones bring risks and negatively affect decision making. Some people foresee that the very advantages ascribed to drones-that they are relatively inexpensive and require no human pilots-could likely lead decisionmakers to use drones more quickly than they might use conventional weapons. In a similar vein, there are those who believe that drones remove the personal element from warfare, making it easier to disregard the moral implications of an attack.
Moreover, at least up to now, drone strikes have occurred with little congressional oversight or approval. As we discussed in Chapter 12, Congress has the power to limit military operations-but doing so in the case of drones would be difficult because most of these operations are carried out in secret. How could members stop an operation they didn't know about until after it occurred? While mistakes are possible in any military operation, drone attacks involve special risks. Because drone operators view their targets through long-range cameras mounted on the drones, the chances of civilian casualties or other collateral damage are probably higher than with Special Forces units who carry out their attacks at short range. The problem for decision makers is this--prohibiting drone attacks on suspected terrorists does not mean that these individuals and organizations will go scot-free; most of these operations will instead be carried out by American armed forces, with the risk that some of these troops will be wounded, killed, or taken hostage. Should decision makers use drones or send in the troops?
If you were writing a letter to your member of Congress about the use of drones, what position would you take? What arguments would you use to support your position?