Should drones continue to be used in the Middle East?

Part 1: My experience
To start, I have no personal deep experience with military drones or their operations. The
most experience I have would be seeing one fly around at an airshow a couple years ago. I do
however have some bias on this topic for many reasons. One of my main reasons is because a
lot of my extended family is or was in the military or a police officer. This helps me support
drones because I support anything that takes soldiers out of danger. On top of this, I feel
strongly inclined to agree with the U.S. military in almost every situation, which is clearly a very
strong bias. As an example of this bias, when I first learned about the issue of drone usage in
the Middle East, I immediately supported the U.S. military. With this bias, I will still look at both
sides when looking at an issue involving the U.S. military, but I will already have formed an
opinion on the topic in support of the U.S. military and it will be very hard to change my mind on
a topic.
These biases are not solely based off of my personal connection to the military and
police. A huge part of them comes from my strong opinions regarding the United States in
general. I honestly believe that the United States is the best country in the world and we without
a doubt have the best military. Because of my beliefs, I feel the need to even further support the
U.S. military and agree with them on every issue because they represent my country which I
think of very highly. Basically, I tend to support America in every situation possible even though
this isnt a good idea and I see the military as an extension of that support so I strongly support
the military. I am aware of this bias, but I still find it hard to disagree with the United States on
controversial issues they are involved in. I will twist the issue around in my mind until I believe
that the U.S. is in the right in every situation. For example, the 2003 invasion of Iraq was a
horrible decision, but I still try to justify it in my mind, thinking about how the U.S. attempted to
stabilize the Middle East or some other justifiable reasoning other than supporting corporations
interests.
Regarding drone usage particularly, I have biases because I feel as though airplanes are
some of the best military equipment available and I find planes interesting in general. Since I
think military planes are extremely capable and just interesting in general I am inclined to
support drone usage without even looking at the facts. An example of my bias regarding
airplanes in general would be my opinion that to combat ISIS in the most effective way possible
we should only use airstrikes. This is my opinion, yet if Im being honest I have done almost no
research regarding what military experts actually do think would be the most effective plan to
combat ISIS while minimizing casualties. Obviously, since I find airplanes cool and interesting in
general and since for some random reason I think they are the best military equipment I think
that without a doubt drones should continue to be used.
Another reason I agree with drone use would be their record of killing wanted terrorists
who have done horrible things. This stems from my personal logic of an eye for an eye which I

know can be the worst decision a lot of the time but I cant help it. Thinking about things like
9/11 and other terrorist attacks against innocent people, especially in America since I see
America as my home makes me thirst for revenge and because of this I am strongly inclined to
agree with the drone program because of its ability to get revenge on those who have done
horrible things. This thirst for revenge means that unfortunately, I tend to ignore or justify the
unfortunate civilian deaths and hatred generated against the U.S. I would say that those two
issues, civilian deaths and increasing hatred for the U.S, are the worst aspects of the drone
program.
As I think more on the issue of terrorism in the Middle East and look at news articles
about things like the killing of Jihadi John by U.S. drones it only further pushes me towards
supporting drones and further away from looking at the negative aspects of drone use. Looking
more into the negatives of drone use would help me try to avoid having bias affect my opinion
on drone use, but this will be hard to do because of my strong feelings towards the U.S. military,
America in general, and the use of airplanes in general. My bias towards airplanes may seem
childish, but I cant help the fact that I find things like cars, trucks, and planes interesting.
Because of this I will probably be more likely to support something if it involves airplanes just
because I find them interesting, and obviously drones are a good example of this.
Part 2: Drone strikes in the Middle-East are useful and their use needs to continue.
Drone usage has grown exponentially under President Obama. Deaths of wanted
terrorists have followed suit. Drones clearly have the ability to stop terrorism. Drone strikes are
also very controversial however. Drone strikes, missile strikes involving unmanned aircraft, are
most common in the Middle-East. Drone strikes in the Middle East help stop terrorism while
minimizing civilian casualties and taking our servicemen and women out of danger.
Drone strikes do in fact kill a large amount of terrorists and their leaders and disrupt the
leadership of terrorist organizations very successfully. As stated by Daniel L. Byman of
Brookings.com, The drones have done their job remarkably well: by killing key leaders and
denying terrorists sanctuaries in Pakistan, Yemen, and, to a lesser degree, Somalia. According
to Mark Mckinnon of The Daily Beast, Drone strikes under President Obama have killed
anywhere between 2,700 and 4,000 militants. That alone is roughly a quarter of the terrorists
killed since 2009 in the War on Terror. Drones have also killed dozens of prominent terrorist
leaders, ranging from Sa'ad bin Laden, one of Osama bin Laden's sons who served as a senior
al-Qaeda leader, to Baitullah Mehsud, the top Taliban leader in Pakistan. This ability to kill
extremely prominent leaders of terrorist organizations is infinitely valuable and this is one of the
most superior aspects of drone usage.
Drones are extremely cheap to build and maintain when compared to a modern
fighter/ground attack aircraft. For example, as stated by Wayne Mclean from
Theconversation.com, the MQ-9 Reaper costs $14.75 million, while the F-35 Lightning aircraft
costs $104 million without the engine price included. There are cheaper planes available for the

