Drone strikes are a powerful new weapon in the war against terrorism. The drones are piloted remotely, usually from a command center in the United States or elsewhere in the world. They are able to monitor a target for hours or days and then, with the push of a button, fire a missile at that location.
The public has a polarized view of drone strikes. Some believe they are morally acceptable because they do not require soldiers to face the danger of direct combat. Supporters also point out that drone strikes allow military personnel to avoid extended periods of separation from their families and the constant fear of a family member being maimed or killed in active combat.
But critics argue that drone strikes are ineffective, risk a high level of civilian casualties, and create an unnecessarily wide gap between the means and consequences of warfare. They also claim that the psychological trauma of living under drones contributes to anti-American sentiment and aids recruitment by armed groups that engage in terrorism.
My research, which included an original survey experiment, reveals that variation in how a country uses and constrains drone strikes shapes the public’s perception of their legitimacy. I find that the public’s recall of unique combinations of norms, including battlefield courage, soldiers’ safety, and the protection of civilians, condition their views on whether a strike is morally acceptable. In addition, I find that a country’s use of drones reflects its conception of the managerial role of great powers in global security and the legitimacy of their use of force.
About the Author
