Reforming U.S. Strike Policies Drone Reforming Cover photo: A U.S. Air Force MQ-9 Reaper from the 62nd Expeditionary Reconnaissance Squadron takes o! from Kandahar Air Base, Afghanistan, on March 13, 2009, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (Sta! Sgt. James L. Harper Jr./U.S. Air Force). Council Special Report No. 65 Council on Foreign Relations January 2013 58 East 68th Street Council No. 65 Special Report New York, NY 10065 tel 212.434.9400 Micah Zenko fax 212.434.9800 1777 F Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Reforming U.S. tel 202.509.8400 fax 202.509.8490 www.cfr.org Drone Strike Policies Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies Council Special Report No. !" January #$%& Micah Zenko Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher dedicated to being a resource for its members, government o'cials, business execu- tives, journalists, educators and students, civic and religious leaders, and other interested citizens in order to help them better understand the world and the foreign policy choices facing the United States and other countries. Founded in %(#%, CFR carries out its mission by maintaining a diverse membership, with special programs to promote interest and develop expertise in the next generation of foreign policy leaders; con- vening meetings at its headquarters in New York and in Washington, DC, and other cities where senior government o'cials, members of Congress, global leaders, and prominent thinkers come together with CFR members to discuss and debate major international issues; supporting a Studies Program that fosters independent research, enabling CFR scholars to produce articles, reports, and books and hold roundtables that analyze foreign policy issues and make concrete policy recommendations; publishing Foreign A!airs, the preeminent journal on international a)airs and U.S. foreign policy; sponsoring Independent Task Forces that produce reports with both findings and policy prescriptions on the most important foreign policy topics; and providing up-to-date information and analysis about world events and American foreign policy on its website, CFR.org. The Council on Foreign Relations takes no institutional positions on policy issues and has no a'liation with the U.S. government. All views expressed in its publications and on its website are the sole responsibil- ity of the author or authors. Council Special Reports (CSRs) are concise policy briefs, produced to provide a rapid response to a devel- oping crisis or contribute to the public’s understanding of current policy dilemmas. CSRs are written by individual authors—who may be CFR fellows or acknowledged experts from outside the institution—in consultation with an advisory committee, and are intended to take sixty days from inception to publication. The committee serves as a sounding board and provides feedback on a draft report. It usually meets twice— once before a draft is written and once again when there is a draft for review; however, advisory committee members, unlike Task Force members, are not asked to sign o) on the report or to otherwise endorse it. Once published, CSRs are posted on www.cfr.org. For further information about CFR or this Special Report, please write to the Council on Foreign Rela- tions, "* East !*th Street, New York, NY %$$!", or call the Communications o'ce at #%#.+&+.(***. Visit our website, CFR.org. Copyright © #$%& by the Council on Foreign Relations®, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form beyond the reproduction permitted by Sections %$, and %$* of the U.S. Copyright Law Act (%, U.S.C. Sections %$, and %$*) and excerpts by reviewers for the public press, without express written permission from the Council on Foreign Relations. To submit a letter in response to a Council Special Report for publication on our website, CFR.org, you may send an email to [email protected]. Alternatively, letters may be mailed to us at: Publications Depart- ment, Council on Foreign Relations, "* East !*th Street, New York, NY %$$!". Letters should include the writer’s name, postal address, and daytime phone number. Letters may be edited for length and clarity, and may be published online. Please do not send attachments. All letters become the property of the Council on Foreign Relations and will not be returned. We regret that, owing to the volume of correspondence, we cannot respond to every letter. This report is printed on paper that is FSC® certified by Rainforest Alliance, which promotes environmen- tally responsible, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. Contents Foreword vii Acknowledgments ix Council Special Report % Introduction & How Drones Are Di)erent ! Issues in U.S. Drone Strike Policies ( Drone Strikes by Other States or Nonstate Actors %* Recommendations ## Endnotes "# About the Author $" Advisory Committee $$ CPA Advisory Committee $% CPA Mission Statement $& Foreword Over the last ten years, drones have become a critical tool in the war against terrorist and