No end in Sight? US Policy on Targeted Killing by Aerial Drone Strikes: a Legal-political Assessment

Matthias Maass

Recently, President Obama stated: “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.” I investigate America’s legal basis, its claim to self-defense in response to 9/11, and conclude that this claim is weakening rapidly due to the passage of time and military successes. Similarly, the case for drone strikes as pre-emption is fading due to the damage drone strikes have done to Al Qaeda’s capabi-lities. I conclude that overall US drone strikes follow the rules set by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). How-ever, today America’s rationale for these missions is shi-fting away from defeating Al Qaeda towards deterring its members and sympathizers. In this case, the US would most likely be in breach of IHL. I complete the analysis by claiming that the recent recognition of Obama that “this war... must end” still lacks the need for a new legal framework for America’s counterterrorism efforts.