Quick Context
Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, combating terrorist organizations has become a core concern of U.S. foreign policy. This has led the United States to conduct operations against terrorist and militant groups around the world, both in designated war zones—as in Afghanistan and Iraq—and beyond the battlefield in countries where the United States is not formally at war, including Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.
The United States has used various tools to pursue al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and other terrorist and militant groups. One of the most controversial of these has been drone strikes. Drones, which are officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can be armed with deadly missiles for the purpose of precision strikes against targets, whether military installations or individuals. Crucially, because they are unmanned, drones do not put American pilots’ lives at risk. They are capable of staying aloft for many hours longer than manned aircraft and are unmatched in responsiveness when a time-sensitive target comes into view. All of this makes drones an attractive and versatile tool for a variety of lethal operations. Indeed, the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have conducted over fourteen thousand drone strikes, with as many as one thousand occurring in non-battlefield zones. These operations have killed thousands of terrorists.
However, using drones has drawn criticism from governments and populations, both domestically and abroad, for a variety of reasons. First, drone strikes sometimes unintentionally kill civilians as well as their targets. Moreover, U.S. drone strikes have unintentionally killed several U.S. citizens—some of whom were affiliated with al-Qaeda and one of whom was a hostage—revealing that the United States cannot precisely identify who is present at a targeted site. So-called signature strikes—which target people whose identities are unknown but who are military-aged males suspected to have ties to terrorist organizations based on their observable behavior—have sparked further debate.
The drone program also tarnishes the U.S. image overseas. U.S. drone strikes have been condemned by foreign governments, sparked public protests both at home and abroad, and drawn criticism from human rights organizations. In Pakistan, for example, widespread drone use has placed considerable strain on bilateral relations. The Pakistani government has at times demanded an end to U.S. drone strikes and threatened to shoot down any unauthorized aircraft in its airspace. The head of Pakistan’s air force renewed this threat in December 2017, reportedly saying he had given orders “to shoot down drones, including those of the U.S., if they enter our airspace.” Although Pakistan has not acted on these threats, the tumultuous relationship between the two countries, alongside the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, has prompted a significant decrease in the number of drone strikes in the country from its peak in 2010. Nonetheless, drone strikes continue, both in Pakistan and increasingly in other non-battlefield zones.
The United States has used various tools to pursue al-Qaeda, the Haqqani network, the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and other terrorist and militant groups. One of the most controversial of these has been drone strikes. Drones, which are officially known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), are aircraft that can be armed with deadly missiles for the purpose of precision strikes against targets, whether military installations or individuals. Crucially, because they are unmanned, drones do not put American pilots’ lives at risk. They are capable of staying aloft for many hours longer than manned aircraft and are unmatched in responsiveness when a time-sensitive target comes into view. All of this makes drones an attractive and versatile tool for a variety of lethal operations. Indeed, the administrations of George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump have conducted over fourteen thousand drone strikes, with as many as one thousand occurring in non-battlefield zones. These operations have killed thousands of terrorists.
However, using drones has drawn criticism from governments and populations, both domestically and abroad, for a variety of reasons. First, drone strikes sometimes unintentionally kill civilians as well as their targets. Moreover, U.S. drone strikes have unintentionally killed several U.S. citizens—some of whom were affiliated with al-Qaeda and one of whom was a hostage—revealing that the United States cannot precisely identify who is present at a targeted site. So-called signature strikes—which target people whose identities are unknown but who are military-aged males suspected to have ties to terrorist organizations based on their observable behavior—have sparked further debate.
The drone program also tarnishes the U.S. image overseas. U.S. drone strikes have been condemned by foreign governments, sparked public protests both at home and abroad, and drawn criticism from human rights organizations. In Pakistan, for example, widespread drone use has placed considerable strain on bilateral relations. The Pakistani government has at times demanded an end to U.S. drone strikes and threatened to shoot down any unauthorized aircraft in its airspace. The head of Pakistan’s air force renewed this threat in December 2017, reportedly saying he had given orders “to shoot down drones, including those of the U.S., if they enter our airspace.” Although Pakistan has not acted on these threats, the tumultuous relationship between the two countries, alongside the 2021 withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan, has prompted a significant decrease in the number of drone strikes in the country from its peak in 2010. Nonetheless, drone strikes continue, both in Pakistan and increasingly in other non-battlefield zones.
“Now I prefer cloudy days when the drones don’t fly. When the sky brightens and becomes blue, the drones return and so does the fear. Children don’t play so often now, and have stopped going to school.”
