War is not pretty or glorious. It is ugly and terrible. In the words of William Tecumseh Sherman, “It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, more vengeance, more desolation. War is hell.” (William Tecumseh). Sherman saw war for what it was, in its truest state, at its most raw. He saw first hand patriots, countrymen, and brothers slaughter each other on the field of battle, on their own soil. Given the option to complete the mission, while saving the lives of his men, there is no doubt he would take it. Luckily this option is present to American military leaders today. Through the use of unmanned drone strikes America now has the ability to eliminate enemies hundreds, even thousands of miles away from the target. The capabilities of the MQ-1 Predator Drone, often times simply referred to as a drone, is incredible. However, since its inception in the early 1990s, a debate has been raging over the use of such tactics. Drone strikes are controversial, but they represent an important weapon in the War of Terror, and the need to advance military technology. Drones limit the need to endanger American military members, they are capable of destroying and dispersing enemy militants, and they represent a staple in America’s Foreign Policy across the globe.

America’s War on Terror has been called the Country’s longest continuous war. In fact, the War on Terror is not technically a war at all, as Congress has never officially declared war. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal." Still, the conflict in the Middle East has been on going for the past 16 years, sparked by the terror attacks on September 11, 2001. The felling of the Twin Towers, the World Trade Center, in New York City was a message to the US and the rest of the world. The message was very clear, we are here, we hate you, come and get us. “We,” in this instance would be originally the terrorist group known as Al-Qaeda. As time and fighting went on, many other terrorist groups emerged like the Taliban, the Black Widows, and ISIS. These groups are not countries and do not recognize any borders, forcing the US and its allies to invade several different countries in the Middle East, including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

Ever since the US and Allies began operations against terrorist groups in the Middle East, Unmanned Combat Aircraft have been used, and served vital roles in the combat arena. The aerial surveillance alone offered by the MQ-1 Predator has often been enough to turn the tide in battle. Often times a drone like this is deployed alongside soldiers on the ground as a support option. It offers both a bird's eye view of the battlefield and, if needed, it can switch to an offensive role to  engage the enemy directly. (Siddique). Drones are oftentimes seen only as explosive assassins who can leave nothing but death and destruction in their wake and unfortunately the vital roles they also serve are not talked about.

When used to target specific members of the Al Qaeda organization drones offer a ruthlessly efficient option for termination. “U.S. drones have killed an estimated 3,300 al Qaeda, Taliban, and other jihadist operatives in Pakistan and Yemen. That number includes over 50 senior leaders of al Qaeda and the Taliban—top figures who are not easily replaced” (Byman, Daniel). This statistic comprises of only four years of data on the effectiveness of drone strikes. All of these strikes were approved by the Obama Administration in its first term. Three thousand three hundred terrorists were killed through these strikes, carried out remotely by American or its Allies. There were no American casualties associated with these strikes, while they inflicted devastating damage to the leadership of the Taliban and al Qaeda. To an untrained eye this may not be fully understood, but to those in the military it is an almost unbelievable statistic. Further into the article Osama Bin Laden himself is quoted saying this about the damage done by drone to al Qaeda, “...the rise of lower leaders who are not as experienced as the former leaders and who are prone to errors and mistakes” (Byman, Daniel). What he is saying here is that the death of senior leaders to drone strikes forces lower leaders to be promoted. Anyone who has ever experienced war can attest that the loss of leaders on the battlefield results in confusion and disorder. The replacements are inexperienced and simply not as good as their predecessors, which makes fighting them much easier for the U.S.. The American Unmanned Aerial Combat Vehicle Program’s primary mission is to cause confusion and disorder in its enemy's ranks through the elimination of key personnel, and this quote is evidence of the effectiveness of the program. 

