Drone Warfare
Since the Bush administration, CIA drone strikes have become increasingly popular in the “War on Terror.” Although drone strikes have several pros, like the fact that they are more accurate than landing troops on foreign soil, drone warfare is still ineffective since it reinforces terrorist support and since it aims to fight in an imaginary war against al-Qaeda, creating unforeseen and catalytic consequences.
The political message of drone strikes emphasizes the disparity in power between the parties and reinforces popular support within the Middle Eastern countries for the terrorists (and terrorist activity), who are seen as David fighting Goliath. Where can the families of the eliminated victims direct their anger when the act of an enemy is so distant and superior that he is untouchable? Therefore, lone-wolf terror attacks are seen as the only viable option for the weak fighting against a powerful empire. Gregory Johnsen, a scholar of Near East studies at Princeton University, showed that drone attacks tended to have an opposite effect of causing a mass uproar (particularly when innocent civilians were injured) and causing al-Qaeda to grow threefold instead of bringing the “war on terror” to a close.
Branded the “War on Terror,” the Bush administration started drone warfare after the attacks made by al-Qaeda on September 11thin which he inherently legalized political assassinations; however, to call the pursuit of al-Qaeda a war would be inaccurate. Sir Christopher Greenwood, the British judge on the International Court of Justice, has written: “…there is no basis for speaking of a war on al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, for such a group… is merely a band of criminals, and to treat it as anything else risks… giving that group a status which to some implies a degree of legitimacy.”1 Unlike the U.S. role in World War I&II which was against standing countries, this declaration of war against a simple group has done nothing but bolster its’ status
The political message of drone strikes emphasizes the disparity in power between the parties and reinforces popular support within the Middle Eastern countries for the terrorists (and terrorist activity), who are seen as David fighting Goliath. Where can the families of the eliminated victims direct their anger when the act of an enemy is so distant and superior that he is untouchable? Therefore, lone-wolf terror attacks are seen as the only viable option for the weak fighting against a powerful empire. Gregory Johnsen, a scholar of Near East studies at Princeton University, showed that drone attacks tended to have an opposite effect of causing a mass uproar (particularly when innocent civilians were injured) and causing al-Qaeda to grow threefold instead of bringing the “war on terror” to a close.
Branded the “War on Terror,” the Bush administration started drone warfare after the attacks made by al-Qaeda on September 11thin which he inherently legalized political assassinations; however, to call the pursuit of al-Qaeda a war would be inaccurate. Sir Christopher Greenwood, the British judge on the International Court of Justice, has written: “…there is no basis for speaking of a war on al-Qaeda or any other terrorist group, for such a group… is merely a band of criminals, and to treat it as anything else risks… giving that group a status which to some implies a degree of legitimacy.”1 Unlike the U.S. role in World War I&II which was against standing countries, this declaration of war against a simple group has done nothing but bolster its’ status