Drone Strike Effectiveness
The theme of this weeks lecture and blogs are about the effectiveness of drones. Drones are a very controvercial topic in the United States and all around the world. People question drone strikes effectiveness based on many different comparisons. Death of civilians vs. militants, cost vs. benefit, moral vs. unmoral. These are all issues and counter issues that my peers as well as the public have with drone strikes. I think that we must do what it takes to stop terrorism and never allow another attack against our homeland at any cost. However, today, I am going to rid myself of these social biases and purely look at the numbers. I will break down the drone strike effectiveness over the course of time in 2 different countries. Furthermore i will dissect these different years in regards to different presidents. Lets start with the country of Pakistan.
Pakistan encountered its first drone strike in 2004 under the Bush Administration . From 2004-2007 the average number of strikes a year was about 2.5 Then in 2008 the number of drone strikes spiked drastically to 36 strikes. When Obama took over in 2009 the number of drone strikes began to rise dramatically, reaching a high peak in 2010 with a whopping 122 drone strikes, essentially a drone strike every 3 days in Pakistan. From there until 2014 the number of strikes has continuously gone done over time. These numbers only show that Obama did a significantly larger amount of strikes then bush did. Well if we look into these numbers we find some interesting information. Bush had a total of 48 strikes and killed about (lets just use the highest of civillian and militant numbers for study purposes) 141 civilians and 350 militants. Those numbers added together equals 491 people who have died under bush 48 strikes. 29% of the people who died under Bushs strikes were civillians. Lets look at Obamas numbers. Over the course of 346 strikes there were 166 civilians killed. (which is only 25 more then Bush and almost 300 more strikes *hint hint*) and 2,607 militants were killed. The division of that math comes out to 6% of civilians killed in 346 attacks which is almost 8 times the drone attacks of Bush. The proof is in the pudding here. Clearly if you look at this information our drone strikes have become extremely effective, in regards to killing the enemy and sparing the innocent. Obamas administration has taking effectiveness to a whole new level. Obamas administration has issues 8 times the amount of attacks while keeping the number of casualties or civilians roughly at the same number as bush mere 48 strikes did. Not only has he kept the casually number down but sky rocketed the number of militants killed. Even more effective in 2013 and 2014 the number of casualties was almost nonexistent while we still killed over 300 militants.
In Yemen the numbers are even more clearer. Apart from one drone strike in 2002, the Obama Administration was aiding Yemens forces fight terrorist forces. There were 117 strikes in Yemen most of which took place after 2011 when United states went to help. In these strikes there were about 1082 kills. Out of these 87 civilian (once again highest number) were killed. The number of civilians killed is about 8%.
My conclusion is as follows. The effectiveness of drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen has increased significantly. However more proof in Pakistan because of two different administrations and a longer time span. The success rate of drone strikes under Obama totals out to about 92-94% success. By looking at these numbers its pretty effective. There are a lot of things that one could speculate about why this sudden rapid success rate saw such a sharp increase. My best guess is some sort of beak through in technology and training. It could be a rise in the number of strikes but i don't exactly know how or why that would keep the casualty numbers stabile. Im not in the military but i can do the simple math. A 93% success rate at the university of maryland gets you a 3.8 GPA and a great job after college.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe numbers from the NAF do look promising, but they are worth questioning. In my post I mention a previous article that points out inconsistencies in the NAF numbers and reason to be skeptical about how many civilians are actually killed. Additionally, the way those strikes are perceived around the world is critical. If they are seen as inciting fear among civilians and another instance of the US killing innocent Muslims, then they need to be re-evaluated by US policy makers. Part of the problem is the sheer number of people who dislike our actions, and you can't kill your way out of that problem.
ReplyDelete