U.S. drone strike policies need to change

Fifteen more civilians are dead, killed by an American drone strike in Afghanistan on Wednesday the 28th of September. Among them are students, their teacher, and family members who supported the government – not terrorists, not the Taliban. This incident is just the latest instance of innocents killed from above.

America needs to rethink how it uses drone strikes. A total of 37 out of 44 countries surveyed, as well as half of all Americans, oppose the use of drones. Our current use of them undermines our credibility. If the United States wants to maintain its position as a world leader, things have to change. Specifically, there must be fewer civilian casualties, honest reporting, and international legal agreement about drone use.

{mosads}Drones are a valuable tool.  They are responsible for 60 percent of all intelligence gathering flights and over 5,000 terrorists killed. However, they have also killed between 600 and 1,300 civilians. Six hundred is the United States’ official report while journalists claim the true figure is more than double. This disparity in reporting fuels the perception that officials are skewing the numbers to dampen public outcry.

With drone strikes, we do not know who we are killing. When it comes to declared terrorists, known by name, there is consensus that they are legal targets under the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). There is disagreement, however, about targeting others. The LOAC classifies anyone who participates in hostilities as a combatant. The vagueness of the word “hostilities” allows the United States to target those merely suspected of terrorism in what are called “signature strikes.”

Signature strikes are carried out based on intelligence or real-time observed behavior. They account for 98 percent of drone strikes and for the majority of civilian casualties. Their effectiveness is unclear. What is clear beyond doubt, however, is that civilian casualties fuel terrorist propaganda and recruitment.

The CEO of a company is harder to replace than the janitor. This is why targeting terrorist leaders works. As leadership is removed, inexperienced militants take their place, weakening the group. By targeting only known High Value Targets, America can address the opposition to its drone program while effectively fighting terrorism.

By ceasing Signature Strikes, we will dramatically decrease civilian casualties. As they decrease, so will public opposition and terrorist propaganda.

In conjunction with decreasing civilian casualties, officials need to accurately report the aftermath of drone strikes. Only through transparency and narrowing the disparity in casualty numbers between government and open reporting can we rebuild public trust.

America also needs to address international objection. We should take discussion of drone use to the UN. We should  build an international consensus on the legal definition of combatants, and what constitutes legal drone use.  Through such efforts we can restore the legal basis and credibility of our drone program.

Will there still be civilian casualties? Yes, but these measures will dramatically reduce them.

Will there still be strikes in undeclared warzones? By nature, terrorism doesn’t require a battlefield. America needs to hunt down terrorists wherever they operate with the full cooperation of host nations.

Will more terrorists go free once Signature Strikes stop? Yes, but America is fighting the spread of terrorism, not individual terrorists.

To be effective, our drone strike policies need to change. Decreasing civilian casualties, openly reporting casualty counts and addressing legal issues are necessary to reduce criticism and restore the credibility of the U.S. drone program. We want to keep civilians alive so their families don’t rise up in anger and join the fight against us.  It is not brute force but its wise application that can best serve our interests and keep America safe.

Nate Wallace is a graduate student at George Washington University’s Elliott School of International Affairs studying Security Policy Studies.