Reflection Paper for a debate on military drones
One of the many options – it is legitimate for certain cases – principally justified, practically effective BOP
State vs non-state actor – wars no longer conventional – multinational groups with no respect of borders or law of war – least amount of people. Boots on ground not effective against terrorists
POI – civilian deaths – answer – recognize that ground invasions have caused more destruction, Taliban less effective because smth done – Pakistan helps bc effective
EFFICIENCY – target leaders, supplies, resources. Soldiers – worry about killing someone, soldiers possibly captured
Targeting specific people, drones can stay more mobile and active, taking out a leader weakens their position and persuasion – power struggles, internal conflict.
Drones not recognize boundaries because terrorists don’t either – unconventional war
Drones far more accurate, surveillance and second opinions on shooting
Protecting soldiers – administration’s responsibility – lives put on line when drone could have been more useful. Men come back broken.
Drones – fire and death. To those people it’s a threatening mechanism – Washington people desensitized meanwhile.
Not just efficacy – extend – drones are just for mil. Interventions. People of that country. A BETTER AGENT