“Are Drone Strikes Moral?” Is The Wrong Question

The right question: are drone strikes better or worse than the alternatives?

This essay was adapted from Drones and Terrorism, the new book by Arc editor-at-large Nicholas Grossman, published in March 2018 by I.B.Tauris, (available now).

Upon taking office, Donald Trump changed a lot, repudiating much of Obama’s legacy. But not the drone campaign.

Under both presidents, the CIA and U.S military fire missiles from unmanned aircraft at suspected terrorists and insurgents, primarily in Pakistan and Yemen, as well as a few in Somalia. These attacks take place outside active military theaters, such as Afghanistan, which makes them extrajudicial, outside the laws of war.

In Obama’s eight years, American drones launched 5.6 attacks per month in Pakistan and Yemen. The Trump administration has maintained a similar rate, 4.6 per month. Trump has focused more on Yemen and less on Pakistan, though that continues a trend that began in Obama’s second term.

Because the drone campaign falls in a gray area of international law — not explicitly illegal, but not legal either — and because attacks sometimes kill civilians, the policy is widely criticized, often on moral grounds. However, most of these criticisms judge drone strikes in a vacuum (are drone strikes good or bad?) rather than weighing them against alternative options.

When the United States identifies an individual as an active member of a terrorist organization, or discovers someone is plotting to execute a terrorist attack against an American or allied target, there are at least five potential responses:

• Drone strike
• Airstrike from a manned aircraft
• Ground raid to capture or kill the suspect
• Encourage local forces to handle the situation
• Leave the suspect alone and focus on anti-terrorism

Each comes with trade-offs.

Drone Strikes v. Attacks from Manned Aircraft

American drone strikes sometimes kill civilians. In one of the most egregious incidents, the United States killed 12 people on…