Like any mission in the military, drone strikes do not come without their issues. The taking of lives in war, to put it lightly, is tricky business. Every missile launched against the enemy must be very carefully considered and all options must be weighed and measured. There are two large problems in the program's success, civilian casualties, and retaliation. The former is a very unfortunate, but nearly insurmountable obstacle in warfare. When the drone program saw its first real action under President Bush the percentage of those killed in drone strikes that were militants was 60%, a dismal percentage at best. However, under President Obama this number rose to 85% militant casualties and at the end of his presidency the percentage was closer to 95% (Bergen, Tiedemann). Today that number is still at 95%, to some however, that 5% civilian casualty rate is too high. (Shah). A five percent civilian casualty rate may seem high, but when compared to ground combat it is very low. Some estimates of the casualties in the the Invasion of Iraq are around 2:1, that is, two militants died for every civilian. A statistic like that makes a 5% or 20:1 casualty rate seem much better. Even still this rate is higher than it could be, in recent news it has come out that ISIS militants actively surround themselves with civilians as literal human shields. This dishonorable tactic either keeps them alive, or if they are high valued enough target, forces American leadership to make a very tough decision to eliminate them. 

The other part that factors into the decision to launch a drone strike is retaliation. This means retaliation for the strike by other militants and the general public of the country the strike was conducted in. Militant retaliation comes in a few forms, the most common is a direct physical assault in the weeks that follow the strike on US forces or the civilian population. Part of what makes this conflict so unique in the history of American Warfare is the enemy. They have no problem killing their own people in acts designed to terrorize the population and send a message to their own Government. “The infrequent strikes kept public discontent to a simmer and allowed the host government to avoid publicly denouncing them. These strikes stand in contrast to those in 2009-12, when the sheer number of strikes blew the cover off the program, inflamed public sentiments, and forced the Pakistani government to halt its support” (Goel, Anish). In this article the author examines the issue of Government backlash. When strikes are scarce and infrequent the public does not express as much outrage about them. In the example from the article there was so much outcry that the Pakistani government shutdown in support of the US drone program and effectively ended their presence in the skies. The public wasn’t upset necessarily because of the number of deaths from the drone strikes, but rather because of the death from retaliation. Terrorist groups understand that killing innocent civilians causes public outcry. The public then connects the terror attacks to the drones and protest to stop drone strikes in order to stop the terror attacks. This factor is not well understood by the US Government and they need to be more tactful in how they use drone strikes. It is not only necessary, but imperative that drone strikes be conducted in a controlled and diplomatic manner.

Since the first Homosapiens, modern day Humans, separated from their evolutionary ancestors about 70,000 years ago, they have been innovating. Nothing drove innovation faster than the need to extend human reach in combat. Whether it be with man or beast, the further your body is away from the danger the safer you are. Our distant ancestors made spears that could distance them from the danger of a predator’s claws as early as 400,000 BCE. Twenty thousand years ago bows were invented that could shoot from afar or above (Timeline: Weapons Technology). Humans kept inventing, they made crossbows and catapults and guns. Every advancement was intended to be better, faster, and most importantly, to distance the user from danger.

In the recent past missiles were developed that can shoot halfway across the globe and jets that can circumvent the Earth in a day. Presently however, humans have something that represents a momentous shift the art of war. Automated aircraft capable of destroying targets with the precision and detachment only a machine can offer. This technology has created a divide in the populations of the few countries capable of creating such terrifying wonders. The debate over the use of drones has been ongoing since they were first armed with missiles in the late 1980’s by Iran. 

Since then the United States of America has invested incredible amounts of time and money into their Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) Program. In the 2017 fiscal year alone, President Obama approved the spending of 4.61 billion dollars on “drone-related spending” this actually represents a decrease in spending by 1.2 billion dollars from 2016 (Drone Spending in the FY17 Defense Budget). This decrease does not represent a lessening use of the technology, rather, the Pentagon is seeking to produce cheaper models of drones and allocating more money toward other research projects. The current stage of the UCAV program’s life is a time of stability. It is no longer a prototype or an experiment, it is a fundamental part of the American arsenal and requires less money in upkeep, further pushing the field for new technology.

The success of the UCAV Program has opened a pandora’s box of new innovations onto the battlefield of the future. Robotics has become an ever increasing field in the Military’s research and Development labs, while the cost of robots on the battlefield may seem high it is nothing by comparison to aircraft. For example the cost of one F-35, an aircraft that has not yet been fully cleared for activation, would buy 30 MQ-1 Predator Drones. (Singer, P.W.). The second largest expenditure aside from drones, is America’s arsenal of bomb disposal robots. Many different variations of Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) robots are available, from the 42 pound PackBot to the 350 pound MAARS. These robots have been saving lives since they were first implemented in bulk in 2004. The PackBot specifically has done extremely well in the field and after four years their numbers on the battlefield has increased by a factor of 10 from 1,500 to 15,000 (IRobot 510).

