RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 1 Drones and the War on Terror Ibraheem Bashshiti George Mason University "By placing this statement on my webpage, I certify that I have read and understand the GMU Honor Code on http://oai.gmu.edu/the-mason-honor-code-2/ and as stated, I as student member of the George Mason University community pledge not to cheat, plagiarize, steal, or lie in matters related to academic work. In addition, I have received permission from the copyright holder for any copyrighted material that is displayed on my site. This includes quoting extensive amounts of text, any material copied directly from a web page and graphics/pictures that are copyrighted. This project or subject material has not been used in another class by me or any other student. Finally, I certify that this site is not for commercial purposes, which is a violation of the George Mason Responsible Use of Computing (RUC) Policy posted on http://copyright.gmu.edu/?page_id=301 web site."
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 2 Introduction: Drones is an example of Information Technology that presents many benefits. The primary purpose of drones is to increase the efficiency of any daily life aspects. The paper to follow will discuss the use of UCAVs in the War on Terror. My stance is UCAVs provide many benefits in efficiency and make war easier. Benefits of WCAVs: UCAVs lower the number of cases of PTSD, allow for fewer fatalities, more effective intelligence gathering, and better security protocols because fewer ground troops need to conduct the above tasks. Ethical Concerns: The big concern of war is how to address the problem of war? Some other problems are the need of a Fail-Safe System to prevent unnecessary fatalities and the possible IT Security Protocols for minimizing other forms collateral damage because of aerial strikes. For example, a terrorist organization accessing a drone from a remote location presents a grave concern. Legal Issues over authority (extralegal?) and Societal Benefits: The legal problems over jurisdiction is easier to control by allowing other actors to know in advance the concerns by integrating the political system into long-term problems UCAVs provide a Public Good because the use is non-rivalrous, and the benefits are non-excludable and have a net profit to society Conclusion: The goal is to reaffirm thesis with an open-ended hook to suggest alternatives or further research. The anecdotal evidence is different from a probability of success, so the theory is valid. Afterward, the goal should relate it back to the JUST WAR TRADITION and whether the consequences are controllable.
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 3 Inherently, drones present numerous benefits to efficiency within society and may aid in the current concern about terrorism. On the other hand, people may have a fear of drone technology presenting ethical problems like engaging a potential threat. Today, the use of drones is a human perception, and an association of drones to a new technology for the primary use in modern warfare. A commonly misunderstood term is technology, so throughout the paper, the operational definition will be a tool, an existing process, or a new method of achieving efficiency. The definition will allow the reader to comprehend technology in a positive (or what-is) sense. The argument to follow will present the beneficial results of drone technology in different capacities, the ethical concerns drones present, develop legal implications and social benefits, and introduce the theory of national defense (or security concerns). A drone, or Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), is an example of Information Technology that presents many benefits to the U.S (Springer, 2013, p. 1). The primary purpose of drone technology is to increase the efficiency of any daily life aspects like in the case of war. The section to follow will elaborate the use of UCAVs in the War on Terror. The idea behind UCAVs as a benefit is apparent in when the use can lower the number of cases of PTSD, allow for fewer fatalities, allow for more efficient intelligence gathering, and allows better security protocols (Berokowitz, 2014, p. 160). Drones are useful because the US does not need to send or to utilize ground troops needed to conduct the above tasks. In other words, the costs of engaging in conflicts are significantly lower than through the use of other modern autonomous mechanisms that present less information technology and safety protocols, and the effectiveness is lower because of the reliance on gathering information through the use translators (Berokowitz, 2014, p. 162). Also, a drone can be operated semi-autonomously or operate independently of assistance for multiple efficiency purposes. The benefits of the development of drone technology in war may clarify the purpose of drones like the Predator and the Reaper for the exclusive gathering of information (Berokowitz, 2014, p. 163). UCAVs present a powerful use of
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 4 information technology, for instance, the use of drones gave the US the capacity to gather information in countries like Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, and many other countries that present a valid concern of perceived terror threats. According to P. W. Singer, the introduction of unmanned systems to the battlefield doesn't change simply how we fight, but for the first time changes who fights at the most fundamental level (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 338). The use of the Predator and the Reaper allows the US to deliver direct strikes and efficiently reduced the need for ground troops in particular areas (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 337). Modern warfare and the advancement of technology go together. The idea of drone technology is to optimize the outcomes with surveillance and direct strikes to combat potential societal threats and the minimization of other external factors that may result in more unnecessary fatalities and causalities of war (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 338). Also, further research suggests the benefits of a UCAV lowers the need for ground troops because fewer people will have PTSD as result of engaging in ground combat. Also, soldiers have a tendency of shoot first ask later, for instance, research in social psychology shows individuals are violent due to external factors like presence of a gun and the fight or flight reaction leads to reacting more