For the final blog post for this class, I thought that it would be interesting to look at data from missions of drone strikes in certain areas of the world. The data was compiled by the New America foundation and provides a non-partisan, transparent update on covert military strikes in country’s such as Pakistan and Yemen. Information is not found out through direct U.S. releases but by news reports either from international or local reporters that have strong sources. I thought it was important to look over something from a non-governmental organization as it provides an opportunity to use what we have learned and gives us an insight into missions that may be otherwise ignored.
The first country I looked at was Pakistan. Pakistan has been ground zero for covert and drone mission since the start of the War on Terror. It has also been the area of great distrust and uncertainty regarding these missions. Locals and governmental leaders have said that the U.S. is infringing on the sovereignty and rights of its people in hopes to destroy national enemies. Too many civilians have either been killed or villages destroyed.
In 2006 two drone strikes killed 94 civilians and zero terrorists. With this data point one can see why those in Pakistan were outraged but most importantly it can as a surprise to me. There was never a large story about an incident pertaining to this and it made it seem as the Pakistanis’ were at fault. But overtime, drone strike became more common and more efficient. The use of drones became greater once Obama took office.
Since 2008, the use of drones has increased 8 fold. Interestingly enough, the kill ratio has moved from civilians to terrorists. In the same period as Bush, Obama has killed the same number of civilians but almost ten times the number of militants. Also, as each year goes on, this percentage distribution reaches zero as of 2014 as all those killed were terrorists while the number of overall drone strikes decreased.
Another country experiencing the same type of covert action is Yemen. In Yemen, a emerging country full of distrust and almost anarchy, terrorist organizations have been able to thrive. Throughout the Bush term, strikes were rare, with only a handful to account for. Only during President Obama’s term as drone strikes increased with over 110 of them. In the beginning there was collateral damage but is was not as bad as in Pakistan. Compared to militant deaths, civilian deaths were equal to only ten percent. But as technology and information became more sophisticated, less strikes were needed while terrorist killed increased and civilians caught in the cross-fire decreased.
To me, the most interesting points about the data is how over time technologies, be it drones themselves, data and intelligence collection or general government workings has seemed to become more precise. We see in data representing Bush that strikes were a lot more deadly on a civilians death basis. But going into Obama’s term, militant deaths increased while strikes and collateral damage decreased. This was not special to one country but both Yemen and Pakistan.
The data also shows that the war itself is evolving. Pakistan is a densely populated country so its easy to see why civilians are likely to be killed. But now terrorist organizations are moving into sparse countries with little government making it harder for intelligence organizations. Although as we see, the technology has worked and terrorist are being struck more efficiently. This is a positive sign for drone and artificial intelligence warfare as it causes less problems. Governments won’t have to worry as much with drone strikes as they have to seemed to become more precise and overall more protective of greater society.
One reservation I had was the increase of drone strikes during the Obama administration. In 2008 Obama preached transparency and respecting rights around the world but the data provided by New America seems to show otherwise. Obama ratcheted up strikes, violating due process or any idea that we are trying our best to respect local populations. There is also the idea that not all data may be correct or believable based on the locations. Just some food for thought.
Overall, I believe that this data has a lot of good points be it pro or anti drones. Most importantly it shows that strikes are becoming more useful to the overall global community. It also shows that the war isn’t ending but moving and so is the use of strikes. The data also doe not forget the underlying issues of collateral damage and being responsible but I think that as time goes on, these ideas will come to more importance and eventually work itself out.
No comments:
Post a Comment