Submitted by David Hale-Mowry

The Obama Administration’s use of drone strikes in the Middle East has become a big talking point for both Trump supporters and left wing Obama disputants. The right has used his record to degrade the reputation of Obama while some left wing voters have used it to criticize the public opinion on the former President.  

The Obama Admin normalized the use of drone strikes as an effective way of eliminating militant and terrorist threats in the Middle East.  U.S. Counterterrorism launched 542 drone strikes in Obama’s 8 years in the White House, they successfully eliminated over 3900 targets.  Included in that number are the 324 civilians who were either caught in the dealings of the targets or were in the proximity of the strike.  Those 324 civilians are the subject of mass criticism as the Obama admin is continually accused of acute carelessness.  Most can agree that those civilians did not need to die, but defenders say that the strikes were made with the prospect of a short term sacrifice in exchange for a long term gain.  Various terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS have been responsible for thousands of deaths around the world, ISIS was specifically responsible for 1,200 deaths across the world (excluding Iraq and Syria), while Al Qaeda was responsible for 8,585 deaths from 2000 to 2013. The Obama Admin effectively eliminated Al Qaeda with the killing of Osama Bin Laden in 2011 and severely diminished the strength of ISIS up until the death of the leader of ISIS, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, in 2019.  

The point to be made here is that drone strikes provide an effective way of eliminating terrorists before more harm can be done.  ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other extremist groups in the Middle East have been responsible for thousands and thousands of innocent deaths in the region and around the world.  Being the Commander-in-Chief involves making extremely tough decisions, usually decisions of life and death.  The Obama Administration's decision on drone strikes have saved the lives of countless civilians both in the MIddle East and around the world. Opposers have accused the former President of being cavalier about the deaths of civilians, but the argument can be made that he was the opposite.  The decision to make the trade off between a small number of civilians in exchange for the thousands of future lives saved is an extremely heavy and tough decision to make, but nonetheless, the right one.  In addition to the positive tradeoff, the drone strike method of eliminating targets is far safer for U.S. troops in the region.  In previous wars, ground assaults and battles have proven to be highly dangerous with mass casualties and mass structure destruction. The development and advance of modern weaponry has just made these potential encounters more and more dangerous.  As seen in the two World Wars and essentially every other war, civilians are always involved and always the subject of crossfire and explosions. With drone strikes, civilians are still tragically involved but the amount of overall deaths are significantly lower than they would’ve been if the U.S. engaged in a grounded battle where the amount of destruction would’ve likely been the same.  

To be clear, the use of military forces in the Middle East should strictly occur in the name of Counterterrorism.  The use of military force in the name of resources, specifically oil, is abhorred.  There is not and should not be any justification for the attacking of innocent civilians or the waging of war on a group or nation in the name of oil profit.  There is a strong distinction between the use of drone strikes to prevent the future loss of innocent lives and the use of drone strikes or military force to line the country’s pockets.  Since 9/11, the U.S. has spent at least 2.8 trillion dollars on Counterterrorism, that averages out to 141 billion dollars per year.  The U.S. also spends $81 billion dollars per year to protect global oil supplies.  The fact that the U.S. spends more than half of the amount of money per year spent on counterterrorism, on protecting oil, should be shocking to U.S. Citizens.  Defending the use of drone strikes as a means of counterterrorism and preventing future attacks, is justifiable, but there is no justification for doing that as a means of making money.  

The comparison between the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes and the Trump administration’s wouldn’t seem to be significant but it indeed is.  According to the Chicago Sun Times, in Obama’s first two years, he launched 186 drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen.  According to that same source, in Trump’s first two years, he launched 238.  That same article goes on to provide the data that in Trump’s first two years, he carried out 176 strikes in Yemen, Obama carried out 154 strikes in Yemen during his eight years in office.  If those numbers stay on track and Trump were to stay in office for a total of eight years, he would have 704 total strikes in Yemen.  That is a 457% increase in Yemen drone strikes from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.  The Trump Administration’s decisions regarding drone strikes don’t go along with the fact that deaths from terrorism around the world have consistantly decreased by 22% since it’s peak in 2014.  It seems that the need for drone strikes in the Middle East has gone down but the drone strikes have gone up, the justification for the increase is only something the Trump Administration can provide.

To get the full picture, you need complete transparency.  That is something the current administration has not provided.  In 2016, President Obama signed an Executive Order stating that the CIA had to report civilian deaths in the situation where a drone strike was called.  President Trump then reversed that order, his National Security Council called it “superfluous” because Congress had passed a law requiring the Pentagon to report civilian deaths but not the CIA because it was previously covered by President Obama’s Executive Order.  In addition to this, the President reversed rules that required the military and CIA to limit targets to high-level militants instead of common foot soldiers.  So the main question to be asked here is, why has the current administration been so relaxed about drone strikes and civilian deaths? Again, that is something only the Trump administration can answer.  One conclusion that can be drawn is that the lack of transparency is certainly troubling.  After the hidden use of torture and interrogation that occured after 9/11, it is paramount that the public know what kind of operations the US Military and CIA are conducting and how many civilian deaths occur doing those operations.  With little transparency, enemies have the opportunity to create an anti-US narrative where the U.S. government is supposedly waging war on innocent civilians and trying to hide the fact that they’re doing so.  In addition to it benefiting the enemy, the lack of transparency makes it increasingly difficult for our allies to defend the use of U.S. drone strikes in the region.  As the region stabilizes we must lay everything out on the table for the public to evaluate and make decisions on whether our government and military conducted itself in a respectable and effective manner.

Bibliography

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/03/25/world/map-isis-attacks-around-the-world.html

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

https://www.statista.com/statistics/426252/deaths-and-injuries-from-terrorist-attacks-worldwide/

The-united-states-has-spent-at-least-2-8-trillion-on-counterterrorism-since-9-11

Us-spends-81-billion-a-year-to-protect-oil-supplies-report-estimates.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/drone-program-strikes.html

under-donald-trump-drone-strikes-far-exceed-obama-s-numbers

http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2017/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-2017.pdf

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47480207