role, but the F-35 is the aircraft specifically being produced for the ground attack role. The
engine can cost anywhere between 13.6 million and 30.86 million depending on the variant
ordered. Since drones are so much cheaper, they can be produced in larger numbers, allowing
for larger coverage of airspace to be used for intelligence gathering, reconnaissance missions,
and targeted attacks. While the F-35 can do more jobs, such as air vs air fighting, the prices still
are not even comparable. On top of this, drone technology is constantly improving and they will
soon be able to fulfill all roles currently offered from conventional manned aircraft. Maintenance
wise, the MQ-9s cost per flight hour is only $4,762, compared to $16,500 per hour of flight for
the F-35. Using the F-35 to fulfill the ground-attack role, which many have said it should do, has
not only been a failure in tests, but is also just wasting money for no gain. According to Clay
Dillow from Fortune.com, in recent testing, only one of six US Air Force F-35s could actually
take off during testing. Clearly, drones are a much cheaper way to fight war, and this allows a
huge amount of money to be directed towards other projects, military or otherwise.
Drones take U.S. military personnel out of harm's way, which saves lives as well as
reduces the risk associated with missions, allowing drone operations to go into much more
dangerous places since there is no risk associated with the pilot being killed or shot down and
needing a rescue. This means that drones can go into places that are densely packed with
anti-aircraft weapons and attempt to kill targets where a normal mission would never be allowed
due to the risk alone. Taking humans out of combat also helps to reduce PTSD and other issues
associated with war. This obviously benefits soldiers by keeping them healthy mentally and
physically, but it also saves money too, which can be spent on other things as needed. Mark
Mckinnon of The Daily Beast says, Future medical outlay for veterans of the Iraq and Afghan
conflicts are estimated to be US$836.1 billion. In this context, the benefits of soldierless modes
of operation to military planners are clear. Drones take our servicemen and women out of the
conflict, saving their lives but also saving them from the traumas of war, which not only helps
them for the future, but saves money from medical costs.
In conclusion, drone strikes in the middle east kill terrorist leaders as well as their
soldiers very effectively, save huge amounts of money in multiple areas which could be directed
towards other projects, and save the lives of our servicemen and women while limiting civilian
casualties when compared to conventional warfare. Because of all of these factors, drone
strikes need to be continued to be used in the Middle-East because they are the modern way to
fight a war and are or soon will be superior to anything currently used in aerial warfare.
Part 3: Drones create more terrorism than they stop, and their use needs to be stopped
immediately.
The anti-drone movement is now at its highest level ever. Human rights groups are
questioning their legality, the religious are questioning their ethics, and activists are protesting
their use. More and more are questioning whether the use of drones is actually decreasing or
increasing terrorism. Drone usage in the Middle-East Drone strikes in the Middle-East need to

