AMERICA FIRST: EXAMINING US TARGETED KILLINGS UNDER OBAMA AND TRUMP

Abstract

What explains the variations in the usage and method of targeted killings in the U.S. between the Obama and Trump administration? Specifically, why has the Trump Administration reduced the use of drone strikes? Targeted killings via drone strikes should have been an attractive weapon of choice, given technological maturation, and the ability to strike one’s enemies without risking the lives of any military personnel – given the remotely piloted nature of drones. Yet, under the Trump Administration, we see the contrary. To address this puzzle, this paper presents an integrated framework of targeted killings. Arguing that public fear of impending terrorist attacks will result in the election of hawkish leaders, a strategic shift towards an increase in usage of targeted killings will be observed. The framework also argues that short-term domestic political considerations in the lead-up to elections will result in the preference of using conventional airstrikes by fighter aircraft and strategic bombers. Conversely, this paper will also argue that the absence of this spectre of terrorism will result in dovish leaders being elected. Subsequently, the preference for long-term domestic political considerations in the lead-up to elections will result in drones likely being the weapon-of-choice. Employing two in-depth qualitative case studies on the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, the integrated framework will be used to demonstrate that the 2008 election reflected a negative case; whilst the 2016 election reflected a positive case study.