Drones, An Issue Of Democracy? Military drones are an amazing piece of technology that allow the U.S. to battle combatants that it would otherwise be unable to target due to hostility of the combatants and the distance of the combat zone. The military’s advancement in drone technology has increased exponentially in the last decade, and continues to seek improvements. They’ve only recently researched into problems that can arise from implementing the technology into current U.S. military operations. Many people are worried the military may begin to use drones on U.S. soil, while others believe it undermines democracy due to the fact that a drone strike doesn’t require authorization from Congress. Further exploring this issue and into the problems
…show more content…
Byman’s article “Why Drones Work: The Case For Washington’s Weapon of Choice” argues the opposite viewpoint on the way drones wage war. Byman explains that using drones as a way to enter and combat enemy forces in zones of conflict will allow for the U.S. to quickly take out enemy forces, back up its allies, and safely combat enemies in foreign countries. He does this by not only explaining the reliability that drones have in combat situations, but also how the Obama administration conducts these operations. Byman states that “According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban—top figures who are not easily replaced” (Byman 1). Not only has this diminished the number of potential terrorists, but also has allowed the military to quickly and quietly attack its enemies while having the potential number of U.S casualties be close to …show more content…
It can be inferred that the article “Why Drones Work: The Case For Washington’s Weapon Of Choice” holds the most merit and should be considered a source with a higher validity compared to the article “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”. There are a few reasons why, the first being that the article written by Byman was published by an organization that researches public policy issues, while the article written by Singer was published in The New York Times, and reads more like a news publication than a research paper. Another reason would be that Singer explains that the C.I.A controls the military’s drone program, while Byman states that Obama has full control of the program. This is inaccurate and can lead to confusion due to the fact that the C.I.A. maintains and regulates the military’s drone program, while Obama dictates where the operations are conducted. Lastly, the article written by Singer presents itself in a more biased manner, an example being that he actually condones some of the strikes that are conducted, this diminishes the arguments he is trying to make, while Byman doesn’t state any position he has on it, instead he summarizes his research. Overall, the article Byman wrote makes stronger arguments for the military’s use of drones, and has evidence
Byman’s article “Why Drones Work: The Case For Washington’s Weapon of Choice” argues the opposite viewpoint on the way drones wage war. Byman explains that using drones as a way to enter and combat enemy forces in zones of conflict will allow for the U.S. to quickly take out enemy forces, back up its allies, and safely combat enemies in foreign countries. He does this by not only explaining the reliability that drones have in combat situations, but also how the Obama administration conducts these operations. Byman states that “According to data compiled by the New America Foundation, since Obama has been in the White House, U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban—top figures who are not easily replaced” (Byman 1). Not only has this diminished the number of potential terrorists, but also has allowed the military to quickly and quietly attack its enemies while having the potential number of U.S casualties be close to …show more content…
It can be inferred that the article “Why Drones Work: The Case For Washington’s Weapon Of Choice” holds the most merit and should be considered a source with a higher validity compared to the article “Do Drones Undermine Democracy?”. There are a few reasons why, the first being that the article written by Byman was published by an organization that researches public policy issues, while the article written by Singer was published in The New York Times, and reads more like a news publication than a research paper. Another reason would be that Singer explains that the C.I.A controls the military’s drone program, while Byman states that Obama has full control of the program. This is inaccurate and can lead to confusion due to the fact that the C.I.A. maintains and regulates the military’s drone program, while Obama dictates where the operations are conducted. Lastly, the article written by Singer presents itself in a more biased manner, an example being that he actually condones some of the strikes that are conducted, this diminishes the arguments he is trying to make, while Byman doesn’t state any position he has on it, instead he summarizes his research. Overall, the article Byman wrote makes stronger arguments for the military’s use of drones, and has evidence