The drawbacks of drones: The effects of UAVs on escalation and instability in Pakistan
| Author | Erik Gartzke,James Igoe Walsh |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/00223433211044673 |
| Published date | 01 July 2022 |
| Date | 01 July 2022 |
| Subject Matter | Regular Articles |
Regular Articles
The drawbacks of drones: The effects of UAVs
on escalation and instability in Pakistan
Erik Gartzke
Department of Political Science, University of California at San Diego
James Igoe Walsh
Department of Political Science and Public Administration, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Abstract
Growing reliance on Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the effort to combat militant groups has led to
considerable debate about the consequences of this new mode of warfare. While critics have focused on the impact
of civilian casualties on militant recruitment and the resulting use of terrorism, evidence suggests that ‘drones’ are
paradoxically more effective in limiting civilian deaths compared to other forms of military force. This article
demonstrates a different causal pathway connecting militant use of force to terrorist attacks. Drone strikes encourage
militants to displace operations to urban centers. Confronted with unfamiliar terrain and greater government
capacity, militants emphasize terrorist attacks against civilians. The article explores these dynamics in the longest
running drone campaign, in Pakistan. While civilian casualties from drone strikes have no discernible effect on
terrorism, strikes that kill militants increase terrorist attacks against civilians in urban settings, while failing to reduce
attacks on government targets.
Keywords
drone strikes, insurgency, terrorism
Introduction
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs or ‘drones’) have
become a distinguishing feature of the US military’s long
war against militant groups. The objective of drone
strikes is to degrade targeted organizations by killing
their active militants and leaders. The capacity of UAVs
to closely monitor potential targets for long periods of
time makes it possible to collect more accurate intelli-
gence on militants’ hide-outs, vehicles, and movements.
Drones are armed with precision-guided munitions,
allowing their operators to act on intelligence and more
reliably strike their targets. The absence of an on-board
crew greatly reduces the cost of UAV operations and also
ensures that the United States does not suffer military
casualties if a drone malfunctions or is shot down. UAVs
also require far fewer ‘boots on the ground’ to sustain
operations in combat areas, dramatically lowering
exposure of US personnel to threats of all kinds and
encouraging the use of force in environments where the
risks of military casualties would otherwise outweigh the
benefits of military intervention (Walsh & Schulzke,
2018). As President Barack Obama’s counterterrorism
advisor, John O. Brennan, explained ‘the purpose of
these actions [using UAVs] is to mitigate threats to US
persons’ lives’ (Becker & Shane, 2012).
US strategy is based on the expectation that targeting
militants with drone strikes will degrade their capacity to
engage in violence. But scholarly research suggests that
such strikes could actually increase attacks by militant
groups. Many observers argue that drone strikes serve
to strengthen the hand of militant groups. A diverse set
of critics – human rights organizations (Cavallaro,
Knuckey & Sonnenberg, 2012), military experts
Corresponding author:
egartzke@ucsd.edu
Journal of Peace Research
2022, Vol. 59(4) 463–477
ªThe Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00223433211044673
journals.sagepub.com/home/jpr
To continue reading
Request your trial