PKSOI/GLOBAL TRENDS CASE STUDIES A Drone's Strike Away | Page 10

Case Study #1118-08
PKSOI TRENDS GLOBAL CASE STUDY SERIES
But how are drone strikes different from aerial bombings? RTI’s Joe Eyerman points out, “there is nothing about the
drones that makes it more susceptible to collateral damage than cannon or manned aircraft. The kinetic strike is essen-
tially the same.” 74 Eyerman’s view is consistent with a 2010 report by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary
or arbitrary executions to the United Nations Human Rights Council Philip Alston, who explained:
However, a missile fired from a drone is no different from any other commonly used weapon, including a gun
fired by a soldier or a helicopter or gunship that fires missiles. The critical legal question is the same for each
weapon: whether its specific use complies with [international humanitarian law] IHL. 75
Statistically speaking, drones may even reduce civilian casualties. Slate reporter William Saletan argues: “In World War
II, civilian deaths, as a percentage of total war fatalities, were estimated at 40 to 67 percent. In Korea, they were reckoned
at 70 percent…In Vietnam, aerial bombing killed more than 50,000 North Vietnamese civilians by 1969. Each year of
that war, the least discriminate weapons—bombs, shells, mines, mortars—caused more civilian injuries than guns and
grenades.” 76
Between 2006 and 2012, the Long War Journal, reports 150 civilian casualties from drone strikes compared to some
2,500 Al-Qaeda and Taliban members, which puts the civilian casualty rate at 6 percent. 77 Using the less charitable es-
timates from the BIJ for the same time period (473 to 893 civilian deaths versus some 2,600 to 3,500 total killings) puts
the civilian death rate at 35 percent for the high-end estimates and at 22 percent for the low-end estimates. “From 2010
to 2012, BIJ’s count of 172 civilian deaths, against a background of 1,616 total fatalities, yields a civilian death rate of 12
percent.” 78 The takeaway for Saletan is obvious:
Drones kill a lower ratio of civilians to combatants than we’ve seen in any recent war…One reason to prefer
drones is that when you send troops, fighting breaks out, and the longer the fighting goes on, the more innocent
people die. Drones are like laparoscopic surgery: They minimize the entry wound and the risk of infection. 79
“The appeal of drone attacks for policy makers is clear,” counterterrorism experts David Kilcullen explains. “For one
thing, their effects are measurable. Military commanders and intelligence officials point out that drone attacks have dis-
rupted terrorist networks in Pakistan, killing key leaders and hampering operations. Drone attacks create a sense of inse-
curity among militants and constrain their interactions with suspected informers. And, because they kill remotely, drone
strikes avoid American casualties.” 80 But on balance, Kilcullen knows, the costs far outweigh the benefits since “public
anger over the American show of force” not only solidifies the power of extremists, it may also undermine public trust
in the government, thereby further destabilizing the region. Completely missing, said Kilcullen, is “a concerted informa-
tion campaign directed at the Pakistani public or a real effort to understand the tribal dynamics of the local population,
efforts that might make such attacks more effective.” 81
Automating War
According to Peter Finn of the Washington Post, “The killing of terrorism suspects and insurgents by armed drones,
controlled by pilots sitting in bases thousands of miles away in the western United States, has prompted criticism that
the technology makes war too antiseptic. Questions also have been raised about the legality of the use of air space and its
subsequent drone strikes when employed in places such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, which are not at war with the
United States. This debate will only intensify as technological advances enable what experts call lethal autonomy.” 82
Stony Brook University professor and defense blogger Noah Smith wonders if weaponized drones will eventually
replace soldiers altogether. “Note that what we call drones right now are actually just remote-control weapons, operat-
ed by humans. But that may change. The United States Army is considering replacing thousands of soldiers with true
8