Why Drones Can't Win Wars

Double-tap. Explosion. Dust. Blood. Celebrations. It reads like a resume of a more traditional military confrontation but in these modern instances no one has to touch a gun or even look their enemy in the face. Welcome to the world of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

Many governments, private firms and individuals operate these every day. They are not necessarily armed — but they can be, and often are, when in the hands of regimes such as that of the United States. They have been quite rightly subject to much controversy — especially surrounding the issue of whether or not it would be legal for them to shoot down U.S. citizens living and operating in militant groups abroad, etc.

A few weeks back, Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader of the Taliban, was killed by a drone attack in the north of Pakistan. One of the West’s ideological nemeses was taken out without any loss of life on “our side.” A success by the standards of short-term reale politique perhaps but the consequences could prove to be severe. Many fear that act of aggression will compromise the efforts in Pakistani politics to enter into dialogue with the Taliban as they attempt to establish some degree of stability in the tribal north of the country. Revenge attacks that will inevitably affect civilians (supposedly our side) have been threatened. Furthermore, the newly nominated leader of the Taliban, Mullah Fazrullah, is infamous for being behind the group that shot the brave Malala Yousafzai in the head for trying to get an education. There are hopes that, due to his less explicit links to the majority of the Taliban associated tribes, Fazrullah will have less direct control over the Taliban’s total operations. Does this mean that they will wither away and disappear? Of course not. Drone attacks on specific individuals, especially if they are being targeted for their political positions, can only ever replace one evil with another. All that they ensure is further delaying the peace process and disillusioning allied states.

How would the U.S. feel if one of their allies were to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil because they posed a possible threat to that allied state? This is a U.S. regime with plummeting prestige on the international scene and one of the few things it should be glad to have on its side in its “war on terror” is a government committed to fighting the same cause — it is of course in Pakistan’s interest to disable violent militant groups within its borders. But to overstep national sovereignty in such a regular and foolish manner can have very little benefit in the long run.

Furthermore, the precision of drone strikes is also questionable, in large part through the regular use of the double-tap, which ensures a second bombing of the same location only a few moments after the initial blast, inevitably harming those who first respond to the scene of the attack.

The ethical use of drones in “normal” warfare is an altogether different question, and one can, with some optimism, imagine a future in which drones fight themselves with no human lives are lost or at stake. But in the world that we live in, the careless abuse of an allied sovereignty for attacks that have highly questionable outcomes, should not be supported. The U.S. would not allow it on its own territory and if it cannot uphold that most basic of reciprocities then how can it expect to be taken as a serious mediator of international affairs, let alone “the world’s policeman.”