In early October, President Joe Biden signed a classified policy that placed limitations on the use of drone strikes outside areas of active conflict. This policy restored limitations that had been removed by the previous administration. The new strategy is designed to limit strikes in countries such as Somalia, Yemen and now Afghanistan, where the United States had previously carried out counterterrorism drone strikes. While the Biden administration has certainly made splashier headlines, the importance of more restrictive policies on drone strikes should not be undersold.
The move shows that the United States, albeit protractedly, has acknowledged and responded to the number of high-profile catastrophes that have resulted from the frequent use of drone warfare. One such calamity came during the withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, when an American drone strike resulted in the deaths of 10 civilians, including seven children. While obviously long overdue, Biden’s decision to reign in the United States’ frequent use of drones will undoubtedly establish a positive precedent in counterterrorism policy and go some way toward helping the country’s moral standing in the global community.
On the surface, drone warfare seems to be an efficient solution to a thorny problem. Theoretically, the use of drone strikes allows the military to eliminate enemy combatants without endangering the lives of American soldiers. In reality, the situation is usually far more complex. Zemari Ahmadi, the man who was targeted by American drone operators in the strike that resulted in 10 deaths in Afghanistan in August 2021, worked for an American non-governmental organization (NGO). Unknown to him, he was under surveillance by an American drone for several hours as operators interpreted his everyday actions to be preparation for some terrorist action. As Ahmadi drove up to his home and his three children ran to meet him, the drone operators fired a missile at his car, resulting in Ahmadi and nine others being killed.
A New York Times investigation in 2021 found that American intelligence on targets of drone strikes was frequently faulty and often resulted in civilian deaths. The Pentagon’s own internal documents contained over 1300 reports of civilian casualties from American drone strikes. Despite former President Barack Obama’s promise that increasing the use of drones as American troops left the Middle East would result in the “most precise air campaign in history,” the evidence reveals that it has been anything but. Due to the shockingly high number of civilian casualties, it is entirely debatable whether drone strikes even benefited broader American military strategy. Although the new policy put in place does not specifically address intelligence failures, the hope is that reducing the number of strikes will lead to much fewer fatal miscalculations.
Due to the very nature of drone warfare, drone operators are entirely detached from the dangers of traditional combat. Those who are the victims of drone strikes are also detached, but in a far more sinister way. Unlike in traditional warfare, those who are under surveillance by drones have no way of knowing that they are a potential target and therefore cannot surrender or defend themselves. Drone operators essentially function as judges and executioners of people who are completely innocent in many cases. Dozens of families whose homes were struck by missiles fired from drones had no idea why their homes had been marked by drone operators as places of potential terrorist activity, and usually received no clarification from any credible sources on the topic. The nature of these strikes without cause on families and homes could also potentially serve to increase the difficulty of achieving peace in tumultuous regions of the world, such as the Middle East. If someone’s house was attacked by an American drone for no reason at all, it is not unimaginable that anyone who survives such an attack would begin to feel some animosity toward the United States.
Given the slapdash nature of American drone operations in the last 10 years, it is long past time for new regulations that limit the unfettered use of drone warfare. However, there is still more that can be done. The new policies do not outline any consequences for those who have ordered drone strikes resulting in the deaths of innocent people or implement reviews of improper strikes. There is still a clear lack of accountability and oversight of the drone program, even if its scope has now been limited. The reforms implemented by the Biden administration are a good start when it comes to fixing the American drone program. But if Biden intends to fully see the issue through, he and his administration must go beyond adding more regulations and ensure that the Pentagon faces accountability when drones are used improperly.
Theodore Brita is a junior majoring in political science.
Editor’s Note (11/9/22): An earlier version of this article included a comment from Sarah Yager, director of Human Rights Watch, that stated she was in support President Joe Biden’s recent change in drone policy. Yager’s comment was referring to a separate initiative by the Pentagon. Pipe Dream regrets the error.