be stopped because they cause terrorism, kill too many civilians, and create hatred against the
United States while having a minimal effect on terrorist activities.
Firstly, drones kill too many civilians. Fundamentally, drones have the capability to kill
way fewer civilians compared to more conventional types of warfare, but as explained by Hanyu
Chwe from The Daily Gazette Swarthmore College, The very ease of drone strikes makes them
less effective strategically than conventional arguments give them credit for. The absence of risk
or penalty associated with drones makes it hard to avoid mission creep a gradual,
unconscious shift in goals. In my opinion, this unconscious shift in goals means an increase in
civilian casualties as drone users push to attack terrorists who are in less-favorable situations
such as a crowded apartment building or city block. I believe this is why drones kill so many
civilians. According to Bill Quigley, from Counterpunch.org, In Pakistan alone, the New America
Foundation reports US forces have launched 297 drone strikes killing at least 1800 people,
three to four hundred of whom were not even combatants. This is a civilian casualty ratio of
roughly 22%, meaning that drones have a 22% chance of killing a civilian. Comparing this to the
NATO intervention in Yugoslavia of 1999, which was entirely manned aircraft, which had a
civilian casualty ratio of roughly 10%. Using this data, it is clear to see that drones are less
effective at limiting civilian deaths than traditional aircraft bombings.
Secondly, drone strikes cause more terrorism than they stop, to a ridiculous extent in
fact. Civilian casualties definitely contribute to this hatred, making people feel the urge to stop
drone strikes by attacking the United States. According to a former US Official, for every Yemeni
terrorist US drones kill, 40-60 new enemies are created. Hassan Abbas of T
he Atlantic came to
the same conclusion:
When it comes to drones strikes, the ratio of civilian deaths is certainly lower, but the
issue is not about the number of civilian casualties alone. The inherently secret nature of
the weapon creates a persistent feeling of fear in the areas where drones hover in the
sky, and the hopelessness of communities that are on the receiving end of strikes
causes severe backlash -- both in terms of anti-U.S. opinion and violence.
Basically one of the fundamental issues with drones is the fact that they create more terrorism
than they stop, by some estimates up to 40 times as much, and because of this fact alone the
drone program is fundamentally useless. Even people who have never seen a drone still use
drones as a justification for hatred against America. As stated by Hassan Abbas, Terrorists and
their misguided sympathizers often expose and market civilian casualties -- particularly women
and children -- quite effectively. Meanwhile, those who direct and authorize these strikes rarely
provide any justification and rationale for it. This is simply seen as arrogance by those whom the
U.S. expects to be on their side in this battle. This shows that not do drone strikes have a
limited effect on terrorism, they also create hatred against the United States.
Thirdly, drones do not stop terrorism effectively, while creating hatred against the United
States. This is a combination of growing terrorism, as I stated earlier, but also the fact that
drones really dont kill that many high ranking terrorists. According to a USAToday article, from
2009 to 2015, drones only killed 7 prominent terrorist leaders. On top of this, drones create

resentment towards the United States and are even used by terrorist groups such as ISIS and
Al-qaeda as a recruitment tool. According to Gen. McChrystal, who led the US
counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, The resentment created by American use of
unmanned strikes is much greater than the average American appreciates They are hated on
a visceral level, even by people whove never seen one or seen the effects of one. On top of
this, US drone strikes breach international law. In at least some cases, the US policy appears
to allow for unlawful killings referred to in human rights terms as 'extra-legal, arbitrary and
summary executions' or 'extrajudicial executions. Mark Memmott, NPR. This questionable
legality has been used by terrorist organizations to create more hatred against the drone
program, and superlatively the US as a whole according to Sally Kohn of Quartz.com. Anything
that is even questionable as to whether it breaks international law should obviously never be
adopted by the United States, regardless of its effectiveness.

