The War Drones On

We are at war. The United States is still involved in its longest military conflict in history—the War on Terror. Since the attacks on 9/11, we have all lived with the constant, nagging thought of future terrorist strikes. Thankfully, we have the most well trained, technologically advanced military in the world (can I get U-S-A chant?) and, increasingly, our armed forces rely on technology, specifically drones, to take the fight to the enemy. However, the American public struggles with the morality of the "Drone War."

If you don't know anything about military drones, they are unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which are used by every branch of the military for reconnaissance and offensive purposes. Vehicles like the Predator and the Reaper are examples of drones that carry deadly Hellfire missiles.

A MQ-9 Reaper in flight. Note the missiles under the wing. Photo via  af.mil

Notwithstanding public criticism, drones strikes have been frequent and successful in taking out enemy fighters in recent years. In fact, from 2009 to the summer of 2016, the government stated that 473 strikes had killed between 2,372 and 2,581 combatants. These fighters are said to have belonged to groups such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The beauty of waging war with drones is that no U.S. personnel are directly put at risk when engaging the enemy, as the operator of the vehicle can be hundreds of miles away. Furthermore, the cost is relatively cheap compared to the logistical nightmare of moving troops and equipment halfway across the world.

Drone pilots conducting operations safely away from the battlefield. Photo via military.com

In addition, proponents of Drone Warfare say UAVs have the added benefit of being politically friendly. What I mean by this is that they are easy to deploy. The decision to send robots to a war zone is an easy decision for politicians to make. In contrast, sending "boots on the ground" to a foreign land elicits divergent opinions in political spheres.

Unfortunately, these deadly robots aren't perfect. According to the New York Times, an estimated 64 to 116 non-combatants have been killed from 2009 to 2016. However, it's hard to be sure of specific numbers, as different sources speculate on reported civilian death tolls versus the actual numbers. In any case, the loss of innocent lives is repulsive. Adding to the problems, the death of civilians can evoke hatred toward America in Middle Eastern communities.

Still, it's clear that Obama's decision to increase drone usage was based on good moral grounds; however, some have condemned the "Drone War" as a detestable part of his legacy. Among the most impassioned opponents to UAVs are the people who are directly affected—the locals in war zones.

Only 9% of Pakistanis support drone strikes. Photo via aljazeera.com

In Pakistan, a country in which the U.S. frequently conducts drone operations, only 9% of its citizens  support the use of armed UAVs. These numbers are not surprising when you realize that in a five year period, around 250-600 Pakistani civilians have reportedly been killed by drones. Although these numbers cannot be known for certain, it's still an indication of how the flying robots are not without flaw.

Undoubtedly, drones have their pros and cons, but the question of whether or not the U.S. should continue to use armed, unmanned vehicles is a matter of life and death.  According to Brown University, from the 2003 to 2015, 4,489 U.S. military and 3,481 U.S. contractors were killed in Iraq alone. Despite the risk of collateral damage, I find that statistics and evidence points favorably to U.S. drone usage.

As a member of Army ROTC and someone who could actually be deployed one day, using drones seems like an obvious choice to me. They offer a method to wage war in which soldiers' lives are not put at risk. Additionally, UAVs can be used to support ground troops. In any case, I believe the U.S. should continue to use drones.

U.S. Army soldiers in Afghanistan. Photo via Wikimedia Commons

Indeed, the non-combatant death doll attributed to UAVs is terrible. But with the enemy so close to friendly non-combatants, it is a sad, yet inevitable reality, that guiltless lives will be lost. Therefore, I don't think drones should be viewed as an evil tool of senseless destruction. On the contrary, their artificial nature serve as a means of mitigating death. I think a drone's ability to save American lives is worth their potential drawbacks. With advances in the software of these machines, I think UAVs will only become more useful in the future. Their technology allows them to be more accurate than a conventional piece of artillery and, in the event a drone is lost in combat, no one will shed a tear.