Paper on drones / UAV and recommendation

by Uwe Voigt

I.Introduction

a)The US are using drone strikes (named"UAV") to face terrorist groups like Al-Queda in remote areas on foreign soil.The legal status of such activities depends on international law and the kind of mission is the main point of controversy. In the past, these missions have strongly affected the war on terrorism and Al Quaida. A lot of terrorists and their infrastructure were neutralized.

b)Summary of recommendation:
I recommend the support of the UAV's programm pending the demand of legitimation of its legal use according to international law and the UN-Charta. Once legalized, the appropiate use of force and abilities should be chosen to reach the defined objectives. Under this circumstances UAV's are powerfull and effective tools to fight terrorist organisations like Al Quaeda with state of the art modern technologies.

II.Factual background

a)Technical aspects

There is a broad range of Unmanned Aereal Vehicles developed by different countries like the USA,Germany, Pakistan, Iran, Israel amongst others.Their operational abilities vary from close range up to global range missions. These missions can be surveillance, intelligence gathering, reconaissance, electronic attack, conventional attack, supression of air defence or movements on the ground. From the technical aspect there are nearly unlimited possibilities for airborne missions with a variety of moral and legal quality.

b)Legal aspects
Since the US signed the United Nations contract, an involvement in any foreign nations' affairs is only allowed if these countries invite them to participate or if they act under the legality of a United Nations Security Councils Resolution. If one of these circumstances is not fulfilled the United States violate international law-even if there are no boots on the ground. The justification of violence by the claim that a nation is unwilling or unable to support US interests does not change this fact. Even if an action seems to be justified by moral patterns, the legitimation by international law is the only way to keep the action legal.Specially if the victims of a UAV-strike are more than the ones affected on 9/11.

III.Analysis of possible options

a)UAV-missions
UAV missions are cost effective and provide a lower risk than most other options. They provide a broad spectrum of airborne missions of different quality from surveillance to kill missions. The risk of loosing personnel is low and even in the case of a crash the costs of the lost are minimal in comparison to jet crash.UAV-mission are limited by the available information because of the distance to the possible target and in urban areas missions are not always possible. In remote areas where Al Quaida looks for safe heavens UAV missions may be sometimes the only option.UAV can often control an area for a longer period than jets because they need less fuel and the pilot can change whenever it is needed. The lethality is compareable to classical air attacks.

b)Boots on the ground
The second possibility is to send in troops to operate on the ground.These missions, often covered, were made by special forces. These troops are carefully chosen individuals having past long term trainings. Special operations come with a high risk of being killed, been taken prisoner and the possible propaganda options by the enemy if a mission fails. The operations radius on the ground  is often limited. There are logistic problems, too. You have to transport and support troops. This would rise risks and costs and are the apropiate medium to free hostages or solve other high value missions like the killing of Osama bin Ladin.

c)Boots in the air
Classic air strikes are cost intensive and risky because jets are more cost intensive than UAV and are time limited due to the needs of the pilot. In case of a crash it is difficult to bring the the pilot home. Combat Search And Rescue missions(CSAR) are cost intensive and risky. If a pilot gets caught or killed the propaganda effect is critical.

V.Summary

a)Conclusion
The use of UAV is under the circumstaces of international legitimation the best option, due to its effectiveness, low costs and the minimisation of own losses in comparison to expensive and more risky conventional airstrikes or special operations.

b)Recommendation
I recommend the support of the UAV's programm as an appropiate tool to fight terrorist organisations like Al Quaida, because it is possible to supress their activities, attack them where it hurts and gain intelligence about their structure and objective. The technological developments of the last decades made it possible to fight terrorism in a variety of ways even in remote areas and difficult circumstances. A violation of international law can not be supported.



.