Do drones really aid America's foreign policy?

It is difficult to ascertain the exact number of casualties that have resulted from the United States controversial targeted killing programmes. This is due to the absence of reliable information, which stems from the lack of transparency and accountability for drone strikes. 

The dominant discourse stemming from US officials fight against terrorism perpetuates convoluted slogans such as ‘fighting for freedom’ (whatever that is supposed to mean) while claiming to strictly adhere to due process. Many a US president has avoided the moral issues of drone attacks by justifying the actions as necessary for security. It is ‘pre-emptive action’ they claim; which simply means we kill them before they kill us,. But at what cost?  

 In 2011, Obama’s top counter-terrorism advisor, John Brennan, claimed that there had not been a single collateral death from drone attacks in the preceeding years. This is largely at odds with the claims made by interactive website http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/ that there have been an estimated total of 3213 casualties to date (with a number occurring prior to Brennan’s claim). Only 50 of the 3213 victims were classed as being high profile targets that could arguably pose an ‘imminent’ threat to the US. 

With numbers like these, it is not surprising that there is a substantial amount of international opposition and condemnation from many governmental and NGO’s such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

Why, you may ask, has the US continued the use of drones despite international pressure to stop?

Simply, it seems, because in the current unilateral hegemonic system, who has the power to stop them? The US spend $700 billion a year on its military, which is substantially more than the following fourteen biggest spenders combined. As the famous political philosopher Noam Chomsky articulates in an interview, American foreign policy sends across the power full, yet dangerous, statement of “we own the world”.

Lt. General William Odom, director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan, stated;

“Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world.”

The current international system is inherently competitive, and the United States relative power is exactly what maintains its hegemonic status and allows it to maintain this double standard. It all comes down to a matter of strategic labelling. The concept of what is considered a ‘terrorist’ is dominated by US discourse and definitions due to its relative power in the international sphere. 

Despite the US superior military might, they are losing the war of perceptions and international condemnation is only on the rise.

The US aggressive foreign policy focusing on state security can be linked to the realist doctrine of thought. This raises the question; do drones strikes really benefit the US? Realism requires prudence and a focus on maintaining security and furthering national interests. As it states in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy on Realism, States “engage in power-balancing” for the purpose of deterring potential aggressors.

Drone strikes often only further alienate the Palestinian people in addition to encouraging relatively peaceful local Jihad groups to radicalise and accept more violent retaliation to the US drone attacks. This has resulted in an increase, rather than a decrease in the chances of terrorist attack in America.

According to a Foreign Affairs article by Audrey Cronin “not only has al Qaeda’s propaganda continued uninterrupted by the drone strikes; it has been significantly enhanced by them”. Al Qaeda have used video footage of drone attacks and framing propaganda to attract potential recruits thus increasing the threat. According to a study conducted in 2012 by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, only 17% of Pakistani respondents approved of American drone strikes against the leaders of extremist groups. Other States perception of drone strikes can be seen below: 

Furthermore, the aggressive, unilateral and secretive use of drones has made allies more sceptical and thus less cooperative with Washington. This lack of international support can only act as a hindrance in our ever interconnected world. 

What the US argue that the use of drone strikes achieve differ greatly from the actual consequences. In this discrepancy between desired outcome and actual outcome lies not only the moral, but also strategic argument for the end of their use.