on instinct. So, soldiers may be less aware of their actions and engage because of fear (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 348). Naturally, a further examination the use of drones, in the section to follow to further understand ethical concerns of UCAVs. The ethical concern behind UCAVs is the use of the information technology still does not address the problem of war and the unintentional consequences like collateral damage (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 343) The unintentional consequence relates to the need of a Fail-Safe System to prevent unnecessary fatalities and the possible information technology security protocols for minimizing other forms collateral damage because of aerial drone strikes in other regions. For example, a potential concern of UCAVs is possibly a terrorist organization accessing a drone from a remote location that may harm multiple individuals (Brunstetter et. al. 2011, p. 344). The idea of hacking drones presents a valid
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 5 concern; however, the technology is already there and understanding the use will lessen the potential risk posed by drones. In essence, drones in the war on terror may change the way we fight wars, but, in many cases have affected the people living in foreign sovereign countries regarding the death toll of countless innocent civilians and may present a valid concern for advancing the use of technology (Coll, 2014). The best way to elucidate the issue of unnecessary deaths is presented many journal articles like "the Unblinking Stare" in the New Yorker which offers a reason to the direct effects of drone technology in Pakistan and lesser extent Yemen (Coll, 2014). Coll takes the stance at the idea of drone technology used by the US government delivering strikes as room for judgment errors in the actual calculations. Coll (2014) takes a differing position and that the problem of strikes as a modern technological innovation for war elucidates the concerns of possible costs concerning reparations for over 400 attacks delivered in Pakistan that led to many civilian fatalities(coll, 2014). The US government needs to be more transparent and accountable for obvious missteps. Costs of aerial drone strikes are beneficial to understanding the underlying problem of US involvement in conflicts that are peripherally related to the real issue of technology in war(coll, 2014). Concerns of non-state actors like the Taliban and al-qaeda present a deepening concern about the lack of transparency in US foreign policy decisions(coll, 2014). Coll (2014) makes a valid logical argument for transparency through possibly more involvement of other governments like Pakistan who are directly affected by interventionist policies. The relationship of the ethical concern of the "just-war tradition" shows that the war and whether it is actually carried with fewer consequences worsens the divide(k.k.,2012). In the section to follow, I will address the legal drawbacks, social benefits, and the theory of national security to explain the inevitability of changing dynamics in society as a result of advancing information technology. The legal issues over authority and the consideration of extra-legality, as well as the societal benefits, show a close relationship to the national function security (Brooks, 2014,, p.85). Brooks addresses the viewpoints of the advancement of the drones with the length of time to modify new
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 6 legislation and any another necessary function to lay out potential international concerns. As of recently the consequence of transparency and accountability comes into consideration when individuals face the consequences of war (Brooks, 2014,, p.100). People want to know the cost of using information technology and the idea leads to a lot grayer areas in policy decisions. However, political actors leave the basis of information on the need to know, or only certain individuals can understand because of the inherent risk of making information more publicly accessible (Brooks, 2014, p.90).. The legal issues over jurisdiction can be addressed when it is easier to control by allowing other actors to know in advance the concerns through integrating the political system under a common international law(brooks, 2014,p.101). Over time the process of integration reduces long-term problems associated with UCAVs and provides an idea of a public good because the use of UCAVs is non-rivalrous and the benefits are non-excludable and do have a net benefit to society. Information can be more efficiently gathered without necessitating confrontation through drones, and people can experience the benefits within high-risk areas due to terrorism. The solution to the legal consequences is the need to be more integrative and the benefits to societies affected by terrorism outside the U.S. gain the benefits by not having to face the fear of an unpredictable enemy organization (Brooks, 2014,, p.85). The section to follow will conclude the paper, connect the ideas together, and offer further suggestions to improving operational research with UCAVs. The goal of information technology is to make aspects of life more efficient in many respects. Drones, or UCAVs, effectively allow for many positive advancements in optimizing the way the US and potentially many other governments that experience the benefits regarding fewer fatalities, fewer injuries, better information gathering, lower costs and long-term conditions like PTSD due to war. Also, some literature on drone technology and extra-legality tend to suggest alternatives and further research into common law and integration of other government actors on a case-by-case basis because of the reduction of conflicts. Brooks (2014), for the most part, suggests that the need for collective
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 7 international law and the courteous of recognizing the rights of a sovereign country to know the extent which internal problems may be achieved through bilateral agreements or pacts. The need for information technology safety protocols appear to improve over time as fewer people face the consequences of aerial strikes; however, it is necessary and sufficient for continuing to improve. The anecdotal evidence, as well as the success of the implementation, suggest UCAVs provide a market to solve the deepening concern of terrorism. The just-war tradition exemplifies the way conflicts should be dealt with to minimize the consequences that are controllable.
