Drone Attacks in Counterterrorism - Research Paper Example

The moral principles of aerial bombing in warfare revolve around the categories laid down by the military itself. The military responds to aerial bombing in a positive way by defending it on different grounds. They put forward the moral assessment known as Jus ad Bellum to defend these aerial bombings. According to this principle, the nature and threat of the terrorist would determine the type of action against them. The terrorists living in the remote areas of these third-world countries are known to belong to the terrorist organization which threatens the United States. Thus the nature of the terrorists living here determines the reaction of the United States against them.

The calamities that are done by these drone attacks are also morally justified by these people. They believe that innocent people harboring terrorists are equally involved in the activities of the terrorists because they are aware of the wrongs that they have committed. Moreover, aerial bombing would also discourage the people who would be holding these terrorists.

Similarly, just in Bello is also given as a moral justification for the aerial bombings that are happening. This moral principle states that the attacks should be discriminated against and proportionate. The aerial bombings that are happening are targeted at certain people who are terrorists and mostly harm them. In this process, some of the innocents may be harmed too but the proportion of the harm that these terrorists might cause is considerably higher.

Some policies can be implemented to ensure that drone attacks are morally accepted. These policies include restrictions on aerial bombing where civilians are also cited along with the terrorists. These restrictions should only apply in situations where a large contingency is not involved. The proportionality should also be checked by these policies so that these drone attacks become morally acceptable.

International Humanitarian Law applies to armed conflicts where target killings occur. The people who are participating in the war are the lawful targets of the military whereas those who are not participating are unlawful targets. The targeted killings in a war are not measured on the basis of the numbers but are rather based on the proportion of the harm done to the civilians. A good military is one that maintains this proportion to its advantage and makes the least harm to the civilians. All these rules apply in international and noninternational conflicts within the states (Alston, 2010-05-28: 9-10).

President Obama has taken major steps in curbing the roots of terrorism in the world. The CIA has used 400-500 drones under his regime to kill the suspected terrorists. During these drone attacks around 20 civilians were also reportedly killed. However, this official figure has been denied by many claiming that a lot more lives have been taken in this process.

Pakistan on the other hand states that around 700 civilians were killed and only 14 terrorists were killed during these attacks. This clearly shows that the drone attacks in the Frontier region of Pakistan are immoral and biased. These attacks are not following the moral principles of jus in Bello as the casualties of civilians are greater than the casualties of the terrorists. Similarly, an American Foundation states that the strikes in the northwest region of Pakistan killed almost 1210 individuals out of which two-thirds were militants. The overall situation of drone attacks has still been challenged by many organizations all over the world. The organizations and leaders argue that drone attacks are violating the international law of war.

I personally believe that drone attacks against terrorists should be stopped as they do not comply with international humanitarian law.