Surveying the Scene: Legality, Drones, and American Anti-Terror Strategy
In the realm of modern warfare, drones have become a contentious topic, with Americans' perceptions of their legitimacy varying significantly depending on their use and the context in which they are deployed.
Tactical drone strikes, used to achieve immediate objectives such as targeting enemy combatants or disrupting operations, are generally viewed as a necessary and legitimate tool. These strikes, which can reduce risks to U.S. personnel and increase precision, are often seen as a crucial component of modern warfare [1][3][5]. However, strategic drone use, designed to influence broader geopolitical outcomes or preempt threats far beyond immediate battlefields, raises deeper questions about legality, ethics, and long-term consequences [3][5].
The preference for drone operations conducted within allied frameworks or with international support is evident, as such operations are perceived as more legitimate and less likely to destabilize global security. Unilateral drone strikes, particularly those without explicit international approval or on sovereign states’ territory, often face criticism and concerns about sovereignty, escalation, and legal authority [4].
Research indicates that conservatives are more likely to support drone strikes, reinforcing previous studies [2]. Moreover, Americans' support for the use of force abroad has a significant impact on their perception of legitimate drone strikes [2].
Scholars such as Charles Rowling and Joan Blauwkamp have noted that U.S. officials routinely invoke polling data to enhance the legitimacy of their policy actions, including drone strikes [2]. The use of drones to support surrogate forces, even without U.S. soldiers on the ground, may be perceived as legitimate by Americans [1].
However, the emergence of drone threats, including incursions and swarms, has underscored the need for clearer legal and operational frameworks to maintain legitimacy and protect homeland security [1][5]. This heightened attention to the balance between tactical effectiveness and strategic restraint, as well as between unilateral action and alliance-based operations, reflects concerns about preserving international norms while adapting to rapidly changing warfare technology [1][3][4][5].
The legitimacy of drone strikes is also closely tied to the avoidance of civilian harm. Mitt Regan posits that avoiding civilian harm may be important to the perceived legitimacy of strikes, while Bradley Strawser reasons that officials have a moral obligation to use drones to minimize soldiers' liability to be harmed during war [2].
In the context of interstate war, such as Iran's response to the killing of Iranian Major General Qasem Suleimani, drone use can heighten tension between countries [1]. Some scholars, like Christian Enemark, claim that drones are "post-heroic" and illegitimate [1].
The sustainability of U.S. drone strikes abroad hinges on legitimacy. President Joe Biden's administration's adoption of an over-the-horizon counterterrorism strategy in Afghanistan and expanded use of drones in other undeclared theaters of war, particularly Somalia, may face legitimacy challenges. Americans may require officials to explain the anticipated gains for national security and the measures taken to prevent errors in over-the-horizon counterterrorism strikes [2].
In declared theaters of operations with international approval, such as France in Mali, a country may entirely evade moral culpability for civilian casualties [1]. However, it is crucial to note that the public does not generally challenge policies and actions it deems legitimate [2].
U.S. officials often extol the virtues of drone strikes and refer to them as "righteous," but they must continue to address concerns about legality, ethics, and long-term consequences to maintain public support and sustain their use in modern warfare.
