Military Targeting Standards and the Legitimacy of Drones Strikes

• In Event: Ethics, Law, and Civilian Casualties in Wartime Settings: Experimental Evidence

Abstract

How do targeting standards affect the incidence of civilian harm and perceptions of legitimacy during drone strikes? Using a regression discontinuity design, and drawing data from the universe of US strikes in Pakistan, we find that stringently constrained operations drastically reduced civilian casualties. While research shows that Pakistani citizens perceived these strikes as legitimate, we lack comparable evidence for military attitudes. Thus, we administer a survey among US Army Chaplains to study how variation in targeting standards across different theaters of operations shape perceptions of legitimacy held by these soldiers, who are entrusted to shape the moral use of force. This informs the cross-national consistency of legitimacy outcomes among targeted and targeting communities in terms of drone warfare. Together, these results provide the first experimental evidence for the effectiveness of drone targeting standards in terms of civilian harm and military perceptions of legitimacy, which have important implications for research, policy, and strategy.

Author

• Paul Lushenko, US Army War College