— Zubair Rehman, resident of Tappi, North Waziristan, Pakistan, October 29, 2013
More Context
|
Drones have become an increasingly popular tool of U.S. counterterrorismoperations over the last two decades. Drone strikes offer several advantages over other types of operations, such as strikes from manned aircraft, remotely launched missiles, or raids by special operations teams. First, drone strikes are significantly less risky to U.S. personnel than other operations. As drones are piloted remotely, they can fly directly over hostile territory without putting the pilot in harm’s way or putting the lives of a special operations team at risk.
Second, drones are more tactically versatile than other options. A fully armed drone can stay in flight over potential targets for over fourteen hours. By comparison, many manned attack aircraft have a flight time of four hours or lesswithout air-to-air refueling. Drones give their operators the capability to execute a strike far faster than other platforms. Remotely launched missiles, for instance, can require significant flight time before reaching their target, during which the missile could be intercepted or the intended target could leave the area. A drone-launched missile, on the other hand, can strike its target within seconds. |
|
|
Finally, drones can often be more precise than other methods. Drones can deliver far smaller munitions than a piloted aircraft or a surface-launched missile can, producing a smaller blast radius that in theory causes less collateral damage. Moreover, drones’ ability to remain aloft above a target for prolonged periods of time allows operators to surveil potential targets before striking and monitor the situation while a strike is underway. As a result, drone strikes can be timed for an ideal moment that minimizes the risks of collateral damage, and missiles can be diverted at the last moment if the target moves or civilians enter the area.
Despite its advantages, drone use is limited by the support it requires. Although drones enable their operators to execute precise operations, they require vast intelligence support in order to exercise that advantage. A surgical drone strike with a minimal blast radius can only be effective if accurate intelligence can pinpoint the target’s location. Faulty intelligence can lead to a failed strike or cause unintended casualties. Indeed, civilian casualties caused by drone strikes have often been attributed to faulty intelligence. In effect, drones are of limited use in areas where the United States does not have an intelligence network in place to provide accurate targeting information. |
|
|
Moreover, despite growing rapidly more sophisticated in recent years, dronesremain vulnerable to attack. They are slower than piloted jets and cannot reach the same altitudes, making them vulnerable to attack if they are spotted. Successful drone operations are therefore often limited to countries that lack robust air defense systems or where the United States can depend on the country’s support, or at least consent. This includes permission to fly in the host country’s airspace, assurances of clear airspace in the target area, and access to air bases in or near the host country. Securing this support can require expending considerable effort and resources to maintain bilateral ties with the host country.
Despite their limitations, the advantages drones provide have enabled non-battlefield targeted killings, which began in Yemen in 2002 and have since spread to several other countries, including Pakistan and Somalia. However, not until early 2012 did a U.S. government official, President Obama in this case, openly discuss their use, saying that “for the most part, they have been very precise precision strikes against al-Qaeda and their affiliates.” |
|
Drone strikes have proven a controversial tool of counterterrorism. The principal controversy surrounding drone strikes is that, despite claims of their precision, they still cause unintended civilian casualties. Although accurate data is difficult to gather, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism has reported that between 2001 and 2020, an estimated total of over 14,000 drone strikes caused between 900 and 2,200 civilian deaths. Moreover, the U.S. government has faced frequent criticism for a lack of transparency in its drone use, including its standards for reporting information about the frequency of drone strikes and civilian casualties to the public.
Beyond physical damage, drone strikes can cause considerable psychological trauma too. Although jet air strikes can cause more indiscriminate destruction, they occur and end rapidly. A drone, on the other hand, can circle for hours before attacking, leaving civilian communities below in a state of constant fear. According to a 2012 joint study by New York University and Stanford University, the near-constant presence of drones overhead in parts of Pakistan led community members to avoid gathering in groups, prompted parents to keep their children home from schools, and made responders unwilling to assist injured victims after a drone strike for fear of drone operators launching a secondary strike.
U.S. drone practices raise legal and ethical questions as well. The U.S. government argues that it can lawfully conduct targeted killings of members of terrorist organizations, even outside battlefield zones, as it is targeting enemy combatants and acting in the interest of national self-defense. However, many human rights groups have condemned U.S. targeted killings, claiming they represent extrajudicial executions in violation of international human rights law. Amnesty International has claimed [PDF] that the U.S. government criteria for whom a drone strike can target are overly broad, arguing that membership in a terrorist organization alone, rather than active participation in hostilities, is insufficient basis to conduct a targeted strike.
