Search

Begin New Search Topic Drones Political Geography United States

1. Pick your Poison: Assessing the Strategic Effectiveness of Decapitation via Drone Strikes by Looking at the Organizational Dynamics of Targeted Groups

Author:
Gabriel Boulianne Gobeil
Publication Date:
09-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
Institution:
Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies
Abstract:
Leadership targeting, or decapitation, which involves the removal of an organization’s leader, has been utilized in various military conflicts. The use of drones has been particularly consequential in such schemes, earning themselves the reputation of being “Washington’s weapon of choice.” The existing literature on leadership targeting gravitates around the question of the practice’s strategic effectiveness, focusing on the targeted groups’ internal characteristics to explain their (in)ability to withstand decapitation. However, this literature overlooks a key feature of terrorist groups, namely their identity’s organizational dynamics. Highlighting the importance of group identities in determining the outcome of decapitations, this article fills this void. Looking at the cases of al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sharia in Yemen, it argues that groups which have a global identity are likely to retain cohesion when their leaders are the victim of decapitation while groups whose identity stems from an ethnic or tribal lineage tend to fragment, therefore creating “veto players.”
Topic:
Terrorism, Military Strategy, Drones, Leadership, and Conflict
Political Geography:
United States, Iraq, Middle East, and Yemen

2. The ad bellum Challenge of Drones: Recalibrating Permissible Use of Force

Author:
Alejandro Chehtman
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Journal Article
Abstract:
Drones constitute an incremental advance in weapons systems. They are able to significantly reduce overall, as well as collateral, damage. These features seem to have important implications for the permissibility of resorting to military force. In short, drones would seem to expand the right to resort to military force compared to alternative weapons systems by making resorting to force proportionate in a wider set of circumstances. This line of reasoning has significant relevance in many contemporary conflicts. This article challenges this conclusion. It argues that resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would usually be disproportionate. The reason for this is twofold. First, under conditions of radical asymmetry, drones may not be discriminatory enough, and, thereby, collateral damage would still be disproportionate. Second, their perceived advantages in terms of greater discrimination are counteracted by the lesser chance of success in achieving the just cause for war. As a result, resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would generally be disproportionate not because of the harm they would expectedly cause but, rather, because of the limited harm they are ultimately able to prevent. On the basis of normative argument and empirical data, this article ultimately shows that we need to revise our understanding of proportionality not only at the level of moral argument but also in international law.
Topic:
International Law, War, Military Affairs, Weapons, and Drones
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, United States, and Europe

3. Making Drones Illegal Based on a Wrong Example: The U.S. Dronified Warfare

Author:
Gloria Shkurti
Publication Date:
10-2016
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Institution:
Turkish Journal of Middle Eastern Studies
Abstract:
A concoction between the technology, entertainment and military has resulted in a ‘new’ kind of warfare, which has started to determine the American counterterrorism strategy, the dronified warfare. The U.S. for a long time now has been the leader in the production and usage of armed drones and has attracted a lot of criticism regarding the way how it conducts the drone strikes, which in many cases has resulted in civilians killed. The U.S. dronified warfare has become the main determinant when discussing the legality, morality and effectiveness of the drone as the weapon, as many critics fail in distinguishing drone as a weapon and dronified warfare as a process. This paper argues that if analyzed separately from the U.S. example, drone is a legal and moral weapon. Nevertheless, the paper emphasizes the fact that the U.S. must change its current way of conducting the strikes by being aware of the fact that the irresponsible way it is acting in the Middle East and regions around, sooner or later will backfire
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Strategy, Counter-terrorism, and Drones
Political Geography:
United States and North America

4. Are U.S. Drone Strikes Legal?

Author:
Kate Martin
Publication Date:
04-2016
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
There has been much controversy and criticism about drone strikes conducted by the United States, especially those that have targeted Al Qaeda operatives outside Afghanistan in Yemen, Somalia, and the border regions of Pakistan. Many questions have surfaced about the effectiveness of using drone strikes. There is also a widespread perception that strikes have killed many civilians and that they are illegal. The Obama administration recently promised to release information about the number of civilians killed, as well as its policy guidance governing drone strikes outside Afghanistan. However, this new information is unlikely to directly address the question of what legal framework governs such drone strikes. In fact, the Obama administration has never been completely clear about its views on the legal basis for the drone program. But an understanding of the legal framework is necessary to evaluate the new information and the legality of the drone program.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, Al Qaeda, Drones, and Legal Theory
Political Geography:
United States and North America