Firstly, let's think and reason.

This is the very first ACADEMIC essay I have ever written in my entire life. 

As you can see and read further on, I have basically got a long way to go in terms of academic writing capabilities. My approach to writing was rather "reflective" and very, crude and "unprofessional".

Well, when you are down, there is only one other direction you can go and that is up!

The topic was about drones and how their increasing use on modern warfare is one for good or for worse.

Enjoy. Haha.

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Drones are not all bad – but what if Isis starts using them?

 
Drones are good, but only in the right hands.

         Mary Dejevsky seems to think so and also says cyber warfare is here to stay even if we do not like it. So, Drones are the future of Modern Warfare. This wondrous technology could disintegrate anything instantly, without ever stepping foot into enemy lines.

Modernized, accurate, safe (for the good guys) and dangerous (for the bad guys). So, what’s the fuss about? Exactly. The killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansoor, as controversial as it seems for violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, and the lack of any reaction or questions from the world confirms what Dejevsky is saying. Drones are now taken for granted, and I agree with her. The world seems to be content with the given knowledge that those killed were “terrorist”. “We’re saved!” or “Terrorists deserved it!” is all the pacification needed. Looking at this report of the 150 “militants the US had killed in Somalia just recently this March (G. Greenwald, 2016). All that was said is that they were Al Shabaab, and they were attacking US personnel, without evidence but assumptions and hunches. There was no official proof to back up the accusations except from US “officials”. However, life continued and the world thought they were safe because the “terrorists” were annihilated. “We don’t know who they are, but luckily they were all bad.”(G. Greenwald, 2016, para 3) Statements like this show that we are a very ignorant, malleable, naive bunch.

The Somali attack does raise concerns on whether the US had jurisdiction for it. Furthermore, even with evidence of no war between the US and Somalia and that Al Shabaab is focused on Somalia (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 8), was there justification? Looking back at Pakistan, Dejevsky mentions John Kerry justifying the attack because Mansoor was a threat to US personnel. She also mentions of Reyaad Khan who was killed in Syria by Britain on the same grounds; he’s a threat. Period. However, were they? And, as Dejevsky puts it, where is the line between self-defense and murder by State drawn?

Hence, these attacks leaning towards illegality is something Dejevsky fails to mention. From above, no evidence is needed except the “credibility” of authority, in this case, the US and Britain. An article by The Spectator (I. Hardman, 2015) tells us no evidence for the attack or the legality was shared in Khan’s case. Furthermore, it was made public only later that he was a threat to Iraq instead (I. Hardman, 2015, para 3). So, was the ruckus about British defense just to silence everyone on the illegal attack in Syria? The US is not at war with Pakistan and Somalia (J. Keating, 2013), nor is Britain with Syria (E. MacAskill, and R. Norton-Taylor, 2015 “How was the decision made” para 1). So, on what basis where these attacks given the green light and without consent from the attacked state?

“Since 2001, the U.S. government has legally justified its we-bomb-wherever-we-want approach by pointing to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)” (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 8). “The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States”(“ Joint Resolution,” 2001, Sec 2, para 1) This does not justify attacking Al Shabaab, who only came to existence after 9/11. Accusations of “being a threat” are not justifiable enough without providing proof or grounds. This also brings us back to how the world just takes for granted the usage of these drones. It’s bloodcurdling to know they can just attack anyone, anywhere and anytime without a reason but their own justification claiming “survival”.

Technology is perpetually advancing, warfare included, says Dejevsky. Drones started with George W Bush however, under Obama, their usage has more than doubled. (“Drones: What are they”, 2012, para 5) And the list of countries incorporating them into their military is rising steadily (C. Dillow, 2016, para 8). This shows how integral drones are for modern warfare’s future. However, is it an unfair advantage as Dejevsky suggests? She does however continue that it has never stopped countries in the past to miss out the opportunity of advancement for fairness. Obsolescence is a guaranteed by product for advancement with all its callousness and in all true honesty, I do agree with her to some extant. Superior technology has always been the forefront in winning and ending wars throughout history. Ethics, she says is a double-edged sword with fairness, or your citizens and assets. However, if we want to talk about ethics, were the attacks discussed above, ethical? The emphasis that these countries are not at war cannot be made clearer.

Dejevsky talks of the precise accuracy of the drone capability and how it spares both civilians and fighters on both sides. Though her mentioning of open questions still remains, I believe there is evidence to suggest that both the accuracy of the drones and its “safeness” can be disputed. Apparently, 90% of those killed in drone attacks are not the actual targets (G. Greenwald, 2016, para 13 & M. Fang, 2015). From the words of a drone pilot himself, when “a missile fired from a U.S. drone hits an area, bystanders rush to the scene to help the wounded, and the drone, still overhead, kills the rescuers.” (C. Friedersdorf, 2016, para 8). Let’s not forget Aleppo and Kunduz where hospitals were “mistakenly” targeted. The severity of which I feel Dejevsky fails to emphasize. The many cases of “accidents” like the wedding party in Yemen (H. Almasmari, 2013) and the tribal meeting in Pakistan (“US drone strike kills 40”, 2011) are just a few of the countless reports out there. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch published “reports fiercely criticizing the secrecy that shrouds the administration’s drone program, and calling for investigations into the deaths of drone victims with no apparent connection to terrorism. In Pakistan alone, TBIJ estimates, between 416 and 951 civilians, including 168 to 200 children, have been killed.” (M. Sledge, 2014, para 5). To add, the “killing anonymous men who appear to be associated with terrorist or militant armies through observable behavior — comport with the bedrock principle of distinction founded in international humanitarian law”(M. Zenko, 2016) proves how unethical it has become. “Anyone caught in the vicinity is guilty by association. A drone strike kills more than one person, there is no guarantee that those persons deserved their fate. … So it’s a phenomenal gamble.” (M. Fang, 2015[1]) shows how shocking their “justification” is.

No matter how accurate it may be, humans are still the master puppeteers. And yes, humans make mistakes. There’s no questioning the precise accuracy of drones, but whether or not we are "ethically" safe from it, is extremely debatable.

Dejevsky argues the only reason ISIS and other groups have not attacked with this technology is because they lack the capacity. However, she also mentions of how the western countries are developing counter measures for hostile drones. Why would defense measures be necessary if she claims so? This is where Dejevsky has fallen short. The list of countries acquiring drone technology is getting longer everyday. And with China producing cheaper drones (C. Dillow, 2016, para 3), it’s only a matter of time before everybody acquires it. And the West knows it.

         Lastly, another issue I disagree with Dejevsky is her stance of no risk to the combatant. Every action has a consequence and the extensive usage of drones is only going to have an adverse affect for our future. Drones will soon be a mainstay and that will plunge us into endless nonstop conflicts (M. Mazetti, 2014). This “downward-spiraling” possibility is a risk if drone warfare continues at this rate, for both user and receiver.

To summarize, I believe Dejevsky brought up agreeable points like drones taken for granted. However, to claim they will fly freely till the “enemy” gets them is something that draws concern. I believe international regulations and legal frameworks should be set now instead of waiting for the gap to be narrowed. From my analysis above, it shows that drones are causing more harm than good even in the hands of the “good guy”. Moreover, at the rate at which everything is spiraling, I would not want to stick around when the gap is narrowed.

X----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

My usage of certain words like "blood-curdling" and how I'm very subjective and showing an inclination to a certain side and emphasizing it, are things that I need to take note of.

I've got a long way to go.

However, I really did enjoy CCO101!
One of my favorite modules so far.