The characteristics of Drones, or unmanned air vehicles (UAVs), epitomize advances made in warfare over recent years. Boasting high precision assault capabilities, as well as stealth and reconnaissance use in addition to a virtual lack of risk to the operator. Yet, despite the aforementioned benefits, the clandestine nature of drone operations has led to them becoming a point of debate in the world today, as they have become symbolic of various issues surrounding the so called The War on Terror. However, in order for there to be a more productive public discussion regarding drone operations and their effects, a greater deal of transparency around their operations is required.
In order for there to be a more focused, productive public debate …show more content…
For example, drones have been used in operations by the CIA to combat The so called War on Terror in Pakistan, with a, “total of only ten strikes during the first 4 years of the campaign (2004–7), the annual total rose sharply to 33 in 2008, 54 in 2009, 131 in 2010, and 22 already in 2011 as of April 15” (TtP#). Another source places the number of drone strikes in Pakistan at 334 from 2004 to 2012 (RTC#). However, despite drone’s high usage in places like Pakistan, it is difficult to know who exactly the targets of operations involving their use. With such little information coming from the CIA and US military concerning drone operations and their effects, the general public instead is forced to rely on outside sources, which often report conflicting information. The reliability of outside sources is questionable since information is often shaped by political and ideological motivations. Also, since drone operations are so secretive, little or no information exists to verify any estimates (WMC). The fact that outside sources have to be relied on by the general public to assess the impact of drone operations makes it difficult to have a discussion on the legal issues of the drone campaign in The War on Terror. One of the most troubling issues with the lack of transparency surrounding drone operations is the difficulty of discussing proportionality in regards to …show more content…
The absence of government figures on the extent of damage caused by drone operations leaves media outlets and other outside sources with the task of filling the gap in information, leading to conflicting findings. For instance, in 2009 a Pakistani newspaper published figures provided by Pakistani officials regarding collateral damage caused by drones. The figures showed in exchange for 14 Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist members deaths, nearly 2,000 civilians were killed (CIA#). However, these numbers may not accurately represent the scope of the damages. Studies carried out by American researchers Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedeman provide a less significant, “total of 760 to 1,000 deaths (including Taliban and civilians) over three years from 2006 to 2009” (CIA#). Although there is a significant difference between the numbers presented by different sources, it is difficult to ascertain from either whether or not the civilian deaths were justifiable due to fact that they do not state exactly who was hit by the strikes. In order to argue whether or not the collateral caused is justifiable would require information on the ratio of higher to lower ranking Taliban and Al Qaeda killed. One independent American study estimates that concerning casualties, “children composed 5.5 percent and civilians 16.7 percent of victims, while
In order for there to be a more focused, productive public debate …show more content…
For example, drones have been used in operations by the CIA to combat The so called War on Terror in Pakistan, with a, “total of only ten strikes during the first 4 years of the campaign (2004–7), the annual total rose sharply to 33 in 2008, 54 in 2009, 131 in 2010, and 22 already in 2011 as of April 15” (TtP#). Another source places the number of drone strikes in Pakistan at 334 from 2004 to 2012 (RTC#). However, despite drone’s high usage in places like Pakistan, it is difficult to know who exactly the targets of operations involving their use. With such little information coming from the CIA and US military concerning drone operations and their effects, the general public instead is forced to rely on outside sources, which often report conflicting information. The reliability of outside sources is questionable since information is often shaped by political and ideological motivations. Also, since drone operations are so secretive, little or no information exists to verify any estimates (WMC). The fact that outside sources have to be relied on by the general public to assess the impact of drone operations makes it difficult to have a discussion on the legal issues of the drone campaign in The War on Terror. One of the most troubling issues with the lack of transparency surrounding drone operations is the difficulty of discussing proportionality in regards to …show more content…
The absence of government figures on the extent of damage caused by drone operations leaves media outlets and other outside sources with the task of filling the gap in information, leading to conflicting findings. For instance, in 2009 a Pakistani newspaper published figures provided by Pakistani officials regarding collateral damage caused by drones. The figures showed in exchange for 14 Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorist members deaths, nearly 2,000 civilians were killed (CIA#). However, these numbers may not accurately represent the scope of the damages. Studies carried out by American researchers Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedeman provide a less significant, “total of 760 to 1,000 deaths (including Taliban and civilians) over three years from 2006 to 2009” (CIA#). Although there is a significant difference between the numbers presented by different sources, it is difficult to ascertain from either whether or not the civilian deaths were justifiable due to fact that they do not state exactly who was hit by the strikes. In order to argue whether or not the collateral caused is justifiable would require information on the ratio of higher to lower ranking Taliban and Al Qaeda killed. One independent American study estimates that concerning casualties, “children composed 5.5 percent and civilians 16.7 percent of victims, while