Drone strikes are an integral part of the US military’s strategy against terrorism abroad. Supporters cite their efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and safety compared to conventional warfare. They point out that drone pilots do not face the risks of maiming themselves in live combat and that families can be spared excessive periods of separation. But critics note that drone pilots suffer from mental health problems, including anxiety, depression, severe stress, and moral injury, at rates comparable to those in live combat. They also argue that the use of drones does not give Congress sufficient oversight.
Since the 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force, four presidents have used drone strikes without congressional oversight. In response, many members of Congress have called on the executive branch to rein in drone strikes, but they have failed to do so. This article examines the impact of these strikes on American citizens and their perceptions of legitimacy. It finds that citizens register strikes as legitimate or not based on how and why they are conducted.
We conduct a survey experiment that reveals that strikes conducted by states with different constraints – namely, their origin and oversight mechanisms – have distinct effects on citizen perceptions of their legitimacy. In particular, Americans and French citizens strongly associate strikes conducted by their own government with a feeling of national superiority, whereas they associate strikes conducted by other countries with a sense of injustice and alienation. These findings have important implications for how states employ drones going forward.