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 8 Annotated Bibliography Berkowitz, R. (2014). Drones and the question of "the human." Ethics & International Affairs, 28(2), 159-169. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0892679414000185
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 9 Berkowitz wrote the scholarly article, Drones and the question of "the human. The paper examines the use of drones in modern day society from Amazon delivery systems to its use in modern combat. Ideally, the article is relevant to further the idea of the multi-faceted use of drones and presents several countries who use the UCAV against potential combatants. Drones much like the Reaper and the Predator were put to solely gather information to deliver tactical strikes in areas like Pakistan. The author tries to offer a perspective into modern thought over the ethical concerns posed by drones. He addresses the viewpoints of the advancement of the technology before potential enemies have access to it and the case against it. The article is relevant to the specific applications on the war on terror and real-world issues of efficiency. Ultimately, the paper offers an overview and allows the reader to elucidate any historical and anecdotal theory as to the effectiveness of UCAV. Brooks, R. (2014). Drones and the International Rule of Law. Ethics & International Affairs,28(01), 83-103. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2296&context=facpub Rosa Brooks wrote an article entitled Drones and the International Rule of Law in the scholarly journal Ethics & International Affairs. The paper examines the use of drones in modern day society from international law standpoint. For the most part, the article provides relevant information to extend the idea UCAV further, and the problems present the concern of accountability. Drones were put to gather information to deliver tactical strikes in areas solely; however, the use provides a need for more international transparency over potential conflicts of interest. The author tries to offer a perspective into modern thought over the legal concerns posed by drones; also, the best case scenario is to define the jurisdiction levels and to involve potential external state actors. Brooks addresses the viewpoints of the advancement of the drones with the length of time to modify new legislation and any another necessary function to lay out potential international concerns. The article is relevant to the specific
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 10 applications on the war on terror. Ultimately, the paper offers an overview and allows the reader to elucidate any legal consternation and the effectiveness of enforcement over UCAV strikes. Brunstetter, D., & Braun, M. (2011). The implications of drones on the just war tradition. Ethics & International Affairs, 25(3), 337-358,247. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/900868439?accountid=14541b Brunstetter and Braun wrote an article entitled The implications of drones on the just war tradition in the scholarly journal Ethics & International Affairs. The article is best summed up by a quote from P. W. Singer, the introduction of unmanned systems to the battlefield doesn't change simply how we fight, but for the first-time changes who fights at the most fundamental level. Do drones allow for a greater capacity to act on a just cause in a more proportional way? The goal is to assess the revolutionary idea of drones in the war on terror, and potentially fewer ground troops will be necessitated to fight against, and equivalently human error is less likely to occur. The argument extends the logic to the point of fewer fatalities and fewer causalities. Drones can gather information and can semi-autonomously to deliver tactical strikes with a human controller. The author tries to offer a perspective into modern thought over the ethical concerns posed by drones Brunstetter and Braun address the benefits of drones against potential enemies; however, the authors discuss more of the benefits with little consternation for the drawbacks like possible civilian fatalities. The article is accurate to the concept of the of drone, technology, and the just-war tradition. Brunstetter and Braun help people understand the need for drone technology and the effectiveness of UCAV. Coll, S. (2014, November 16). The Unblinking Stare. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 11 Steve Coll, a staff writer at the New Yorker, takes a stance at the idea of drone technology used by the US government delivering strikes as room for judgment errors in the actual calculations. Coll takes the position the problem, and drone strikes play as a modern technological innovation for war elucidates the concerns of possible reparations for over 400 attacks delivered in Pakistan that led to many civilian fatalities, and the US government needs to be more transparent and accountable for obvious missteps. The news article is beneficial to understanding the underlying problem of US involvement in conflicts that are peripherally related to the real issue of technology in war because war is costly. The concern of non-state actors like the Taliban and al-qaeda present a deepening concern about the lack of transparency in US foreign policy decisions. Coll makes a valid logical argument for transparency through possibly more involvement of other governments like Pakistan who are directly affected by interventionist policies. K., K. (2015, April 22). Fallout reaches the ivory tower. Retrieved February 16, 2017, from http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/04/drone-strikes-andinternational-law The blog authored by an unknown individual at the Economist discusses the idea of legality, responsibility, and international human rights laws to deal with problems associated with drone strikes. The author offers a general idea best summarized by the success of drone strikes as an improvement to much older technology. The Reaper and the Predator may be involved in more one case where the goal led to many civilian fatalities. The responsibility becomes more of the main government actors within the US; however, the problem of dehumanized warfare is addressed well with an objective view of original goals within countries like Pakistan and Yemen who received the most of the drone strikes. The paper is best suited to provide opposition to drone strike without both necessary and sufficient cause to use in war.
RUNNING HEAD: Drones and the War on Terror 12 Springer, P. J. (2013). Military robots and drones: a reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. P.J. Springer wrote a historical handbook entitled Military robots and drones: a reference handbook to address the concept of information technology and its application throughout the war. The book lays out the UCAV and how it has attention from the public. UCAVs provide useful tools to avoid conflict altogether by gathering information. The book gives a topological view of the debate between the effectiveness and efficiency of UCAVs but the legal complications presented through lack of information over the legal rules as well as internalization costs. Springer makes use of information gathering and provides a starting point for the paper to follow.