Every day it seems there is news about a new drone strike in Pakistan or Yemen. These drone strikes have become a mainstay of the United States counter terrorism program. Though this technology is innovative and quite amazing, it is causing the United States more harm than good. Drones are harming the United States’ efforts to counter terrorism, they are raising questions about whether or not they should be used in the United States themselves, and drones have caused the approval rating of the United States and our president to fall in the international community.

The recent attack on two Pakistani citizens on Friday, November 29 is one of many similar strikes in the region. This strike was suspected of killing two civilians who are reported of having no affiliation with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. This and other strikes like it will only further deteriorate the relations of the United States and Pakistan. From a recent National Public Radio (NPR) article, a man interviewed, Shaukat Yousufzai claimed, “Now no place is safe. Tomorrow it can be Karachi, Lahore, or any other place” (Associated Press). This attitude is one of many that have sprung up in the past few years. As drone strikes increase, the amount of people who want to be seen getting U.S. help will decrease. Dayana Greenfield of The Atlantic magazine argues, “When civilians die, these strikes ensure that a generation of Yemenis, Pakistanis, or somalis will blame the U.S. for killing innocent community members and will create a space for extremist ideology to take root” (Atlantic Magazine). These community problems lead to a government getting involved, and if deadly force is needed, the U.S. may damage the already shaky relationships with Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. While many view drone strikes as detrimental to counter terrorism efforts, some people, such as senator Lindsay Graham, support the contiunied use of drones. When he declared “Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we’re at war, and we’ve taken out some very senior members of al-Qeada” (The Telegraph). This mindset fails to acknowledge the hundreds of innocent people that have been harmed by drone strikes. These were mostly just everyday Pakistanis or Yemenis who were not doing anything to harm the United States. The mindset of collateral damage being acceptable as long as at least one terrorist is dead when the sun goes down, will only further harm the United States intentions of defeating al-Qaeda in the Middle East.

Furthermore, drones have the ability to be used anywhere in the world, including the United States itself. Despite people strongly supporting drone attacks in foreign countries, U.S. citizens oppose strikes within the continental U.S. According to a poll conducted by Gallup Politics, 79% of Americans do not support drone strikes of U.S. citizens who are suspected of being terrorists. Strikes on U.S. soil against legal citizens would not only violate our own constitution, but human rights as well. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a bill of rights that applies to everyone who lives, breathes, and walks on the face of the earth. Article 11 (A) of this document declares “everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved [sic] guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense” (U.N.). When a drone attacks a person, they have no way of being presumed innocent, nor do they have a way of presenting their case to a judge, who just so happens to be an AGM-115 Hellfire missile. A U.S. citizen targeted by a drone violates his or her constitutional right to a fair and speedy trial. Yet again, the fate of a human is put into the hands of a machine that kills without mercy. Some may say that if a warrant issued, the United States may be in more danger than before. This ethos was best exhibited by White House Spokesman Jay Carney who testified “We conduct those strikes because they are necessary to mitigate ongoing actual threats to stop plots, prevent future attacks, and again save American lives These strikes are legal. They are ethical and they are wise” (USA Today). However, if the United States continues to attack our own citizens after striping them of their human and constitutional rights, then American lives are not being saved, they are being extinguished.

Finally, the use of drones by the U.S. in countries abroad has caused the general approval rating of our country and president to go down. In a recent poll conducted by the Pew Research Institute, approval of President Obama’s international policies has gone down in many countries. This is largely because of the continued use of drones as an effective means of fighting insurgents. The survey reports that “In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove or U.S. drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia” (Pew Research). The survey further communicates that the overall approval rating of the U.S. has gone down by 15-30 points in the surveyed countries. A few peole may say that the approval rating of a leader or a policy doesn’t mean anything. They are, however, a key for a nations success. If a country has a low approval rating, it is unlikely that a large technology firm will open a factory making high quality airplane parts, giving people jobs, and generating revenue for that nation. Furthermore, an approval rating will influence nations on who to count as their allies, and who they view as their enemies. By using drones, the United States has instilled a sense of fear into the people of many countries, not just the ones that have been struck. This fear may carry into the minds of leaders, who will turn their backs on the United States.

The continued use of drone strikes in the Middle East by the United States has matured into an international controversy. The strikes have caused the already weakened relationships of the United States and Pakistan, as well as other nations, to become increasingly more alien to the United States, and some still support strikes despite this fact. Even after the death of United States citizens in Yemen, Americans still support the strikes, as long as they do not harm anymore citizens. Yet some think that its okay as long as at least one terrorist is dead. Falling approval ratings of the United States, which could be used to pull it out of the recession, don’t seem to worry anyone. Drone strikes have harmed the United States in more ways than just one, the continued use of them could cause extremists to develop deeper feelings of hate towards the United States, harming us and them when it all could have been avoided by just stopping the un-needed strikes.


Works Cited

Brown, Alyssa and Frank Newport. “In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad.”
In U.S., 65% Support Drone Strikes on Terrorists Abroad. Gallup Politics, 25 Mar. 2013.
Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

Greenfield, Dayna. "The Case Against Drone Strikes on People Who Only 'Act' Like Terrorists."
The Atlantic. N.p., 19 Aug. 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

Jackson, David. “White House Defends U.S. Drone Strikes.” USA Today. Gannet, 05 Feb. 2013.
Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

National Public Radio. “U.S. Drone Kills 5 Outside of Pakistan Tribal Region.” Associated
Press. NPR, 21 Nov. 2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.

Pew Research. “Global Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted.” Pew Global
Attitudes Project RSS. Pew Research, 13 June 2013. Web. 02 Dec. 2013.

United Nations. “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” www.un.org/en/documents/



UDHR. UN, n.d. Web. 30 Nov. 2013.
“U.S. Senator Says Drones Death Toll Is 4700.” The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 21 Feb.
2013. Web. 01 Dec. 2013.