 |
| (Serle, 2017) |
I do believe that UAS is a valuable asset and should
continue to be used for warfare. Professor
Strawser, of the Naval Postgraduate School, has stated “all the evidence we
have so far suggests that drones do better at both identifying the terrorist
and avoiding collateral damage than anything else we have” (Shane, 2012). UAS operators can observe targets for hours
or days prior to a strike. This is
significantly longer than any manned aircraft, or boots on the ground. This observation also allows them to time a
strike for when innocents are not nearby, while providing a view that would
allow a launched strike to be diverted in innocents happen to walk in (Shane,
2012). Based on results from targeted
strikes in Pakistan fewer civilians were killed than other modes of warfare. Even
taking into account the wide ratio of reported of civilian victims to combatant
deaths that range from 4% to 20% depending upon the report (Shane, 2012).
President Obama stated that for targeted UAS strikes
the US would uphold the highest standards in defending that nation’s security. President
Obama stated, “That means taking strikes only when we face a continuing,
imminent threat, and only where there is near certainty of no civilian casualties”
(Peterson, 2016). In 2016 the White
House released their self-evaluation of the targeted strikes. 116 civilians
were killed, and 2,581 combatants were killed in Pakistan (Peterson, 2016). As
mentioned in the previous paragraph the actual numbers are questions by other
independent sources.
To
improve the use of UAS for warfare there are several options. UAS manufactures are continuing to improve
the UAS themselves, becoming more fuel efficient, improved imagery sensors,
improving the GCA and addressing any shortcoming of the UAS. This is standard
growth and improvement of an industry, make the product better. We should also
strive to improve the policy behind targeted strikes.
The CIA states that any targets for UAS strikes go
through a careful review policy done by the most senior officials, the
President is ultimately responsible for any strike (Peterson, 2016). This
review process is largely secret, and details are not released. Congress should have some oversight in this
starting with mandatory reporting on any strike. Such reports “contain both classified sections and unclassified sections
in which the administration provides a legal and policy analysis of any use of
force in self-defense or other uses of force outside traditional
battlefields" (Brooks, 2013).
This would allow oversight of any decisions made, along with recommendations
for how to improve the process. Unclassified versions of any legal memorandum
related to targeted strikes should also be released, so the public understands
on how these strikes are being conducted. This would allow for more educated
public debate on targeted strikes.
References
Brooks, R. (2013, April 11). 10 Ways to Fix the Drone
War. Retrieved March 10, 2018, from http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/11/10-ways-to-fix-the-drone-war/
Peterson, M. (2016, August 18). Is Obama's Drone War
Moral? Retrieved March 10, 2018, from
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/08/obama-drone-morality/496433/
Shane, S. (2012, July 14). The Moral Case for Drones. Retrieved
March 10, 2018, from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sunday-review/the-moral-case-for-drones.html
Serle, J. (2017, February 06). Suspected drone strikes
kill 12 civilians in Yemen. Retrieved March 10, 2018, from
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2012-05-15/suspected-drone-strikes-kill-12-civilians-in-yemen
No comments:
Post a Comment