The use of drone strikes to eliminate terrorists around the globe has become a defining pillar of the United States’ post-9/11 counterterrorism strategy. And although the subject of targeted killing remains controversial from both a legal and human rights standpoint, the deployment of drones in counterterrorism operations abroad has undoubtedly enhanced American security.
“The increase in Predator (drone) shots is a tactic that definitely kept us safer, as an enemy always playing defense cannot effectively recruit, train, plan, rehearse, and launch attacks against the West,” writes Cipher Brief expert and former CIA Chief of Station Kevin Hulbert.
The spontaneity of precision drone strikes has driven numerous terrorist leaders into hiding and has forced targeted groups to reevaluate their movements. “We know from declassified letters written by terrorism’s most notorious leader, Osama bin Laden, that drone strikes significantly altered how al Qaeda operated and communicated,” says Lieutenant Colonel Bryan Price, Cipher Brief expert and Director of the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy.
Beyond serving as a disrupting mechanism, drone strikes often deal significant blows to terrorist groups’ operations and capabilities by locating, targeting, and removing high-profile terrorist leaders.
“Drone strikes have removed scores of senior terrorists from the battlefield, including top officials from al Qaeda, its affiliates, and the Islamic State,” explains Price. “Replacing foot soldiers is relatively easy, but replacing experienced senior leaders is hard and disruptive to these organizations.”
While drone strikes have played an essential role in keeping terrorist organizations on their heels, their use has also incited debate over whether such strikes may actually trigger the unintended consequence of contributing to terrorist recruitment efforts.
“Indeed, even critics have acknowledged that drone strikes ‘can protect the American people from attacks in the short term,’” writes Sarah Kreps, Cipher Brief expert and Associate Professor of Government at Cornell University. “Rather, it’s the longer-term consequences—creating more terrorists than they kill because of blowback—that have ruffled more feathers among critics,” she continues.
Drone strikes that result in civilian casualties may inevitably result in the precise “blowback” that the U.S is aiming to avoid. Those who witness the deaths of friends or family as a result of a U.S. launched drone strike may ultimately be more inclined to take up arms and join militant groups that strongly oppose U.S. Others may develop a negative attitude toward the U.S. due to a perceived disregard by the American government for civilian casualties, limiting their willingness to cooperate in U.S. initiatives and intelligence collection.
As part of its broader attempt to become more transparent in regard to U.S. drone strikes, this summer, the Obama Administration released data on civilian casualties from drone strikes carried out between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015. The report distinguished between two categories of drone strikes: those that occurred in “areas of active hostilities,” which includes Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and those which have been conducted outside areas of active hostilities, in countries such as Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Pakistan.
According to the data provided by the U.S. government, during that timeframe, President Barack Obama authorized approximately 473 drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities, which killed between 2,372-2,581 terrorists and between 64-116 civilians across Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, and Libya. Other non-governmental organizations have estimated slightly higher numbers, with their figures averaging out at 506 drone strikes that have killed 3,040 terrorists and 391 civilians. The number of drone strikes authorized by President Obama has far surpassed that of his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who approved approximately 50 drone strikes outside areas of active hostilities that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians.
“Our actions are effective,” declared President Obama during a speech delivered in May 2013 at National Defense University. “Don’t take my word for it,” he continued. “In the intelligence gathered at bin Laden’s compound, we found that he wrote, ‘We could lose the reserves to enemy’s air strikes. We cannot fight air strikes with explosives.’”
Currently, drone strikes play a crucial role in the campaign to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria and in pushing back against recent Taliban advances in Afghanistan. As of November 2, the U.S. had carried out 12,354 air strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria since August 2014 as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, and approximately 640 in Afghanistan in the last year.
But despite years of being targeted by drone strikes, terrorist groups such as al Qaeda, continue to conduct operations in several countries around the world and threaten U.S. interests. This speaks to the broader U.S. counterterrorism strategy, which places a heavy emphasis on the use of drone strikes but focuses less on outreach and de-radicalization fronts.
“Drone strikes are, on their own, incapable of defeating terrorist groups,” says Price.
And questions will continue to linger surrounding the laws that regulate the use of drone strikes in counterterrorism operations. Yet irrespective of the uncertainty, the security impact of drone strikes has been unequivocal. “Simply put, these strikes have saved lives,” stated President Obama.
Bennett Seftel is the Deputy Director of Editorial at The Cipher Brief. Follow him on Twitter @BennettSeftel.
