Should the U.S. Continue to Attack Terrorists With Drones? Essay

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document

Total Length: 1402 words ( 5 double-spaced pages)

Total Sources: 2

Page 1 of 5

Robotic drones have been in use by the United States as a strategy of attack against terrorist groups for several years now, beginning in the administration of George W. Bush. They have been effective and yet there is and has been controversy with the use of these robotic technologies. This paper will point to the criticisms and the supportive positions as well. In this paper the writer uses opinion articles by Daniel Byman and Kenneth Anderson to point to how drones actually work and to arguments against the continued use of drones as well as arguments in support of the policy of using drones.

This paper supports the use of drones as a very successful way to combat and kill certain key terrorist leaders who use violence to kill innocent people as they push their twisted Islamic ideologies on society. There is no doubt that innocent people have been killed during targeted drone strikes, and while that is very unfortunate -- and the U.S. should make reparations whenever possible -- that is not reason enough to shut down the program.

What are the advantages, the positives, of the drone program?

Byman makes the case that drones "have done their job remarkably well" and have "devastated al Qaeda," without putting U.S. forces in harm's way and at "little financial cost" (Byman, 2013). Byman correctly posits that the United States -- in a constant battle with terror groups in many parts of the world -- "…simply cannot tolerate terrorist safe havens in remote parts of Pakistan and elsewhere." The data that the New American Foundation has come up with through 2013 shows that 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban and other terrorist operatives have been killed by drones, Byman points out (Byman, p. 2).

Of course Byman and Anderson published their articles before the ISIS terror movement had taken hold, and it would be interesting to see what each of them have to say about drones and ISIS. But meantime, Byman mentions how risky it is when the U.S. needs to "capture or eliminate an enemy"; even if the operation was a success, and a terrorist was captured, Byman wonders what the U.S. would do with the detainee, given that the problem at Guantanamo Bay (what to do with those imprisoned).

Stuck Writing Your "Should the U.S. Continue to Attack Terrorists With Drones?" Essay?

View All Our Example Should the U.S. Continue to Attack Terrorists With Drones? Essay

Have A Custom Example Essay Written

There are those (like the United Nations' Ben Emmerson) who believe that more focus should be placed on "…factors that might contribute to extremism and terrorism, such as poverty, unemployment, and authoritarianism"; while Byman has empathy for that approach, he says it is "far from clear how Washington could execute it" (p. 3).

Interestingly, the White House just recently conducted a conference with representatives from 60 nations that focused on exactly what Emmerson, a UN human rights advocate, was proposing. The factors that do contribute to radicalizing young men into becoming terrorists were key parts of the Obama Administration's conference, which, by the way, was loudly criticized by conservatives.

Byman explains that while some politicians in the Middle East and in Pakistan loudly criticize the U.S. drone program, in reality many foreign officials "have supported it"; in fact Pakistan has been willing to host U.S. drone facilities (Byman, p. 4). The leaders in Pakistan have actually asked the U.S. At times to provide "…continuous Predator coverage" because the enemies of the U.S. (Taliban and other militants) also happen to be the enemies of Pakistan (Byman, p. 4). Still, while the leaders of Pakistan support U.S. drone strikes, some 74% of Pakistani citizens "viewed the United States as their enemy" in a 2012 poll; the main reason why citizens oppose the U.S. may be because of the drone program, which has caused the deaths of innocent civilians (Byman, p. 5).

The unintentional killing of civilians is a definite downside to the drone program, and it's no wonder Pakistani citizens are upset and angry. According to Anderson's article, between the years 2004 to 2012, the U.S. used 344 drone strikes in Pakistan, and those strikes killed "between '2,562 and 3,325 people, of whom between 474 and 881 were civilians'" (Anderson, 2013). This data was retrieved from Georgetown law professor Rosa Brooks, who admitted that there are studies that show fewer civilians killed by drones.

One great….....

Show More ⇣

     Open the full completed essay and source list


OR

     Order a one-of-a-kind custom essay on this topic


sample essay writing service

Cite This Resource:

Latest APA Format (6th edition)

Copy Reference
"Should The U S Continue To Attack Terrorists With Drones " (2015, February 23) Retrieved May 18, 2024, from
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/us-continue-attack-terrorists-drones-2148657

Latest MLA Format (8th edition)

Copy Reference
"Should The U S Continue To Attack Terrorists With Drones " 23 February 2015. Web.18 May. 2024. <
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/us-continue-attack-terrorists-drones-2148657>

Latest Chicago Format (16th edition)

Copy Reference
"Should The U S Continue To Attack Terrorists With Drones ", 23 February 2015, Accessed.18 May. 2024,
https://www.aceyourpaper.com/essays/us-continue-attack-terrorists-drones-2148657
   

Open, View, and/or
Download this Document
order custom essay example