Drone Warfare Does More Harm Than Good
PRO (3 arguments)
Grabbers:
1) Over the last few years, 14 terrorist leaders were killed. However, 700 civilians were also killed, meaning for every leader is killed, 50 civilians are killed. That's a 2% accuracy.
2) Our current use of drone warfare is inaccurate, unlawful, and all around damaging to both those being attacked and the attackers. Drone pilot Matt Martin is proof. In one case, he'd carefully aligned a perfect shot on a group of rebels and fired it. However, immediately afterwards, two kids on bicycles rode by, and no matter how much he wanted to stop it, it was impossible. He lives in anguish to this day.
Refutations:
1) Many of the US government's statistics, which say that the number of innocent civilians being killed is very low, are false, inaccurate, or completely corrupt altogether. No matter what source we look at outside of the US government, the civilian count is always much higher than the US's count, obviously showing that the civilian count is indeed higher and that the US have been lying about their data. The New American Foundation, which records the deaths of drone strikes, once recorded a large attack on a building with many people in it, only a few of which were militants. However, all were marked down as militants. A few days later, local reports and findings showed that 26 of the 83 killed were under 15 years of age, which fits under neither the US's definition nor the true definition.
2) A common argument for the use of drones that the government uses that it kills many militants and Al-Qaeda leaders. We have so far killed 14 Al-Qaeda leaders. Even so, news reports about Al-Qaeda bombing or attempting to bomb something still appears on the news extremely often. The Obama administration has revealed an extremely inaccurate way of counting militant and civilian deaths: any male of military age is a militant. 70% of deaths were militant deaths according to the government. Despite being appearing to be extremely significant (enhanced by the media), the death of leaders and leaders is really insignificant.
3) Other warfare kills more- When Israel attacked Hamas with troops, at the behest of the US, the casualty rate was 42%, but when they used drone strikes it rose to 78%. Also, when Pakistan used manned troops, the casualty rate was 34%, but when they used drones it rose to 65%.
Drone strikes go completely against the ideas of the US where you are innocent until proven guilty. People are being killed without even being an identified target when bombs are dropped on areas where supposedly suspicious activity has taken place. These are called targeted killings, and they currently happen without being proven as an imminent threat. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay recently declared that U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan violate the international law principles of proportionality and distinction. Proportionality means that an attack cannot be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage sought. Distinction requires that the attack be directed only at a legitimate military target.
The US has also ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The ICCPR states: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life." The US government's extreme reluctance to provide details about particular strikes or the targeted killing program in general has impeded much-needed democratic debate about the legality and wisdom of US policies and practices, and stymied understanding about their actual impacts. Clearly, drones do more harm than good.
In August 2012, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism investigated the history of drone strikes in Pakistan, concluding that there have been credible reports of at least 168 children killed in Pakistan by CIA drone strikes over the past 7 years. This means 44% of civilians killed by the attacks were children, not even beginning to mention the amount of innocent adults killed. A study by Stanford Law School calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%. Also, houses are destroyed, and money is lost. A New York University study showed that in fact there is a 2 out of 5 chance that when a drone strikes, a house or building will be damaged. Clearly, drones do more harm than good.
After drone strikes began in Yemen and lasted for a month, AQAP (Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) went from a couple hundred members and no territory to a couple thousand members and 3 government territories/provinces. Drone strikes that actually hit Al-Qaeda's leaders only halt Al-Qaeda operations for a few weeks. Its been proven that they continue to get new leaders and new members. In order to properly eliminate the threat, we have to develop benign, local connections and use these connections to end Al-Qaeda by persuading the commonwealth to be on our side, not Al-Qaeda's. Only in this way will Al-Qaeda ever permanently end. Judge, our side has given you a solution to this problem, while my opponents have offered up nothing and are instead arguing to take innocent lives. Clearly, drones do more harm than good.