Security Studies Review Article: Luke A. Olney's Lethal Targeting Abroad - Exploring Long-Term Effectiveness of Armed Drone Strikes in Overseas Contingency Operations
Security Studies Review Article: Luke A. Olney's Lethal Targeting Abroad - Exploring Long-Term Effectiveness of Armed Drone Strikes in Overseas Contingency Operations
2011, Georgetown University Master Thesis
Are US drone targeted killings an effective long term strategy? Olney suggests not. Militants retaliate, possibly weakening, the local states.
Gist: Luke A. Olney, ‘Lethal Targeting Abroad – Exploring Long-Term Effectiveness of Armed Drone Strikes in Overseas Contingency Operations’
Olney’s research question was: “[A]re drone strikes an effective long-term strategy in overseas contingency operations?” His hypothesis was that drone strikes – regardless if successful or not in killing the targeted person(s) – were not effective because the drone strikes led to an increased number of militant attacks against the local governments and thus “contribute[d] to local instability in the long term.” Olney found that the data show an increase of militant attacks against local government targets following U.S. drone strikes in both, Yemen and Pakistan. However, aware that correlation does not mean causation, he admitted additional data and investigation was required in order to validate and evaluate if, and if so then to what extent, US drone strikes cause an increase of militant attacks targeting the local government entities. As such, Olney concluded “the research hypothesis cannot be fully accepted or rejected.”
Details of the Reviewed Article
Title: Lethal Targeting Abroad – Exploring Long-Term Effectiveness of Armed Drone Strikes in Overseas Contingency Operations
By: Luke A. Olney
Publication: Georgetown University, Security Studies, Master Thesis
Published: April 2011
Work length: page 1-42 is text; 43-118 appendix; and 119-122 bibliography
Summary, notes, insights & remarks:
Reviewer’s note:
This research work might be a bit useful for specific persons and purposes: when looking for a research dealing with U.S. drone strikes (or generally a state actor’s counterterrorism policy operating within the territory of another country) and how it potentially affects the local government in terms of stability and strength after the local militants attack back the local government.
Overall, Olney raised a legitimate concern. However, I felt the research question and design weren’t polished enough. I also think greater familiarity with the existing literature was missing and that it could’ve assisted Olney to produce better research work. Therefore, I assess the insights and usefulness of this research are very limited.Luke A. Olney worked on his Master’s thesis in Security Studies (Georgetown University, Thesis Advisor Adam R. Grissom) when the U.S. was in its tenth year in the Afghanistan war. The drone campaign, the targeted killing and leadership decapitation operations, were much discussed and contested policy topics.
Olney’s research question was: “[A]re drone strikes an effective long-term strategy in overseas contingency operations?” His hypothesis was that drone strikes – regardless if successful or not in killing the targeted person(s) – were not effective because the drone strikes led to an increased number of militant attacks against the local governments and thus “contribute[d] to local instability in the long term.”
The logic and point of view of Olney was that it was in the interest of the U.S. that the local governments like in Yemen and Pakistan would be strong and stable since those governments collaborate with the Washington. Yet both countries were considered weak states, and he assessed that if drone strikes increased the attacks against the local governments, further weakening them, then the policy was not effective in the long term.
Olney chose to employ mixed methods: qualitative and quantitative. Additionally, he examined two case studies: Yemen and Pakistan. Importantly, for each case he inspected the narratives of the sides, “responses from local governments, and public opinion (if available).”
Yemen
Time frame: January 2001 – September 2010.
Analysis of two cases within the Yemeni case: (1) Drone strike targeting a High Value Target by the name of Abu Ali al-Harithi on November 3, 2002; and (2) U.S. cruise missile strikes on December 17, 2009, which struck al-Qaeda training compounds in the Sanaa and Abyan provinces. He then inspected U.S. strikes and militant attacks against the Yemeni Government.
Sources of Data: (1) Drone strikes data based on Roggio 2009, Miniter 2004, Calhoun 2003; and (2) Militant attacks data against Yemeni Government based on the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism’s Global Terrorism Database for attacks between January 2001 and December 2003. Data from January 2004 to Sept 2010 was based on the National Counterterrorism Center’s Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS).
Northwestern Pakistan
Time frame: January 2004 – September 2009.
Targeted killings performed by drones on a rolling basis – examining the drone strikes and the militants’ attacks targeting the Pakistani Government.
Sources of Data: (1) Drone strikes data based on New America Foundation (Bergen and Tiedemann 2011); and (2) Militant attacks data against the Pakistani Government from January 2004 to September 2010 was based on WITS database.
Reviewer(s) note:
Olney filtered the data of attacks based on the target, removing records that did not target local government entities.Findings and Conclusions:
Olney found that the data show an increase of militant attacks against local government targets following U.S. drone strikes in both, Yemen and Pakistan. However, aware that correlation does not mean causation, he admitted additional data and investigation was required in order to validate and evaluate if, and if so then to what extent, US drone strikes cause an increase of militant attacks targeting the local government entities. As such, Olney concluded “the research hypothesis cannot be fully accepted or rejected.”