Drones, Locals, and the Ideological “War on Terror”

In his book, Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement, Daniel Byman notes that, “US actions that outrage the population allow terrorists to portray themselves as Robin Hoods and make the people more willing to overlook their brutality, extreme ideology, and repeated attacks on fellow Muslims (Byman, 204). Drone attacks may eliminate some extremists but the damage it causes within the community is detrimental to the United States if its goal is to win the ideological “War on Terror”. Establishing peace in the Middle East cannot be done through drone strikes or military training, other tactics must be used to illustrate al Qaeda’s flawed ideology.

Drones: saving American lives, but at what expense?

Byman states that while there were only a few drone strikes during the Bush administration, President Obama favored drones as a counterterror strategy as it eliminated targets without putting U.S. soldiers at risk. Although, drones have crippled al Qaeda by forcing senior leaders into hiding they have also caused America to lose its moral high ground. This bolsters the terrorist narrative and is not effective when countering affiliate organizations who have many members and potential leaders (Byman, 209). In order to persuade the local population America actually wants to create peace in their region drone strikes must be phased out. Although, saving American lives is important, the men and women who bravely step forward and join the military recognize that they may be deployed at one point to defend their country. According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, The UN counted 46 civilian casualties from drone strikes in 2015 and 57 in 2016 in Afghanistan.* Taking the warrior out of war may save American lives but it could also prolong the “War on Terror” by encouraging blowback.

Byman states that civilian casualties are an “affront, especially when these casualties come at the hands of a foreign government, and can inflame nationalism” (Byman, 202). The unpopularity of the United States in the Middle East further elevates this tension. Jihadist groups are able to recruit new members by pointing to the United States drone strikes. Another way in which terrorist groups like al Qaeda and ISIS spark anger and discontent is by pointing to unstable governments. Attempts to train the local military police force have been unsuccessful because of corruption within the government. Instead of a consistently trustworthy governmen, Muslim nations are often plagued by brutal regimes. By arguing they can provide a more reliable, albeit oppressive, regime locals may be persuaded to support terrorist groups.

The best way to fight terror in the Middle East is to discredit the organizations which advocate for violence. The United States should emphasize, “how bad the jihadists are, not how wonderful America is” (Byman, 212). It’s hard for an American to convince a person who was taught songs of how horrible America is in Elementary school that the United States is a land flowing with milk and honey. Critics of al Qaeda within the Muslim world hold more credibility than any propaganda scheme the United States could offer. Al Qaeda and its affiliates have killed many more Muslims than Western Jews or Christians (Byman, 212). This should be highlighted not to illustrate how great America is compared to the Middle East but to depict the inconsistent and harmful tactics used by terrorist organizations. This could deter young people from supporting them and eventually result in more stability in the Middle East.

Citations:

Byman, Daniel (2015). p. 204-212. Al Qaeda, the Islamic State, and the Global Jihadist Movement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, "Afghanistan: Reported U.S. Air and Drone Strikes 2015." 12 Feb. 2015. Retrieved 20 April. 2017.