Drone strikes are supposed to work like this: Bad guys are identified after careful monitoring, and with a push of a button a drone fires missiles into their heads. Unfortunately, that doesn’t always happen, and civilians are often hit by mistake. That enrages whole communities and turns them against the United States. Their government, reacting to the outrage, vows to oppose the drone program. And it isn’t clear who can replace the drones and still get the job done.
The drones themselves are often weaponized commercial unmanned aerial vehicles that can be used for electronic warfare, explosive ordnance disposal and target training. They may also carry munitions for direct attack or to facilitate kill chains and manned-unmanned teaming (MUVs). Smaller drones are man-portable and can be used for surveillance and reconnaissance missions. Larger drones are equipped with sensor suites and can be used as “motherships” for smaller drone swarms or to conduct autonomous attacks.
More than three dozen countries now have armed drone programs, and non-state actors such as ISIS have acquired their own. The lack of transparency and oversight on the part of cooperating governments makes it nearly impossible to determine whether a drone strike conforms with international law. This Note calls for the US to cease double-tap drone strikes and to make its criteria for targeting individuals as transparent as possible. If it does not, its covert operations will set a dangerous precedent that will have lasting implications for American security in the region even after its withdrawal from Afghanistan.
About the Author
