DronesThe political role of drone strikes in U.S. grand strategy
Years of debate on the issue of U.S. drone strikes show that many Americans have reservations. People are concerned that drone strikes devalue non-American lives, dangerously expand executive power, and drive terrorism and anti-Americanism. The concerns Americans have about these kinds of drone attacks – apparently unilateral, apparently violating the norm of state sovereignty, and conducted without a formal justice process — reflect well on a public wondering what the U.S. role in the world should be. But assessing the value of drone strikes requires looking beyond the attacks themselves to first identify and prioritize U.S. interests and threats. Only in that context is it possible to decide whether one supports or opposes drone strikes for what they may gain the United States politically.
Jacqueline L. Hazelton, Ph.D. // Source: usnwc.edu
How do you feel about drone strikes? Chances are you have an opinion – or at least a gut reaction.
Years of debate on the issue show that many Americans have reservations. People are concerned that drone strikes devalue non-American lives, dangerously expand executive power, and drive terrorism and anti-Americanism.
Yet do we actually know much about drone strikes’ political effects? No. Here’s what we can say: There are two publicly known classified programs that operate drones and fire weapons from them, military and CIA, but research into the strikes’ effects is constrained by government secrecy and limited access to areas where the strikes occur. Even the number of civilians killed is contested. The White House estimates 116 deaths since the beginning of the Obama administration while independent reporters suggest it is as high as 800.
We can also say drones offer some obvious advantages. Strikes can achieve short-term goals like killing leaders of terrorist groups such as al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsular leader Jalal Baleedi in Yemen. They provide more accurate targeting than crewed armed flights and sea-based weaponry, although they are certainly not perfect. They are often less expensive than manned tools like planes and ships.
But there is profound disagreement over the strikes’ political – that is, strategic – effects.
Whether drone strikes reduce or increase terrorism is murky. The fog is unlikely to clear soon.
Even in this uncertain environment and without hard data, we can draw some conclusions. For example, drone strikes are similar to Special Forces in their direct targeting ability in remote locations, but are less likely to create domestic opposition to the use of force because they don’t put U.S. lives directly at risk. They also evoke less nationalistic backlash because they do not require putting U.S. forces in another state’s territory.
As a political scientist studying the political uses of force, I suggest it’s possible to better understand drone strikes by analyzing them within the context of grand strategy – or how a state thinks about assuring its own security. By doing that, we can begin to determine if these strikes support U.S. goals, or not, and how they compare to other means of attaining the same ends.
