Legitimacy in U.S. Drone Strikes: Exploring Public Perception

Legitimacy—the public’s belief in the appropriateness of certain behaviors—plays a crucial role in the sustainability of U.S. drone strikes abroad. The general consensus among researchers is that when the public perceives a policy as legitimate, they are less likely to challenge it. This acceptance grants officials the leeway to make sensitive decisions, particularly regarding the use of force. To foster this legitimacy, U.S. officials emphasize the purported virtues of drone operations, labeling them as “righteous,” even in instances where civilian casualties occur. Such framing raises significant questions about how the public understands and forms judgments regarding the legitimacy of drone strikes.

The Complex Landscape of Public Perception

Despite the recognized importance of legitimacy in U.S. drone policy, scholars have made limited progress in understanding public perceptions surrounding legitimate strikes. Preliminary studies generally converge on three claims. First, some researchers argue that legitimacy is tied to the physical courage of soldiers executing drone strikes. For example, Christian Enemark claims that the disparity in risk between drone operators and ground soldiers renders drone warfare “post-heroic” and hence illegitimate.

Contrarily, others posit that drones serve as a moral obligation to protect soldiers, decreasing their risk during combat. Bradley Strawser contends that officials should prioritize drone usage to shield personnel from harm. Meanwhile, a third perspective suggests that civilian casualties significantly influence perceptions of legitimacy, as posited by Mitt Regan, who argues that mitigating civilian harm is vital to how drone strikes are perceived.

A Multifaceted Approach to Legitimacy

Rather than attributing public perceptions of legitimate strikes to a single moral standard, it may be more productive to consider how various moral norms intersect based on the rationale behind drone usage. Recent research examined this hypothesis through a survey experiment involving approximately 600 Americans. By altering the context of a fictional country’s drone operations, including the specific constraints applied, the findings revealed nuanced insights into public perception.

Tactical vs. Strategic Use of Drones

Drones can serve tactical or strategic purposes. Tactical strikes are employed during urgent engagements, often in conflicts like Afghanistan, with immediate military objectives, while strategic strikes target longer-term goals in undeclared theaters such as Yemen. Additionally, these strikes can occur under unilateral constraints or through international oversight. Past administrations have adopted varying standards for oversight, such as President Obama’s “near certainty” approach, which aimed to minimize civilian casualties.

Public Assessment of Legitimacy

Following the survey, participants rated the legitimacy of drone strikes on a scale from low to high. The results yielded three significant findings regarding public perceptions of these operations.

Finding #1: Combining Moral Norms

Americans do not judge the legitimacy of drone strikes based solely on a single moral obligation. The results indicate that public perceptions can reflect unique combinations of moral norms depending on the context of drone usage. For instance, drone operations with international oversight in undeclared theaters tend to prioritize soldier safety in the public’s understanding of legitimacy.

Conversely, when drone strikes occur in similar contexts but lack oversight, the focus shifts to the protection of civilians, indicating an awareness of potential risks. Interestingly, confusion arose surrounding domestic drone operations, highlighting a gap in public understanding of legitimacy in this context.

Finding #2: The Impact of International Approval

A significant takeaway is that international approval increases the perceived legitimacy of drone operations, especially when conducted within declared theaters. For example, France’s drone strikes in Mali received favorable public perception due to their alignment with international standards.

However, unilateral constraints diminish this perception, prompting skepticism about the legitimacy of operations, whether tactical or strategic. This inconsistency emphasizes the importance of external validation in shaping public sentiment regarding drone strikes.

Finding #3: Influential Factors on Legitimacy

Beyond the immediate context, other demographics also play a role in shaping perceptions of legitimacy. Research indicates that women are more likely to view drone strikes as legitimate than men, likely due to differing perceptions about military force’s protective use for U.S. soldiers.

Educational levels also correlate with legitimacy perceptions; more educated individuals often demonstrate greater awareness of the potential benefits of drone operations. Support for military action abroad remains a pivotal influence—those favoring forceful interventions are more inclined to view drone strikes positively. Additionally, political leanings can impact perceptions, with conservatives typically exhibiting higher approval rates for drone usage.

Implications for Future U.S. Drone Policy

The findings suggest critical implications for U.S. drone policy amidst evolving military strategies. As the Biden administration emphasizes an over-the-horizon counterterrorism approach, it becomes increasingly important to justify these operations to maintain public legitimacy. Clear communication regarding the anticipated national security benefits and preventive measures taken against collateral damage could bolster public support.

Moreover, the inclination towards coalition-building increases the potential for legitimacy in drone operations, supporting the integration of drones alongside surrogate forces in collaborative military endeavors, even absent American ground troops. These findings indicate that public expectations can align with legitimized international actions, paving the way for more favorable perceptions of U.S. military interventions.

Next, while drones are often characterized as de-escalatory tools, their use can provoke international tensions, as evidenced by the aftermath of the drone strike that killed Iranian Major General Qasem Suleimani. Evaluating both the legitimacy costs and security implications of drone use in interstate conflicts remains a necessary pursuit, especially in light of recent global trends.

In a rapidly evolving landscape of drone warfare, understanding public perception and the legitimacy of these operations is vital for guiding U.S. military policy and maintaining the delicate balance between national security interests and ethical considerations.