From the beginning of Obama’s Presidency in 2008, the use of drones as a tool of military intervention has become common practice in controlling conflict. Originated from this has been the term extra-judicial killing, the murder of person(s) by government authority without a legal, judicial process. This has been perceived by the public as government authorised assassinations, with the most notable being the strike against Iranian military general Quasem Soleimani in January 2020. The use of drones as opposed to traditional boots on the ground tactics has been an emerging pattern of military intervention amongst the West. The precision, supposed accuracy and protection of troops has justified the use of unmanned killing in an attempt to stop the spread of terrorism. However, for the many civilians that are wounded or killed by these strikes, public criticism of government intervention has arisen. In a speech in 2013, President Obama claimed that there must be no certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured. However, as Scahill notes in their piece on the rampant use of drones, the implicit message of that administration was to “trust, but not verify”. With this in mind, access to data surrounding these strikes has been difficult to achieve. But with thanks to whistleblowers and leaked information surrounding the most recent strikes in Afghanistan, the public is starting to gain transparency to government action abroad.
Contextualising drone usage in the West
Data from the International Institute for Strategic Studies have acknowledged the use of 807 Drones currently in deployment worldwide. The UK currently has access to 10 MQ-9A drones, more commonly known in military terms as Reaper drones. These are remotely piloted aircraft systems designed for surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance; currently in operation and flown by 13 and 39 squadrons headquartered in Waddington, Lincolnshire. In comparison, the data suggests the US has a staggering 678 drones in operation, consisting of 18 different types. Since 9/11, US foreign policy had been centred around unmanned counter-terrorism tactics. This information suggests the entrenchment of drones as a tool of military intervention. Mazzeti in their book titled ‘The Way of the Knife: The CIA, a Secret Army, and a War at the Ends of the Earth’, suggests war has fundamentally blurred the line between soldier and spy, with the boundaries of conflict at the end of the world where soldiers cannot go. This has ultimately blended the roles of the CIA and the military as similar entities where efficiency, secrecy and unaccountability run supreme.
The frequent use of drone strikes as studied by Johnston and Sarbahi (2016) concluded that drone strikes limit the impacts and emergences of terrorist organisations within the context of Pakistan. However, one limitation found was the inability to determine the long-term impacts of these strikes.
Does this raise the question as to whether short-term goals of security are worth the cost and inconvenience of military intervention?
The Afghanistan files
The Civilian Casualty Files which can be read here are thousands of leaked documents published by the New York Times; which detail drone strikes from 2014 to 2019. Rather than highlighting the success and perceived ‘precision’ of these drones, it represents the failure of intervention and the total number of innocent civilians killed due to flawed intelligence on the part of US officials.
The most famous of these cases, and one prescribed to the work of Julian Assange and WikiLeaks titled “Collateral Murder” shows an American Apache helicopter striking a Reuters van in Bagdhad, 2007, fatally killing Namir Noor-Eldeen and driver Saeed Chmagh. The response to these findings intensified global discussion about the morality and necessity of drone strikes.
Given the justification of drone usage amongst Western governments, the Afghanistan files highlight the fatal consequences that unmanned drone strikes have caused. A BBC article published in December 2021 proves this theory. An internal review conducted surrounding a drone strike that killed 10 unarmed and innocent civilians suggested no disciplinary action for US officials or soldiers is required for the strike that hit Afghanistan in August 2021.
Whilst no misconduct or negligence was reported within the document, 10 civilians were killed; including a two-year-old girl. The strike was a target on a car that had been spotted in a compound associated with Islamic State Khorasan Province (IS-K). However, driver Zamairi Ahmadi and aid worker in Kabul had no affiliation with terrorist activity according to US officials. In what is known as a ‘signature strike’, the term given to targets that are not known to US officials, but their pattern of life is indicative of terrorist activity. The legality of the attack can be put into question.
Three days before the strike, a suicide bomber killed over 180 people at Kabul airport including 13 US soldiers, the first US casualties since February 2020; fitting a larger trend of casualties – totalling 363,000 civilians during the US-led war on terror since 9/11. This estimate fails to include the civilians killed during intrastate conflicts that occur once troops have left the country.
The Pentagon’s response to the strike has been to closely monitor the surviving family members and grant them safe passage to the US. Despite this, negotiations have slowed down amid growing criticism of the United States botched withdrawal a month later.
These reports and the use of drone strikes will potentially set back human rights law years since its introduction after WW2 and perpetuate an institutional acceptance of civilian casualties – all in the name of short-term goals.
As Slaughter and Burke-White put forth, international law is not ‘international’ but reflects the relationship between the state and its citizens. The repercussions for military misconduct are unconsolidated and has become politicised to the extent where military wrongdoings are judged by the public rather than international courts.
The use of drones in military operations will continue on an upwards, linear trend due to its cost, innovations in military technology and the safety of soldiers. What we can say, the lack of fundamental intelligence provided to the US in their operations has perpetuated a pattern of civilian casualties. Paradoxically, great powers such as the US, and loosely the UK, should be guardians of International Law and human rights. However, the majority of casualties of drone strikes are not on the ‘kill list’ – and governments can’t even say their names.
Header Image Credit: Pursuit
Journal articles used:
Johnston, P.B. and Sarbahi, A.K. 2016. The Impact of US Drone Strikes on Terrorism in Pakistan. International Studies Quarterly 60(2)
Slaughter, A.M. and Burke-White, W. 2006. The future of international law is domestic (or, the European way of law). Harvard International Law Journal 47(2)