Drones, drone strikes, and us policy: the politics of unmanned aerial vehicles

Abstract

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in military operations is currently among the most hotly debated topics in the national and international media. While at first few showed interest in this military technology, the increasing number of missile strikes carried out via UAVs in remote areas of Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia by the United States Armed Forces and the CIA has raised public awareness. Today, reports on "drone strikes" are published daily; UAV names such as Global Hawk, Predator, or Reaper are on everyone's lips. Criticism of the use of unmanned technology has equally gained momentum. Several organizations lobby for the complete or partial ban of drones, efforts which have resulted in a discussion on adding a protocol to the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) to ban fully autonomous UAVs. High-ranking members of the US defense community have advised caution regarding the use of armed drones and propose moratoria on US drone strikes. (1) Drones--unmanned, remotely piloted, aerial vehicles, short UAVs--are now used by the armed forces of approximately 70 countries around the world. The club of armed UAV holders remains more exclusive; for the moment, its members only include Israel, the United Kingdom, the United States, and most likely China and Iran. This situation, however, is likely to change sooner rather than later with many countries considering the procurement of armed drones. The four books reviewed in this essay are all motivated by the belief that "the precipitous increase in drone use we have witnessed over the past few years represents just the beginning of the proliferation and widespread use of UAVs, across many contexts."2 Disagreement may reign over whether or not this development is positive; however, the authors agree on one point: drones are here to stay. Many articles and papers have been written on UAV use, but scholarly debate has been surprisingly slow with academia only getting intensively involved in recent years. Accordingly, this review features works by a journalist, an anti-drone activist, and several academics. Winning the Battle but Losing the Hearts and Minds--The Importance of Drone Perceptions Perceptions matter, sometimes even more than reality. Drones certainly have a dreadful reputation--even though they may not necessarily deserve it. This is what Brian Glyn Williams tells readers in Predators: The CIA's Drone War on al Qaeda. [ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Williams, a professor of Islamic History at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth and an expert on the history of the Middle East, cofounded in 2009 UMass Drone, a research project and open-source online database on attacks carried out via armed drones. (3) With Predators, Williams aims at "recording] the history of what amounts to an all-out CIA drone war on the Taliban and al Qaeda." (4) A historian by training, he claims wanting to stay neutral in the emotive drone debate: "Proponents and opponents of the campaign can do with this story what they will." (5) His neutrality may be debatable; Williams clearly has his own opinion on whether the use of drones in counterterrorism is effective. Nevertheless, Predators is recommended reading to those interested in how US counterterrorism efforts in Pakistan and elsewhere have affected civilian populations living in the targeted countries. Williams studies the impact of the missile strikes by US drones in remote regions of the world, in particular in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). The book is clearly enhanced by Williams's deep knowledge of Pakistani politics and the Pashtun tribal areas. He ensures his readers get at least a general notion of its history, emphasizing that the FATA has always been an independent entity rather than a proper part of the Pakistani state. Williams's main argument has three parts: (1) The US drone strikes in Pakistan are precise and succeed in killing high-value targets and lower-level Taliban operatives (some of whom have plotted against the United States and other Western nations); (2) The perception of the strikes is very negative in Pakistan and abroad; (3) The drone campaign may ultimately prove counterproductive as it alienates the public whose hearts and minds need to be won. …