Drone strikes are an important part of the US effort to disrupt and dismantle terrorist organizations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Pakistan. But relying on drones as the only means to deal with these threats can have significant long-term consequences for regional stability. They can breed resentment among local populations, which can be exploited by extremists for recruitment and bolster their legitimacy as a response to political violence. And they can undermine the United States’ ability to advance its broader foreign policy goals.
Drones can be used for a variety of purposes, including electronic warfare, explosive ordnance disposal, target training, and augmenting logistics. However, they are most commonly utilized for intelligence, surveillance, targeting, and reconnaissance (ISTAR) — enabling the delivery of precision-guided munitions to a targeted area as part of a “kill chain” or in tandem with manned aircraft.
Depending on the circumstances, countries can apply different constraints to their use of drones to prevent civilian casualties. These include unilateral constraints imposed by officials in their own country, such as the Presidential Policy Guidance signed in 2013 that sets a targetting standard for al-Qaeda of near certainty to avoid civilian casualties – and multilateral restrictions such as those imposed by international law or the United Nations Security Council. Our new research shows that the public’s perception of the legitimacy of a strike depends on how it is conducted. Respondents who report that a strike is the product of a multilateral agreement are significantly more likely to perceive it as legitimate than those who report a unilateral strike conducted by their own government.
About the Author
