Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict: Ethical, Legal and Strategic Implications
At the time of this writing, data from the New America Foundation report that the United States has reportedly conducted 11 drone strikes in Pakistan and 23 in Yemen in 2015. Of these strikes, only 2 of them killed civilians. The data indicate 150 militants have been killed, along with only 3 civilians or unknowns (http:/securitydata.newamerica.net) Add to this the controversy stemming from recent conventional airstrikes in Yemen, when a wedding party was hit, and in Afghanistan, when a Doctors Without Borders hospital was destroyed and one might be persuaded that drones are a rather good military option. This evidence offers support to the claims of drone proponents, who consistently argue that drones are the best game in town because they provide a discriminate and proportionate response (to employ the just war theory language used by the U.S. government) to threats from terrorist groups. And if one compares these numbers to the strikes and casualty figures at the height of the drone campaign in Pakistan in 2009 10, when there was a drone strike every three days, and civilian/unknown casualties reportedly in the hundreds, then even the staunchest of drone critics might be inclined to admit that the United States is making progress when it comes to its targeting practices. Even assuming, however, that all this is true the government does not publicly disclose its rules or engagement or data on strikes reading Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict casts a deeply critical light on the myth that drones are what the U.S government claims them to be. The book is a must read for those who want to delve deeper than the moral and legal gloss that characterizes the speeches in support of drones by governmental officials, while avoiding the hyperbole that often accompanies the writings of the staunchest critics of the U.S. drone programs.