Using Drones instead of foot Soldiers

I'd like to welcome my opponent to this site. My overall argument is that drones should not be used in favor of foot soldiers. I'll try to avoid all references to the Terminator along the way. Quick definitions: Drone - unmanned aircraft owned by the United States Insurgent - anybody deemed by the United States to be an "insurgent" I am limiting this debate to the United States because no other country uses drones as much as they do (so far as we know) To justify this case, I will present four main contentions. To win this debate, my opponent needs to show that each of these four contentions is false, and that there is at least one good reason why drones are superior to foot soldiers. 1) They are prone to failing. Osama Bin Laden stated that the main reason he was able to hold his position at Tora Bora was because drones do not target underground, which is where his fighters were hiding. Drones are highly likely to crash, costing millions of dollars [1]. They are also ineffective at killing those whom they are designed to kill - on average for every one militant killed, so are at least ten civilians [2]. On another occasion, a counter-insurgency adviser to General David Petraeus said that about 98% of the deaths were civilians [3]. This is because drone pilots are more likely to ignore civilians, children and innocents when carrying out their operations, as they don't need to deal with it themselves [4]. These pilots also tend to see the situation more as a video game [5] and have less collective morale [6]. The point is that the war is not without cost, it is simply that it is another race of people we are shifting the cost on to (Pakistanis, Iraqis) although they don't deserve it (as Peter Singer demonstrates in his excellent book "Wired for War"). 2) The United States needs the cooperation of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq to carry out their operations successfully - otherwise the entire country will decide to start hating the United States and thus become insurgents. These are largely tribal countries, where bravery is an important virtue. The cowardice of drone strikes, coupled with the large civilian killings, breeds public disgust. Therefore using drones exclusively will not solve the problem of terrorism, rather make it worse[7]. Further, surgical precise killings of a few critical positions, as drones offer, do not actually harm the movement at all. New leaders simply come along. The problem is the supply lines, and these cannot be dealt with from the air - ground personnel are needed! Remember what happened after we killed al-Zarqawi in 2006 [8]? 3) The lack of percieved risk may cause certain governments to start wars more frequently [6]. Using drones often will make it seem like you don't need to risk people's lives to go to war - and thus governments will attempt to impose their will on others whenever they want. God help me if New Zealand is caught in the crossfire! Actually lives will be lost, whether it be in the aggressor's country or the defender's. Who knows - maybe enemy drones would prove more effective than yours. 4) Their legality is, at best, questionable [9]. They appear to ignore the Geneva convention as they do not differentiate between civilians and soldiers. There is no specific law allowing their use in warfare. When the CIA tried to kill Baitullah Mehsud using drones, the drones took the lives of between 207 and 321 civilians before, fourteen months and two plane crashes later, Mehsud was found and killed. Properly trained and equipped, an elite unit would have been able to achieve the same effect without the civilian casualties and at a lower cost. I'm all for not risking lives in battle, but drones take more lives than ground fighting. They're a dangerous precedent, they won't work and they're illegal. That's why I'm proud to be opposing the motion. [1] - http://www.cleveland.com... [2] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [3] - http://afpakwar.com... [4] - http://www.nytimes.com... [5] - http://www.economist.com... [6] - http://www.japcc.de... [7] - http://www.wired.com... [8] - http://washingtonindependent.com... [9] - http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com...