Drone Strikes: Too Dangerous and Selfish

Even if they are shot down, there is no concern over the loss of a human life, since nobody is piloting them. This is probably the biggest advantage of using drone strikes. However, this is an argument in favor of the offensive.

Not caring if unrelated persons are wrapped up in the attack and lose their lives — I’d have to say that’s pretty selfish.

In these past 10 years, over 400 citizens have became victims of both British and American drones running counterterrorism maneuvers in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. The United Nations released a report based on field investigations that indicated as much.

If others are included, such as members of international terrorist groups that were targeted by the attacks, the casualty count would exceed 2,200 people. Even when missile attacks are conducted on foreign soil, no detailed explanation is given to partner countries. This sort of thing is completely unreasonable.

The United Nations’ report calls out the United States in particular, and the U.N. has requested to see all the facts. It is pressing the U.S. to disclose why such actions are considered permissible.

Naturally, Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif has criticized America’s stance on the subject and has appealed directly to President Obama for the discontinuation of drone strikes. The U.S. and the U.K. have an obligation to provide a clear explanation to the international community and all countries concerned. What they ought to do, with real sincerity, is to provide an apology and some form of reparation to those victims who had nothing to do with terrorist activities.

Drones, via remote operation, carry out pinpoint strikes. The frequency of such attacks is increasing markedly under the Obama administration. And it’s not just the U.S. and the U.K. either: Israel is also employing these methods.

It is thought that making integral the use of precision-guided weapons will increase the accuracy of attacks. Nevertheless, operating the machine while looking at a screen at a place some distance away will have negative consequences in as much as it is quite difficult to grasp the present state of affairs at the target location.

U.S. representatives assert that “these tactics are accurate, legal and effective.”* However, the fact of the matter is that the number of civilian victims, including children, continues to rise without end. These military operations are under the supervision of intelligence organizations, such as the Central Intelligence Agency, and the main reason they invite such backlash and distrust is their extreme secrecy, not showing all the cards in their hand.

That sort of attitude will serve to stir up anti-American terrorism. Malala Yousafzai, who called for female education rights in Pakistan and was subsequently shot by Muslim extremists, brought this point up to President Obama.

The voice of a girl who was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize is also the scream of those who continue to be subjected to great danger. The U.S. and the U.K. have to fix their eyes directly on the actual damage that occurs in places subjected to drone strikes.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.