Against Drone Warfare

There are several reasons drone warfare should not be permitted in US military action. The first
of these reasons is that drone warfare encourages perpetual warfare. There are a few different ways this is
encouraged, and we will be addressing two points. The first point is that . . .

The second point supporting the encouragement of perpetual warfare is that the US is promoting
violations against international and national laws with its use of drones abroad. First of all, the US
inconsistently follows international and national laws abroad. Pakistan, for example, has passed laws
illegalizing drone use within their country. Pakistani officials are now working with the UN to address the
USs violation of international and Pakistani law. Ben Emmerson, a UN special reporter on
counterterrorism and human rights said, The position of the government of Pakistan is quite clear: It
does not consent to the use of drones by the United States on its territory and it considers this to be a
violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity.(Hughes) The scope of countries impacted by
the USs actions is not limited solely to Pakistan though; drone strikes have been conducted in Somalia
and Yemen as well, which have seen recent increases in drone strikes since President Obama has been in
office (Hughes).
Secondly, the US exploits other countries lack of defense. Dawood Ahmed of Foreign Policy
quoted a New York Times article as saying, Pakistan has considered shooting down a drone to reassert
control over the countrys airspace but shelved the idea as needlessly provocative. He described the
considerable strength of Pakistans case, should they claim self-defense for shooting a US drone down,
noting, Of course, just because an action is legally sound does not mean that it is politically feasible.
The implication here is that even if Pakistan was entitled to protect itself against illegal US drone strikes,
they would not be safe in doing so. The US seems to be taking advantage of the disruption caused by
Yemens civil war. Vice Newss Samuel Oakford quoted Chris Woods, an investigative journalist with
airstrike-tracking website Airwars, as noting that it was well-established that the US is the only country
using armed drones in Yemen. Woods goes on to say, We see more civilians killed when it's counter-

terrorism ops, because the targets are deemed as a threat to the US homeland and therefore there's a
greater tolerance of collateral damage.
Thirdly, Drone strikes are unethical and violate Just War Theory. While accidental civilian
casualties may be expected in war, Just War Theory (Jus in bello) emphasizes the importance of directing
acts of war towards combatants and away from non-combatants, citizens considered to be in
circumstances out of their control and not directly participating in hostilities. The New York Times
intelligence journalist Scott Shane explains, Every independent investigation of the strikes has found far
more civilian casualties than administration officials admit. In 2013, President Obama announced new
rules to reign in the CIAs use of drones, requiring that operations targeting individuals had to be near
certain not to kill or injure civilians, that the US will not punish former adversaries, and that there needs
to be an imminent threat to the US (All Things Considered). When discussing the waiver given to the CIA
by President Obama, Wall Street Journal correspondent, Adam Entuous notes the specific exception
within Pakistan, . . . In that narrow area where the CIA conducts a drone program, they would not have
to show imminent threat in carrying out the strikes.
Another reason drone warfare should not be permitted in US military action is that allowing the
use of UAVs in war would increase collateral damage. He definition of collateral damage according to
Webster is, death, injuries, and damage to the property of people who are not in the military that happens
as a result of war.
The use of UAVs in war would cause the death of many innocent civilians. These drones are not
accurate enough to take out an individual target. Instead of killing one person that is targeted a drone or
UAV will kill many targets. According to The Guardian a US drone over several years killed 1,147
people when their intended targets were actually just a mere 41 individuals. Since the drone was so
inaccurate 1,106 people lost their lives. This included many innocent woman and children that were not
actually involved in war. These machines cause terror for anyone that is near a target.
UAVs would not only kill innocent people it would also destroy important structures like
buildings and houses. According to the Bureau Investigates 61% of all drone strikes in Pakistan alone,
targeted domestic buildings and destroyed at least 132 houses. These vehicles allow the user to destroy
homes where innocent people live without having to be there to witness the terror. Even if these people

were not home at the time of the attack they still lose their home and cannot afford to rebuild. The bottom
line is that UAVs are very inaccurate and cause more collateral damage than is necessary to take out a
specific target.

Works Cited
Hughes, Dana. US Drone Strikes in Pakistan Are Illegal, Says UN Terrorism Official. abc News.
Yahoo!-ABC News Network, March 2015. Web. 7 March 2016.
Ahmed, Dawood. Can Pakistan legally shoot down U.S. drones? Foreign Policy. The Foreign Policy
Group, May 2013. Web. 7 March 2016.
Oakford, Samuel. The UN Says US Drone Strikes in Yemen Have Killed More Civilians Than al
Qaeda. Vice News. VICE News, September 2015. Web. 7 March 2016.
Shane, Scott. Drone Strikes Reveal Uncomfortable Truth: U.S. Is Often Unsure About Who Will Die.
The New York Times. The New York Times Company, April 2015. Web. 7 March 2016.
All Things Considered. President Obama Relaxed Drone Rules for CIA Operations In Pakistan. NPR.
April 2015. Web. 7 March 2016.