The march of civilization towards the present has endowed mankind with countless revolutionary technologies that have raised our quality of life to an unprecedented standard. Yet, along with these innovations comes a more insidious category: the advent of weapons that have irreversibly changed the face of warfare. In the early 20th century, the Industrial Revolution yielded the ability of states to mass produce tanks, airplanes and jeeps, thereby providing each state with a war machine with far more sinister capabilities than ever before. In the second half of the past century, during the bipolar international structure of the Cold War, nuclear warheads and ICBM’s emerged onto the world stage and threatened the continuity of the human race, raising fears that we could very well be the cause of our own demise.
And now, a new technology has transformed the face of warfare, precisely because it eliminates the risk of losing warriors from its user’s calculus. Since the state employing this technology does not run the risk of suffering casualties to its armed forces, the bar for waging war has been dramatically lowered; the price of war now comes at a discount, nay, a clearance sale, but not without tragic consequences for the civilians residing in the targeted country.
Of course, I’m talking about drone warfare, which the United States has employed against non-state actors such as al-Qaeda, al-Shabab and now ISIS in countries such as Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia and now Iraq and Syria. In his televised speech to the nation regarding our mission to “ultimately degrade and destroy” ISIS on Sept. 10, President Barack Obama touted the use of drones as a fundamental element of the U.S. counterterrorism strategy and stated that this strategy “…is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”
However, the use of drones in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia has been nothing of the sort; rather, they have resulted in a tragic level of collateral damage, the rise of even more anti-American and extremist sentiment, a rise in the presence of al-Qaida and no meaningful benefits besides the deaths of a few top-level leaders in al-Qaeda and its affiliates (who can be easily replaced). Since the United States has recently crossed over the precipice of war in response to ISIS’ rampage through Iraq and Syria, the time is now to assess the ethics and effectiveness of drone warfare; although I do support the use of airstrikes and drone strikes against ISIS in both Iraq and Syria, our past use of drones in the War on Terror indicates that collateral damage is likely for the civilian population in both Iraq and Syria.
One horrific incident in particular serves as a reminder of the tragic levels of collateral damage which can accompany the use of drones: in 2009, a drone equipped with Tomahawk Cruise Missiles killed 41 people, including 14 women and 21 children in Yemen. Reflecting the widespread anti-American sentiment that the use of drones has produced across the Middle East, an elderly man posted a video on YouTube immediately after the incident, and stated: “If they kill innocent children and call them al-Qaeda, then we are all al-Qaeda. If children are terrorists, then we are all terrorists.”
Tragically, this is not an isolated incident: a joint study released by Stanford University and the New York School of Law found that the United States’ use of drones has killed an average of 50 civilians for each terrorist taken out by our targeted killings.
It is often argued that drones are the most effective way to target the senior leadership of terrorist organizations, especially in countries that lack a strong, centralized government capable of combatting the terrorist enclaves in their midst. Advocates of drone warfare consistently point to its ability to target groups which threaten our interests in the region and our national security at home without the costs of putting boots on the ground.
However, the ethics and even the efficacy of drone strikes in eliminating the enemy is highly in doubt, thereby rendering the use of drones arguably counterproductive. According to a new book by Gregory Johnsen, a journalist who focuses on Islamic extremism and its impact on Yemen, al-Qaida’s presence has tripled in size within Yemen over the past three years. Collateral damage has radicalized many Yemenis who see every American drone strike that kills another woman or child as further justification to either tacitly or materially support al-Qaeda’s terrorist agenda. The civilian casualties, says Johnsen, are “exacerbating the problem and expanding the organization,” according to his new book entitled The Last Refuge: Yemen, al-Qaeda, and America’s War in Arabia.
Drone warfare has had a similar impact in Pakistan; for example, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that drones have killed between 474 and 881 Pakistani civilians since 2004, out of 2,562 to 3,325 total deaths. The civilian death toll is likely to be significantly higher since this report was released in 2012. Additionally, the underreporting problem is compounded by the fact that the United States counts all killed adult males as “combatants,” absent exonerating evidence.
Despite countless years of drone warfare, extremism continues to linger and proliferate across the Middle East. The use of drones has provided al-Qaeda and its affiliates across the Middle East with a highly effective tool for propaganda and recruiting; thus, America must seriously consider its tactics if ISIS continues to mix with the populations in Syria and Iraq any more than they already have. Although some would argue that drone warfare has been effective in eliminating senior members of terrorist organizations such as al-Qaeda and its affiliates, the staggering amount of collateral damage from its use casts serious doubts about the ethics and effictiveness of drone strikes.