Drones have obtained massive publicity in the news raising controversies all over the globe. Michael Boyle in the article The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare develops his take on the war artillery that is prominently utilized in the United States. The drones have received a lot of support for assisting in the annihilation of terrorists such as Baitullah Mehsud, a Taliban leader in Pakistan. Presidents in the United States have all spoken in favor of using drones to bring an end to the battle against terrorism. However, people are still doubtful concerning whether the war artillery will introduce more harm than good. This essay attempts to develop a succinct analysis of the consequences and costs of utilizing drones to bring an end to terrorist activities.
The entire planet is well aware of the bombings that took place in America on September 11, 2001, that resulted in the deaths and injuries of several people in Times Square. From then on, the United States publicized their critical stand against terrorism using forceful mechanisms to root out the men and women behind the attacks. Drones emerged to assist in bringing down Taliban and rebel leaders from their hideouts. The battle artillery is an unmanned aircraft that is controlled remotely in the United States Army Base to strike several regions in the Middle East where the terrorist live. According to Boyle (2), much of the debate regarding drones is directed towards the legality of using the weapon under the domestic and international law. The controversy fails to evaluate the long-term consequences of the drones in ending terrorism.
Boyle (3) outlines that the conventional wisdom behind utilizing drones strikes is penetrating the ungoverned spaces in countries such as Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan to root out and kill the “bad people”. However, fighting fire with fire is sometimes not a rational option since most of the publicized drone strikes only ignite the willingness of new individuals to join the Taliban groups. The drones also deepen the worldwide anti-American sentiment and corrode the legitimacy and stability of the local governments in the affected nations. The United States undermines the claims of the leaders in the Middle East regions by portraying powerful indications of their subservience and helplessness. They are declared incapable of pursuing or controlling their internal affairs by allowing America to always intervene (Boyle, 19).
Countries have boundaries that are meant to prevent foreign interference of people from other regions unless there is a documented charter that declares a free pass. When the United States takes the stand of using terrorism as the reason they have to penetrate the borders of many countries, they break down the sense of safety and freedom felt by citizens in the affected areas. The people may live in fear not knowing when the next drone strike will occur or whether they will be caught up in the crossfire. Occasionally, innocent lives are lost in the process even though both governments agree to conceal the information from the public.
The argument developed by Boyle is clearly substantial in showing the forcefulness of America and the helplessness of the nations affected by the drone strikes. It also depicts that the United States is fighting a battle that will only result in worse consequences by encouraging more rebellious attacks from those who feel that they were accused wrongly or want to exert vengeance. The drone strikes break down the foundations of humanity by encouraging violence, polarizing, and destabilizing victims (Boyle, 3). In support of Boyle’s conclusion, the drones will only embolden American rivals, reinforce the US anti-sentiment, and create a public rationale to resist the leadership of the America in establishing an international order (Boyle, 29).
Work Cited
Boyle, Michael. The Costs and Consequences of Drone Warfare. International Affairs, 89 (1) 2013, 1-29.
