This house supports the use of drones by the military

In this final round, I submit my last rebuttal and summarize my previous arguments. Thanks to my opponent for an enjoyable debate. 1. Rebuttal to :: Drones are as bad as planes or missiles In the previous round, I noted the similarities of conventional aircraft and drones. I pointed out that my opponent’s concerns about drones could also be applied to conventional aircraft. In response, my opponent agrees that his case against drones applies equally to jet planes. So you must ask the question, do you support the use of conventional aircraft by the military to target enemy combatants? And, remember, these activities are occurring with the consent of these foreign governments, and, as you will see, have empirical support as an effective military tactic. Are civilians being classified as targets? My opponent argues that drone warfare classifies civilians as targets, creating the illusion that fewer civilians are actually dying. Indeed, this was alleged against the CIA. However, the statistics that I provided do not come from the CIA. The data and casualty rates that I provided in my previous round come from three independent organizations: the (1) New American Foundation, (2) the Long War Journal, and (3) the UMass Drone database, which base their data of civilian casualties on well-reputed news sources like the NY Times, London Times, and local Pakistani sources, and do not rely on the CIA’s data.[1] We can have a high confidence level that the rate of civilian deaths from drones is actually low and not due to data manipulation. 2. Rebuttal to :: Drones push us into wars My opponent states that one of his “major contentions” in this debate relates to the allegedly unjust use of drones in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. He claims there has been no approval of the United States’ use of drones in these countries. I reject my opponent’s claims below. Yemeni Government Supports Drone Strikes On January 8, 2013, Yemen’s national security chief stated the “Yemeni-American cooperation” which includes the use of “US drone strikes against Al-Qaeda targets will continue as the two governments keep up their counter-terrorism cooperation.”[2] This is explicit approval for drone strikes from Yemen’s highest ranking security official. Somali Government Supports Drone Strikes In 2011, the United States began drone strikes originating from an airport in Mogadishu, Somalia – the country’s capital.[3] Somali deputy defense minister Abdirashid Mohamed Hidig stated that the U.S drone airstrikes “will continue until we minimize the enemy from our country.”[3] Somali army spokesman Mohamed Faarah Dirie stated that the U.S. “drone strikes are part of operations to target al-Shabab fighters.”[4] This is explicit approval for U.S. drones strikes from Somalia’s highest ranking defense official and Somalia’s army spokesman. Pakistani Government Supports Drone Strikes Pakistan has permitted the CIA to use a Pakistani airport to launch drone strikes.[5] And, Pakistan’s chief of army staff General Ashfaq Kayan has asked U.S Forces for increased drone surveillance and coverage over Taliban-controlled regions of Pakistan.[6] These actions, among others by the Pakistani government and its officials, indicate approval of U.S. drone strikes, even if they may publicly deny their approval for political purposes. Thus, despite my opponent’s claims, two of the countries gave explicit approval of the drone strikes, and the third gives clear approval through its actions. Drone Strikes are Effective My opponent claims that drone strikes are not effective and should not be used. However, there is strong evidence to believe that drone strikes are a reasonable tactic. The purpose of drone strikes is to cripple and disrupt terrorist groups. One study from Harvard-MIT has shown that eliminating leaders of terrorist groups causes the group to disappear at a much faster rate and is an effective counterterrorism strategy.[7]Further, religious terrorist groups like al Qaeda, are more susceptible to leadership decapitation than other types of groups, making military tactics like drone strikes even more effective.[7] A second study found that eliminating terrorist group leaders created a 30 percent increased likelihood the group would terminate, as well as a 30 percent boost in the probability that the regional government would emerge victorious over the terrorist group.[8] Thus, targeting leaders of terrorist groups is an effective way to disrupt these groups and their activities. This is a justified, effective military approach that is approved by the governments of the countries in which it is being employed. 3. Rebuttal to :: Pacificism is preferable Non-military approaches may be preferable to using force, if the former is possible. However, when dealing with terrorist organizations that are harbored within countries that are incapable of removing these groups, there are few non-military ways to address these groups – and often none. Terrorist groups, unlike nation-states, are not subject to diplomacy. Pacifism will only allow these groups to take root and grow, an unacceptable outcome. Often, military force is necessary. If drones didn’t exist, the U.S. would be required to deploy conventional missile strikes or deploy troops to remove these groups. Both of these cumbersome alternatives – as history teaches us – would be more costly than drones from both a monetary and a moral standpoint. Summary of Arguments for the Use of Military Drones [See Round Two for Full Arguments] 1. Drones provide real-time information that could not be obtained by other means Drones allow the military to acquire real-time information about enemy activities and terrain that could not otherwise be acquired in a fast-changing environment – information that aids tactical choices and improves civilian and allied safety. My opponent attacks the “quality” of the visuals, but it is not the “quality” that is important. Drones allow the military acquire information about areas that could not be observed through conventional means – such as within structures or beyond the frontline – without placing troops in danger. 2. Drones reduce civilian and non-target casualties Because of improved surveillance and precision, drone strikes have extremely low civilian casualty rates when compared to conventional military tactics. These casualty rates have continued to improve over time, to as low as 1 percent in 2012. These low civilian casualty rates make drone strikes a more ethical tactic than previously employed approaches like conventional missile strikes and troop deployment. 3. Drones reduce soldier casualties Drones have the important advantage of keeping soldiers out of harm’s way. Soldiers can employ drones to detect and defuse bombs, investigate buildings, survey perimeters and enemy territory, rescue endangered soldiers, engage enemy combatants, and a multitude of other uses – all without having to place a soldier in a dangerous situation. Drones allow soldiers to accomplish their missions without personally stepping into potential harm, a clear benefit in saving lives. Conclusion My opponent has admitted that drones are functionally the same as conventional aircraft – with respect to their limitations. Further, I have shown that drones are used in countries where the government has given approval, and that drone strikes targeting group leaders are a proven and effective tactic for disrupting terrorist groups. I have also demonstrated the many advantages of drones. Specifically, drones can gather otherwise unobtainable information that aids and protects the military and civilians, and drone strikes reduce civilian casualties compared to conventional military approaches. This house supports the use of drones by the military. Sources [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] http://tinyurl.com... [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com...