Drones: A New Chapter in Modern Warfare (original) (raw)

In Yemen, “If Not Drones, Then What?” (MES Insights v4i6 December 2013)

MES Insights, 2013

The use of unmanned drones for the targeted killing of suspected terrorists remains a hotly debated topic among academics, human rights groups, and policymakers alike. Drone strikes following the December 4th 2013 attack on the Yemeni Defense Ministry have reinvigorated the debate, especially as the Yemeni government’s security committee and local officials appear divided on the details of the December 12th drone strike. Much of the debate continues to revolve around the legality of extrajudicial targeted killings and the associated collateral damage, including civilian causalities, rising anti-Americanism and the undercutting of Yemen’s political transition. Such arguments, however, miss the mark when it comes to the overall effectiveness of drones when compared to the alternatives, and fail to put forth a convincing answer to the question: “If not drones, then what?” The reality in a case like Yemen, at least in the near-to-medium term, is that no viable alternative options exist for combating Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and its affiliates, especially given the post-2011 political and security environment.........(Read on)............

Drone Strikes in the War on Terror: The Case of Post-Arab-Spring Yemen

The Gulf Monographic Series is aimed to improve publication portfolio of the Center, and provide opportunities for affiliated faculty and students as well and reputed non-affiliated scholars to publish in coordination with the center. The publications are double blinded peer reviewed by experts on the field selected by the Gulf Monographic Center editorial board. Abstract About the author Drone Strikes in the War on Terror: The case of Post-Arab-Spring Yemen About Drones Before the Drones Yemen and the Arab Spring The Moral Issue Compounded 4 4 5 7 10 13 18 page 4 Gulf Studies Center Monographic Series N°1

Drone Warfare-A Critical Appraisal

2013

The US-led global war on terror, the US Af-Pak strategy, the phenomenon of terrorism and the employment of predator drones by the US administration in various parts of the world and particularly in Pakistan has drawn criticism on drone warfare. The introduction of armed drones to kill individuals or destroy targets inside other countries' territories has raised various important questions of the rationale, necessity, targeting strategy and mechanism of drone operations. Moreover, the important notions of state sovereignty, monopoly over use of force and territorial integrity have also been put to test by the use of force in the form of armed drones, against individuals inside other states, without the formal declaration of wars. In addition, whether global war on terror is to be conducted and fought inside only a few selected states or anywhere where the terrorists are actually or perceived to be based or not. Lastly, the technological, psychological, moral, social and legal imp...

From a View to a Kill: Drones and Late Modern War

Theory, Culture & Society, 2011

The proponents of late modern war like to argue that it has become surgical, sensitive and scrupulous, and remotely operated Unmanned Aerial Vehicles or ‘drones’ have become diagnostic instruments in contemporary debates over the conjunction of virtual and ‘virtuous’ war. Advocates for the use of Predators and Reapers in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaigns have emphasized their crucial role in providing intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, in strengthening the legal armature of targeting, and in conducting precision-strikes. Critics claim that their use reduces late modern war to a video game in which killing becomes casual. Most discussion has focused on the covert campaign waged by CIA-operated drones in Pakistan, but it is also vitally important to interrogate the role of United States Air Force-operated drones in Afghanistan. In doing so, it becomes possible to see that the problem there may not be remoteness and detachment but, rather, the sense of proxim...

Drones, Drone Strikes, and US Policy: The Politics of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

The US Army War College Quarterly, Parameters, 2014

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in military operations is currently among the most hotly debated topics in the national and international media. While at first few showed interest in this military technology, the increasing number of missile strikes carried out via UAVs in remote areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia by the United States Armed Forces and the CIA has raised public awareness. [...] The four books reviewed in this essay are all motivated by the belief that “the precipitous increase in drone use we have witnessed over the past few years represents just the beginning of the proliferation and widespread use of UAVs, across many contexts.” Disagreement may reign over whether or not this development is positive; however, the authors agree on one point: drones are here to stay.

The Endless War: An Evaluation of US Drone Strikes in the Middle East

I argue that drones are ineffective against terrorism precisely because they are used as a strategy, rather than a tactic. Drones have allowed the US to make strong tactical gains, but have failed to change its fundamental strategic circumstances, leading to the creation of what is believed to be an endless war. The use of drones has led to several other strategic costs, such as the undermining of US capacity building, delegitimization and destabilization of local governments, and blowback in the form of increased terrorist recruitment.

The Role of Drones in Contemporary Warfare

This master degree dissertation thesis examines the role of drones in the contemporary warfare, using the quantitative and interpretative method to analyse the surrounding issues. This thesis provides basic background to the origins of drones and their evolution. Main focus of this thesis is to examine whether the US conduct of those strategies is justifiable and appropriate for the war on terror. Arguing that drones have undergone a severe transformation of capabilities – from surveillance to target killing – and thus there should be change in the military conduct and the use of appropriate strategies. Applying the Just war theory, Beck’s theory of World Risk Society and threat of terrorism.

US Drone Operations Against Al Qaeda

In light of increasing public interest in so-called Remotely Piloted Air Systems or Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (commonly known as drones) this dissertation considers what international legal rules apply to US drone operations against Al Qaeda, a terroristic non-state actor and whether such operations are compatible with these rules. It examines two legal frameworks, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) on the one hand and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). While IHRL applies at all times, war and peace, IHL only applies during armed conflict, and distinguishes between International Armed Conflict (IAC) and Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC). It will be examined whether the conflict between the US and Al Qaeda can be considered an IAC or a NIAC to which IHL applies. It will be argued that since it is a conflict between a state and non-state actor, it is best regarded as a NIAC, despite it being primarily extraterritorial. However, it will be seen that in this specific, the classification of the conflict between the US and Al Qaeda as a NIAC can be doubted due to inconsistencies as to whether Al Qaeda qualifies as an organised armed group under IHL. In terms of US drone operations’ compatibility with IHL, the dissertation will show that there are some compatibility concerns with respect to the distinction principle as the US employs an excessively broad targeting framework in relation to members of organised armed groups, which is inconsistent with prevailing treaty and custom. The dissertation thus recommends the US adopts the ICRC’s standard of “continuous combat function”. Concerning the proportionality principle, it will be argued that while drone strikes are generally not incompatible with it, a stricter proportionality test should be employed. Finally, the dissertation will demonstrate that extraterritorial US drone operations are incompatible with IHRL if it is the sole applicable legal framework and that strikes violate the victim’s right to life if it is accepted that the International Covenant on Civil and Politics Rights applies. Contrary to what the US asserts, the dissertation claims that it should.