The practice of signature strikes—which target individuals based solely on age, location, and observed behavior rather than any evidence of participation in hostilities or membership in a terrorist or militant organization—has drawn further criticism over a lack of discrimination in U.S. drone practices. Human rights groups have claimed the practice violates international humanitarian law, which requires that individuals be presumed civilians if their participation in hostilities is in doubt.
The controversies surrounding drone strikes have made them unpopular around the world, making their use costly both to bilateral relationships and to the U.S. image worldwide. In a 2014 Pew survey of forty-four countries, thirty-nine had a majority or plurality opposed to U.S. drone strikes. Drones have sparked large-scale public protests, both domestically and in countries where U.S. drone strikes have occurred. Citizens have voiced strong opposition, considering drone strikes an act of aggression and a clear violation of sovereignty. Given drones’ unpopularity, using them can place significant strain on bilateral relations with countries where the United States seeks to conduct counterterrorism operations, as the United States often relies on government cooperation to ensure its drone operations can be effective in the first place.
Some analysts have further argued that drone strikes, particularly those that cause civilian casualties, could contribute to anti-American sentiment, exacerbate local insurgencies, and spur populations to sympathize with or join terrorist groups. Thus, although drones present an effective counterterrorism tool, the blowback their persistent use causes could ultimately make them counterproductive to U.S. counterterrorism goals and drive deeper U.S. entrenchment in countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Direct evidence confirming this argument is elusive, as what specifically motivates individuals to join terrorist groups is difficult to determine. However, in Yemen, for example, a 2007 survey found that 73 percent of Yemenis [PDF] believed U.S. involvement in the region justified attacks on Americans everywhere. An increase in targeted killings against members of the Yemen-based group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in 2009 further corresponded to the more than threefold growth of the organization’s membership over the following three years, suggesting that continued U.S. counterterrorism operations are at least one factor contributing to hostility toward the United States.
Drones have not been the only instrument of U.S. counterterrorism operations. The United States has also employed special operations forces to capture or kill targets. Most notably, in 2011, the United States conducted a Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and four others after determining that bin Laden was likely living in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, special operations raids risk being more costly than drone strikes not only in terms of the lives of U.S. personnel but also in diplomatic strain. The bin Laden raid placed considerable strain on the already tense U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Washington has also sought to counter security threats by cooperating with its partners, often providing financial and logistical support to countries conducting counterterrorism operations of their own. The United States has provided training assistance, intelligence support, and financial aid to bolster counterterrorism efforts in numerous countries, including Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia. However, in many cases U.S. assistance and cooperation have not sufficiently improved the recipient’s capacity to combat terrorist groups within its borders.
The tools of U.S. counterterrorism operations will remain diverse, but as armed drones grow more sophisticated their use will likely remain a core component of U.S. foreign policy. However, policymakers also increasingly have to consider the proliferation of armed drones worldwide. A growing number of countries have begun developing and using drones in their own operations. The Center for the Study of the Drone found that as of 2020, 102 countriesowned military drones, a dramatic increase from the estimated sixty countries that had drones in 2010. To date, over thirty thousand unmanned aerial vehicles are in military service worldwide, and fifteen countries have training academies for drone operators. The proliferation of armed drones poses a variety of risks; states could use armed drones more freely than manned vehicles, potentially escalating conflicts. Moreover, drones could become a tool of domestic enforcement for authoritarian regimes. Finally, a September 2019 drone attack on two Saudi oil facilities by Yemen’s Houthi rebels underscores the risk of nonstate actors acquiring or building drones to attack U.S. interests or those of its allies. As the U.S. monopoly on armed drones fades, policymakers will need to consider what precedents U.S. drone policy has set and what role Washington can play in shaping the norms that guide drone use in the future.
Beyond physical damage, drone strikes can cause considerable psychological trauma too. Although jet air strikes can cause more indiscriminate destruction, they occur and end rapidly. A drone, on the other hand, can circle for hours before attacking, leaving civilian communities below in a state of constant fear. According to a 2012 joint study by New York University and Stanford University, the near-constant presence of drones overhead in parts of Pakistan led community members to avoid gathering in groups, prompted parents to keep their children home from schools, and made responders unwilling to assist injured victims after a drone strike for fear of drone operators launching a secondary strike.
