The targeted killing of suspected terrorists and enemy soldiers by drones is rapidly moving from controversial innovation to standard government practice around the world. Pakistan’s announcement that it killed three suspected terrorists in a drone strike on Monday, September 7, makes Pakistan the fourth country to use drones in combat after the US, UK and Israel. News of the Pakistani strike followed the controversy that erupted in the UK over Prime Minister David Cameron’s revelation that two British nationals had been killed in an RAF drone strike in Syria.
Some opponents of drone warfare argue that it is immoral, nothing more than the summary execution of suspects. But drone strikes typically take place in lawless areas or combat zones, making them no different from the bombardment of pirate nests or enemy outposts, except that they are less indiscriminate in the damage they cause. Ground invasions and conventional air strikes tend to cause more collateral, unintended deaths among civilians than drone strikes.
Another argument holds that drone strikes backfire by alienating populations and generating ‘blowback’ or future terrorism. This
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in