If asked about the United States’ involvement overseas, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq likely come to your mind right away. We have been bombarded with media coverage throughout the conflicts, and both have played a crucial role in modern American history.
However, how much do you know about the American drone program that has been underway in Yemen, Pakistan and Somalia?
Drone strikes started under the Bush administration as a way to take out terrorists from afar. At the end of Bush’s presidency, a total of 52 strikes were carried out, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Then President Obama came into office and racked up 280 strikes of his own.
And the attacks have been incredibly unpopular around the world.
On June 13, the Pew Research Center released a poll which surveyed people in 20 of the most prominent countries. In all but three countries (the United States, Britain and India), more than half of participants expressed disapproval toward the drone program that has become so central to Obama’s counter-terrorism policy.
So why are our attacks against terrorists so unpopular around the world?
The answer: civilian casualties and cover-ups. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism reports that at least 551 civilians have been killed in drone strikes overseas, with at least 200 children being reported dead. Thousands more have been injured by the attacks, and those are only the numbers that have been confirmed. Meanwhile, the United States has done its best to cover up its role in the death of innocents.
In fact, the first Yemeni drone strike that Obama ordered killed 21 children and 14 women in the village of al Majala.
The Yemeni government took credit for the attack at first, but a leaked diplomatic cable later revealed that Yemeni officials were deceiving their citizens to keep pressure off the United States.
A New York Times article by Jo Becker and Scott Shane also revealed how the Obama administration has redefined the word “militant” to mean any military-aged male in a strike zone. Involvement in terrorist organizations has nothing to do with it. Administration officials defended this by stating that people in the strike zone were “probably up to no good.”
That revelation gives new meaning to the countless headlines detailing killed “militants.”
However, the strikes have been effective at killing terrorist combatants. Most recently, al-Qaida’s second most prominent leader, Abu Yahya al-Libi, was killed by a drone strike in Pakistan, and there have been many more besides him over the years.
Yet, the drone strikes are likely causing more harm than good. Besides damaging our standing in the international community, drone strikes have also served to radicalize the populace in the countries we target and undermine the United States’ image as a paragon of freedom and justice.
A few years ago, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula had only a small presence in Yemen, but over the years it has grown much more influential and is considered to be one of the main threats to the United States today. Undoubtedly, drone strikes have had a hand in that.
If you don’t want to take my word for it, there are plenty of officials who are saying the same thing.
Robert Grenier, the former head of the CIA’s counter-terrorism center, recently stated that “we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield” with our use of drones.
Of course, defenders of the program abound. Most celebrate the “pragmatism” and “realism” that Obama (and Bush before him) have shown in carrying out the strikes that “defend our freedom.”
Gene Lyons, writing in the Arkansas Times, praised Obama’s “realpolitik” strategy and characterized critics of his policies as those who would “deal with terrorists by sending flowers and promoting group therapy.”
Defenders also frequently claim that the President has to do something and that the drone strikes are the best option we have.
Yet, are the strikes truly worth the damage to our national ideal and image?
Let me leave you with this question: If you believe that striking fear into the hearts of terrorists justifies the deaths of innocent men, women and children, what makes you so different from them?
David Scheuermann is a 20-year-old mass communication and computer science sophomore from Kenner. Follow him on Twitter at @TDR_dscheu.
 
____ Contact David Scheuermann at [email protected]