Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars
The U.S.’ primary goal is to capture terrorists due to the intelligence that can be gained from them, but many terrorist networks operate in remote areas that are difficult to capture. However, the pattern of drone attacks suggests that essentially Pakistan is considered a no-fly zone. Automatic captures are not considered practical.
If you only considered the numbers, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of deaths over the number of captures. Approximately 3,000-4,000 people have been killed in preplanned killings, and only a handful have been convicted. Despite the technological and human ingenuity available, there is a significant amount of room for error. In drone attacks alone, over 300 children were killed. Those murders question the legitimacy of the kill-list method, because the majority of strikes in Pakistan are against people whose identities the government doesn’t know.
Under the administrations’ and Congressional interpretations, drone strikes should continue indefinitely against elusive enemies that mutate into new enemies, but the killing of enemies should be the exception rather than the rule. The U.S. shouldn’t have used force to attack civilians that are not guilty of war crimes, specifically children. What kind of rule says it’s legitimate and even sensible to murder a 16-year-old?
Before a strike is initiated, there must be a high probability that civilians will not be killed or injured. That is not the case with the so-called “signature strikes”. Signature strike is a secret drone strike that lacks the target’s specifics. These attacks are directed at individuals who “fit” the characteristics of the U.S. Government’s definition of a terrorist.
