Drones beat the alternative: USA Today

I've been hearing about drones on the news a lot lately, and today when I asked my dad about them, he told me they were essentially remote controlled aerial vehicle that could target and kill Al-Qaida terrorists. Intrigued, I decided to do this week's TOW on an article explaining why drones should be utilized by the American military. Written by the editorial board of USA Today, this article makes the claim, "But for all the controversy, the drone attacks have this going for them: They are effective, and the other options are worse."

This article utilized logos to make its point, by pointing out the flaws in the opposing side's argument (They Say/I Say) and making its own argument that drones are the best way to prevent as much death of "collateral" citizens as possible. The article actually begins by pointing out common concerns with drones, but proceeds to demonstrate that these risks are worth it. By using the technique of "They Say/I Say," the article effectively establishes credibility by proving that the authors have knowledge of both sides and are making their claim very deliberately. It also helps demonstrate why readers shouldn't side with the opposition, or that they should change their mind if they already are "anti-drone."

The article also qualifies its argument by stating that the White House should be more open about the "gray area" surrounding drones, which again demonstrates the authors' credibility in their claim that "drones should keep flying." They also implied that the secrecy surrounding the deaths of three US citizens via drones was haunting, but the article did not go far into this topic, as it might contradict the argument being made.

Before reading this article, I was concerned with the use of drones because I feared that they might be used on US citizens, especially once other countries had the technology to build their own drones. I also was concerned with the ethics of killing people in this manner, but after reading this article I realized that drones are in fact one of the most ethical methods of assassinating terrorists leaders, because by this article's figures, fewer civilians are killed in the process. While I am still concerned with their use in killing American citizens (I haven't decided my opinion on killing American Al-Qaida leaders), this article effectively made me reconsider my views and want to look further into the topic of military drones.