In conclusion, drones create more terrorism than they stop, kill too many civilians, and
garner massive hatred against the United States. On top of this, terrorist organizations have
been proven to use drone strikes as a recruitment tool. Because there is no pilot at risk in a
drone, the United States uses them in riskier situations, which leads to more civilian deaths.
Obviously anything that the United States does that just worsens the situation in the middle east
should be stopped immediately, and this should apply to drone strikes.
Works Cited
Abbas, Hassan. "Drones Create More Terrorism Than They Stop." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media
Company, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
@amsecproject. "The Strategic Effects of a Lethal Drones Policy -." American Security Project.
ASP, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Byman, Daniel L. "Why Drones Work: The Case for Washingtons Weapon of Choice."
Brookings. Brookings.com, 16 June 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Cornwell, Alex. "Largest Find of Dinosaur Footprints in Victoria." T
he Conversation.
Theconversation.com, 10 Aug. 2011. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Dillow, Clay. "Only One of Six Air Force F-35s Could Actually Take Off During Testing." F
ortune.
Fortune.com, 27 Apr. 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Kohn, Sally. "Drone Strikes Are Creating Hatred towards America That Will Last for
Generations." Quartz. Quartz.com, 09 Dec. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
McClusky, Jim. "Legal and Moral Questions about Drone Strikes in Syria." The Guardian.
Theguardian.com, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
McKinnon, Mark. "Why Our Drone Warfare Campaign Is Just and Legal." T
he Daily Beast.
Newsweek/Daily Beast, n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
McMannus, Doyle. "Drones Op-Ed." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, n.d. Web. 18 Nov.
2016.
Memmott, Mark. "U.S. Drone Strikes Violate International Law, Reports Allege." NPR. NPR, n.d.
Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Sifton, John. "A Brief History of Drones." T
he Nation. N.p., 29 June 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.

@swatgazette. "The Drawbacks of Drones - The Daily Gazette." The Daily Gazette. N.p., 30
Apr. 2015. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Quigley, Bill. "Five Reasons Drone Assassinations Are Illegal." Www.counterpunch.org. N.p., 09
Jan. 2016. Web. 18 Nov. 2016.
Part 5: Reflection
Now that I have looked at both sides, I am able to see that my opposing side does have
some credible arguments. My perspective has shifted because I am now aware that there is a
chance that drones do in fact negatively affect the situation in the Middle-East and cost innocent
lives to be lost. While I still think that drones should be used, through my research in this project
Ive far better understood the arguments against drones and how credible they actually are.
Mainly though understanding my bias, I now realize that one of the main reasons I like
drones is their ability to save American soldiers lives. This may sound odd but I honestly hold
American lives as more valuable than others in my mind. This does not mean that I dont care
about others, but I without a doubt feel more connected to Americans and because of this I care
more if they die. I still care about other people who aren't from my country dying, but I feel as
though all Americans are all in a subset together which makes us all connected.
This connection makes me hold Americans closer to me in my mind, just slightly more
important than any other person in the world.This slightly higher value in my mind makes me
support the drones ability to save American soldiers. I have now realized that people who
oppose drone strikes in the Middle-East do in fact have credible points. Their values seem to be
diverse, but the majority seem very logical. For example they value civilian lives very highly
which is respectable. They also possibly want to stop hate from being created because drones
are notorious for creating anti-US opinions.
I feel as though those who oppose drones tend to be more anti-war for the most part,
and they value peace more than those who support drone use. Now I better understand where
they are coming from and why they dont think drones should be used, because of their values
to life and peace in general. Regarding what I have learned about democracy, I now realize that
while the nation will be polarized and that will hinder what can be completed due to opposing
views, I believe that a democracy is a superior type of government, because people are more
comfortable expressing their own opinions, sense it is more likely that there are others who
agree with them when compared to something like a fascist structure, with only one party having
basically all of the control.
I think that it is worth it to sacrifice progress in the name of political freedom, and
because of this I think that democracy, at least in the US form, is a superior way to operate our
government. While my stance on my issue did not change at all during this project, I was really
able to analyze and understand the other side's point of view and understand why they disagree
with drone use and how their points make sense. I feel as though if I was a random reader and

came into this unbiased and looked at both of my drone essays, I could fall either way on the
issue because of how equal my essays were in terms of evidence used and analysis to back it
all up. I think that my essays clearly show how much I learned about the other side's views, and
even though my personal views did not change, I did learn a lot about the anti-drones views and
I acknowledge and understand their credibility.