militant organizations worldwide. Their advan- tages over other weapons and intelligence systems are well known. They can silently observe an individual, group, or location for hours on end, but take immediate action should a strike opportunity become available—all without putting a pilot at risk. This combination of capa- bilities is unique and has allowed the United States to decimate the lead- ership of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and disrupt the activities of many other militant groups. Yet, as Micah Zenko writes in this Council Special Report, drones are not without their drawbacks, especially with regard to targeted kill- ings. Like any tool, drones are only as useful as the information guiding them, and for this they are heavily reliant on local military and intel- ligence cooperation. More important, significant questions exist about who constitutes a legitimate target and under what circumstances it is acceptable to strike. There is also the question of net utility: To what extent are the specific benefits derived from drone strikes o)set by the reality that the strikes often alienate the local government and popula- tion? And there is the reality that drones are proliferating but, as is often the case with new technologies, the international legal and regulatory framework is lagging behind. Zenko puts forward a substantive agenda. He argues that the United States should end so-called signature strikes, which target unidentified militants based on their behavior patterns and personal networks, and limit targeted killings to a limited number of specific terrorists with transnational ambitions. He also calls Congress to improve its over- sight of drone strikes and to continue restrictions on armed drone sales. Finally, he recommends that the United States work internationally to establish rules and norms governing the use of drones. vii viii Foreword Reforming U.S. Drone Strike Policies raises an important and under- examined set of issues. It analyzes the potentially serious consequences, both at home and abroad, of a lightly overseen drone program and makes recommendations for improving its governance. The result is a provocative report that is well worth reading and contemplating. Richard N. Haass President Council on Foreign Relations January #$%& Acknowledgments I would like to express my gratitude to the many people who made this report possible. To begin, thank you to CFR President Richard N. Haass and Director of Studies James M. Lindsay for providing the opportunity to write this report, and for their insightful feedback on multiple drafts. The report’s advisory committee was an invaluable resource. In particular, I am grateful to advisory committee members who went above and beyond the call of duty—namely, Ashley Deeks, Matthew Waxman, Sarah E. Kreps, John B. Bellinger III, David Rohde, Sarah Holewinski, General Stanley A. McChrystal, and Noah Shachtman. I owe a huge debt of gratitude to David Bradley, who chaired the advisory committee. The report also benefited from over five dozen interviews conducted with current and former civilian and military o'cials from the U.S. government, as well as insights from the growing number of research- ers, journalists, and activists concerned about the emergence of Amer- ica’s use of drones. I am also grateful to Patricia Dor), Lia Norton, and Ashley Bregman in Publications for providing their usual and unmatched editing sup- port, and to Lisa Shields and Melinda Wuellner in Global Communica- tions and Media Relations for their marketing e)orts. I appreciate the contributions of the Studies sta), including Anya Schmemann, Amy Baker, and Veronica Chiu, in shepherding the report. Tremendous thanks are also owed to Sophia Yang and Andrew Miller in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA), and above all to my colleague and CPA Director Paul B. Stares, who provided needed guid- ance and insights. I am also grateful for the logistical and research sup- port of CPA interns Brandon Smith, Shelly Liu, and Shirlynn Sham, and am especially appreciative of the tireless and essential role filled by Research Associate Emma Welch, without whom the report would not ix x Acknowledgments have been started or completed. Finally, I am thankful for the edits and comments o)ered by George- town University doctoral candidate Rebecca R. Friedman and my brother, Adam Zenko. This publication was made possible by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The statements made and views expressed herein are solely my own. Micah Zenko Council Special Report Introduction Over the past decade, the use of unmanned aerial systems—commonly referred to as drones—by the U.S. government has expanded expo- nentially in scope, location, and frequency.1 From September #$$% to April #$%#, the U.S. military increased its drone inventory from fifty to seventy-five hundred—of which approximately " percent can be armed.2 Yet despite the unprecedented escalation of its fleet and mis- sions, the U.S.