U.S. drone practices raise legal and ethical questions as well. The U.S. government argues that it can lawfully conduct targeted killings of members of terrorist organizations, even outside battlefield zones, as it is targeting enemy combatants and acting in the interest of national self-defense. However, many human rights groups have condemned U.S. targeted killings, claiming they represent extrajudicial executions in violation of international human rights law. Amnesty International has claimed [PDF] that the U.S. government criteria for whom a drone strike can target are overly broad, arguing that membership in a terrorist organization alone, rather than active participation in hostilities, is insufficient basis to conduct a targeted strike.
The practice of signature strikes—which target individuals based solely on age, location, and observed behavior rather than any evidence of participation in hostilities or membership in a terrorist or militant organization—has drawn further criticism over a lack of discrimination in U.S. drone practices. Human rights groups have claimed the practice violates international humanitarian law, which requires that individuals be presumed civilians if their participation in hostilities is in doubt.
The controversies surrounding drone strikes have made them unpopular around the world, making their use costly both to bilateral relationships and to the U.S. image worldwide. In a 2014 Pew survey of forty-four countries, thirty-nine had a majority or plurality opposed to U.S. drone strikes. Drones have sparked large-scale public protests, both domestically and in countries where U.S. drone strikes have occurred. Citizens have voiced strong opposition, considering drone strikes an act of aggression and a clear violation of sovereignty. Given drones’ unpopularity, using them can place significant strain on bilateral relations with countries where the United States seeks to conduct counterterrorism operations, as the United States often relies on government cooperation to ensure its drone operations can be effective in the first place.
Some analysts have further argued that drone strikes, particularly those that cause civilian casualties, could contribute to anti-American sentiment, exacerbate local insurgencies, and spur populations to sympathize with or join terrorist groups. Thus, although drones present an effective counterterrorism tool, the blowback their persistent use causes could ultimately make them counterproductive to U.S. counterterrorism goals and drive deeper U.S. entrenchment in countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. Direct evidence confirming this argument is elusive, as what specifically motivates individuals to join terrorist groups is difficult to determine. However, in Yemen, for example, a 2007 survey found that 73 percent of Yemenis [PDF] believed U.S. involvement in the region justified attacks on Americans everywhere. An increase in targeted killings against members of the Yemen-based group al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in 2009 further corresponded to the more than threefold growth of the organization’s membership over the following three years, suggesting that continued U.S. counterterrorism operations are at least one factor contributing to hostility toward the United States.
Drones have not been the only instrument of U.S. counterterrorism operations. The United States has also employed special operations forces to capture or kill targets. Most notably, in 2011, the United States conducted a Navy SEAL raid that killed Osama bin Laden and four others after determining that bin Laden was likely living in a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. However, special operations raids risk being more costly than drone strikes not only in terms of the lives of U.S. personnel but also in diplomatic strain. The bin Laden raid placed considerable strain on the already tense U.S.-Pakistan relationship. Washington has also sought to counter security threats by cooperating with its partners, often providing financial and logistical support to countries conducting counterterrorism operations of their own. The United States has provided training assistance, intelligence support, and financial aid to bolster counterterrorism efforts in numerous countries, including Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Somalia. However, in many cases U.S. assistance and cooperation have not sufficiently improved the recipient’s capacity to combat terrorist groups within its borders.
The tools of U.S. counterterrorism operations will remain diverse, but as armed drones grow more sophisticated their use will likely remain a core component of U.S. foreign policy. However, policymakers also increasingly have to consider the proliferation of armed drones worldwide. A growing number of countries have begun developing and using drones in their own operations. The Center for the Study of the Drone found that as of 2020, 102 countriesowned military drones, a dramatic increase from the estimated sixty countries that had drones in 2010. To date, over thirty thousand unmanned aerial vehicles are in military service worldwide, and fifteen countries have training academies for drone operators. The proliferation of armed drones poses a variety of risks; states could use armed drones more freely than manned vehicles, potentially escalating conflicts. Moreover, drones could become a tool of domestic enforcement for authoritarian regimes. Finally, a September 2019 drone attack on two Saudi oil facilities by Yemen’s Houthi rebels underscores the risk of nonstate actors acquiring or building drones to attack U.S. interests or those of its allies. As the U.S. monopoly on armed drones fades, policymakers will need to consider what precedents U.S. drone policy has set and what role Washington can play in shaping the norms that guide drone use in the future.
“Our number-one shared priority remains pursuing our joint counterterrorism objectives to ensure the security of American and Pakistani citizens alike. We face a common threat from a common enemy, and we must confront terrorism and extremism together.”
— Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, September 21, 2012