The cutting edge of today’s military robots are the mule robots. They are still in the experimental phase, but their purpose is strictly a support roll. Since the average soldier carries anywhere from 40 to 80 pounds of gear with them purpose of this robot is to take the burden off of 

the soldier, literally. The picture here is of the Big Dog, a Boston Dynamics pack mule robot. These robots are mechanical pack mules that are designed to carry up to 300 pounds of gear for the soldiers. What makes them so revolutionary is through a variety of sensors and programming know how to move in specific formations with the soldiers. They are the first all terrain robots of their kind, they can be outfitted with armor plating, and can even take a direct kick to the body without losing balance.

Drone strikes represent a lot more than just another weapon to kill the enemy with. They are capable of surgically precise attacks on specific targets, and they are a driving force behind the development of more robotics on the battlefields of the future. Another thing they play an extremely important role in is United States Foreign Policy. Much like the nuclear capability of the United States in the Cold War, Unmanned Aircraft are affecting future foreign policy by our ability to attack targets quickly and with extreme precision. Aside from this, the ability to use our drones abroad comes after a great deal of negotiating. Since the war on terror is not against any specific country the United States must gain the permission of the country they are operating in to use drones in their air space. The United States’s real mission must not be lost in during the conflict however, “Short of defeating al Qaeda altogether, a top strategic objective of U.S. counterterrorism should be to prevent fighters in local conflicts abroad from aligning with the movement and targeting the United States and its allies” (Cronin, Audrey Kurth). This idea seems to have been lost over the near two decades until very recently. Until the international campaign of ISIS over the last few years, the United States and her Allies were on a search and destroy mission to kill and dislocate as many militants as possible. During this crusade the real object was lost sight of and drone strikes and entire campaigns were used against the US in militant propaganda. In fact one of the leading tools for recruitment by terror organization is the use of drone strikes against them.

Unfortunately the fallout from the very attacks used to kill militants and prevent terror attacks is used as to recruit for further attacks. To combat this the United States needs to be very careful about the amount of strikes it launches in a given area and over a given period of time. The rise of ISIS has further forced these restraints to be tighter. ISIS excelled at recruiting not only from locals, but from people around the world. Their propaganda spoke of drone strikes and the civilian casualties they cause. While they often incorrectly sight the number of civilians killed and whether the civilians were being used as human shields by the targets of the strike, their words resonated with thousands.

The most current policy regarding drones is good news to some and terrible to others. The current President, Donald Trump, has recently signed a new legislature about the use of drones. The Trump Administration has seen fit to abolish some of the limits set forth by the Obama Administration about the regulation and depth of drone strikes. After Trump’s new declaration the battlefield in which drones can operate in has drastically expanded. It allows strikes from Unmanned Combat Vehicles and Special Forces Units in countries that we are not currently pursuing terrorist activities in. (Schmitt). The reason behind the change is terrorists often move their operations to other countries that the know the US has not jurisdiction to pursue them in, the local government is sympathetic to their cause, or authorities would never look for terrorist cells to be located in. Many people fear, however, that by opening up the these new areas to strikes and raids sets forth a dangerous precedent that the United States will become involved in more and more conflicts and interfere in more countries many believe we have no right to be in.

America is has dug itself into quite a deep hole after over 16 years of conflict in an undeclared war against no nation. Over these years it has lost hundreds of service members from every branch of the military. Thousands of American citizens have lost life or limbs fighting to try and fight terror abroad, while it unfortunately still found its way to the mainland. One of America’s most controversial wars has given rise to good things and bad, one of the most debate things about this Global War on Terror has been the use of Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles or Drones. They have been seen as completely unethical by some, and totally necessary by others. But at the end of the day the numbers show that they are extremely efficient killers that risk no American lives. They have spawned dozens of further projects into the development of new battlefield robotics and represent a very important tool for intimidation and foreign policy. Whether for good or bad drones are here to stay, and it is up to the next generations of Americans and military members to decide the best way to use them.
