Drone Attacks Under Fire

slashgear.com

Most of us can remember sitting in front of our televisions watching modern warfare play out with Operation Desert Storm when we attacked Iraq with the "shock and awe" campaign.  Seeing the cross-hairs on buildings and watching bombs, missiles and other munitions target in.  I can even remember the military comparing the accuracy of our bombing with that of the Redskins field goal kicker.  We were stunned to see the images and mesmerized by their accuracy.  Today, some twenty years later, our military is using unmanned drones to perform similar feats and much more.

These drone attacks are controversial on a number of levels and have recently been the focus of discord regarding their legality as well as their net effect on the people we are fighting.  Terrorists.  Much has been made of the President's kill list and the invasion of Pakistan airspace.  There is legislation passed by Congress that authorizes the President to respond to known terrorists as well as the United Nations Charter 51 which encompasses such weaponry. 

Others also argue that the collateral damage caused by drone attacks is unacceptable.  The killing of innocent civilians, particularly children, has long been a concern and criticism.  Although drone attacks have increased significantly under President Obama's watch, the amount of collateral damage has fallen drastically.  Obviously, any unintentional death is a real tragedy but it seems likely that the military has made great strides in tying to limit such unnecessary death and injury. 

wired.com

The pursuit and prosecution of terrorists in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Yemen always result in protests from the respective countries but the United States has clearly stated time and time again that these terrorists are the enemies of all states, not just the United States of America and that we will seek them out alluding to the reality that there is no place safe for them to hide. 

One has to wonder if known terrorists were hiding out in a mountainous region in the Appalachian range of mountains in the United States, would we choose to pull out the drone option or take the more conventional approach of boots on the ground.  My educated guess is that no President would want to risk collateral damage within our country.  That alone says something about how we view the rights of citizens of other nations. 

The drones are effective.  They have performed brilliantly bringing terrorists to their end and largely hurting the terrorist organizations out to harm the United States.  Years ago, President Bush made it clear we would attack terrorists no matter where they are.  For the most part, we have fulfilled that promise.  An exception was made in the successful Osama Bin Laden raid in Pakistan.  The President chose boots on the ground to the much safer drones in the air. 

The great fear of course is that other nations will choose to use the same technology with drones to respond to their own brand of terrorism.  Will the United States keep quiet when other nations respond with similar tactics against those perceived to be doing harm or potentially doing harm to their nations.  Will the typical double-standard come into play that often times we are criticized for.  I suspect so.