Mike Stevens
Dr. McGuire
English 101
10 May 2016
Methods of Targeted Killings
In Yemen and Somalia alone it’s estimated that up to 2,000 people have been killed from 2002 to 2015 due to unmanned aerial vehicles, otherwise known as drones according to The Intercept. Sadly, it is estimated that over eighteen percent of those killed are civilians and children instead of members of the Taliban and ISIS. These startling statistics have led to an uproar around the world about the process and ethics behind administering a drone strike. The use of drone strikes is without a doubt a vital part of the Unites States’ Military and their war against Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist organizations. However, the system in place needs to be refined. Stricter regulations need to be placed on launching these lethal drone strikes in order to reduce civilian casualties and maintain positive relationships with allies in the targeted regions.
Long distance warfare has always been controversial. According to Tom Mockaitis, an international security analyst/military historian, in the 14th century French knights protested the English’s use of a longbow because it allowed a man to take a knight off of his horse from over 100 yards away. Similar debates over long range warfare have occurred, including when the cannon first appeared on battlefields in Europe and even when submarines began sinking entire ships with one launch of a torpedo. To a modern person, it may sound ridiculous to think these actions are unfair or that they constitute war crimes, but this is similar to how people view drone strikes today. Critics argue that this unmanned, distant, aerial warfare makes it too easy to kill from a distance, and as a result there are more civilian casualties. Andrew Blake, a cybersecurity reporter for the Washington Times, describes drone strikes as a video game where all humanity is taken out of the scenario. He claims those in charge of launching the missiles have zero ethical ties to where they are launching these attacks because they are sitting behind a desk halfway around the world. From there, it is easier to be willing to endanger a few civilians. However, supporters of targeted killing will argue that the use of drones allows the U.S. to fight its enemies without risking the lives of American soldiers. This is a very accurate statement, but by eliminating the risk to American soldiers, the risk of innocent civilian casualties increases exponentially.
Contrary to popular belief, the reason that drone strikes have such a poor reputation for killing innocent civilians is not because of its inaccuracy. In fact, drone strikes are one of the most accurate long-range weapons the U.S. military has. The issue is how the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) chooses where and when to launch a strike. It is without a doubt, an extremely difficult and pressure-filled job. The U.S. is not fighting a foreign state. Instead, it is fighting a complex network of terrorist groups who are typically mixed in with the civilian population. As a result, too often a strike is approved in a location where civilian death and injury is imminent. According to an analysis conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, as of November 2014 an estimated 1,147 people have been killed in attempts to kill just 41 terrorists. Yes, the United States wants to get rid of as much terrorist activity as possible, but if it means killing innocent bystanders then more issues will arise. The United States is allied with many of the nations that these terrorists are fighting, so it is important that a good relationship is both established and maintained with these nations. The quickest way to destroy this trust and partnership is through the killing of their people. Imagine the uproar and hatred that would arise in the United States if, for example, a bomb launched from South Africa killed four innocent American citizens. All of America would be up in arms and call for retaliation against the nation of South Africa. This scenario has occurred numerous times in our allied nations as a result of bombs which the United States has dropped, forcing bonds with these nations to weaken. As one example, in a five month campaign in Afghanistan in 2015, innocent people were killed in 90 percent of the Obama-led drone strikes (The Washington Post). This bond between the United States and its allies is important to maintain in order for the United States to be able to continue to try and control the escalation of terrorism in those regions.
Now that it’s established that the United States needs to alter its strategy concerning drone strikes, it’s important to know a little about the process leading up to a drone strike to try and figure out a solution. In a simplified version, the process of approving an attack contains two steps. First, a target must be developed. In this process, a case is built against a target or individual to the point that a warrant is justified. According to The Intercept, intelligence personnel from JSOC’s Task Force along with various specified intelligence agencies generate these resumes. Once a case has built up enough evidence, it gets passed up the ranks for approval until it reaches President Obama who gives the final authorization. After the target is approved, the second step begins as a 60-day window opens up where air strikes are permitted against the target. Here each individual strike must be approved by the Geographic Combatant Command, Ambassador, and the CIA station chief in the country where the strike will take place (The Intercept). Although this system appears to be strict and thoroughly thought through, issues on many levels have plagued the system.
One of the biggest issues for the drone program is trying to get accurate identification of the intended targets. According to a paper by Gregory McNeal, an expert on drones and security at Pepperdine School of Law, “when collateral damage did occur, 70 percent of the time it was attributable to failed — that is, mistaken — identification.” With this being such a big deal, a larger effort must be put forth to improve the intelligence capabilities in the attack zones. The drone program is limited in terms of its spy aircraft and technology, so it must rely solely on electronic communications to get the required information. This amount of intelligence is often not enough. The United States needs to either find a way to fund more spy aircraft and technology, or simply coordinate with the locals in the area to work as spies on the ground to get intelligence and to verify information. In an article from The Observer, Ken Silverstein, author and military tactics enthusiast, says, “Talk to veteran intelligence officers, like I did, and they’ll tell you the over-reliance on passive, one-dimensional SIGINT [signal intelligence] tools has come hand in hand with a sharp decline in the kind of vital information that can only be collected by humans on the ground, or HUMINT [human intelligence].”
Another big issue is the timing of drone strikes. As mentioned earlier, once a target is approved there are only two months until the operation will expire. If the operation is allowed to expire, then researchers would have to start back at square one and generate a whole new file of evidence for the target. This short time window adds pressure to those trying to attack the target. As a result, these people are more willing to take a risky shot where collateral damage is imminent so that the operation window will not close and they will not lose the case. Abolishing or extending this window would allow for teams to confidently take their time and make sure that what they are targeting is, as the White House Guidelines put it, “...based on thorough surveillance and only occur in the absence of civilians.” Permitting investigators to apply for time extensions for these attacks would allow for the attacks to more accurately and safely abide by the White House Guidelines.
For a more immediate impact on the system and in order to cut down on the civilian casualties, the government needs to simplify its drone program. At its current level of bureaucracy, according to the Peace Review, the process is far too complex for its purpose. As a result, those launching the attacks are able to find many loopholes that will allow them to fire in areas that do not pass typical safety requirements. “I think there can be questions raised about how stringently some of the requirements are being applied,” said Jennifer Daskal, an assistant professor of law at American University and employee for the Department of Justice from 2009 to 2011. “Near certainty of no civilian deaths, is that really imposed?” One of the more recent examples of the lack of strictness occurred in January of 2015. Military personnel wanted to conduct an attack on an Al Qaeda-ran building. After the strike was completed, it was discovered that both an Italian and American were being held hostage in the building and were killed. This event could have been prevented if the United States government were to enforce its regulations more strictly and confirm the occupants of its selected targets.
Even though the people launching these drone attacks are doing so in the interest of protecting the American people from terrorists, they have to realize that they are also putting other innocent people at risk when they order these strikes. Drones are a very useful weapon and are strongly utilized by the United States military, as they should be. However, the current system that is in place is leading to the deaths of many innocent people. To help solve this problem, the government needs to refine their drone program and make it more accountable in order to reduce the number of civilian casualties.