NYT article “Drone warfare and civilian deaths”






There are always various aspects of writings. Each writer naturally leans towards their views or their sides of the story. Some articles thus end being opinionated or one-sided. The opinionated articles are based on the personal views of the person writing it like the article “Drone warfare and civilian deaths” by Manuela Mirkos. The author details how drones have been more harmful than killing the targeted terrorist groups.

The fallacy presented in this article is illogical conclusion. Illogical conclusion fallacy is a case whereby the writer attests a conclusion that does not follow from the suggestions provided. The author can be credited for writing from his own personal experience of encounter and experience of how the USA drone targeted to eradicate the terrorist have ended up killing civilians. The writer coming from Yemen has had personal contacts with the victims. However, the conclusion arrived by the writer that the entire drone program is ineffective is a fallacy. The writer, with the sympathy of the casualties caused by the drones, simply drafts his message to suit his condition. The writer does not detail the number of achievements and the terrorists that have been killed by the drones. Mirkos states “Years after the so-called targeted-killing program started in Yemen, neither Yemen nor the United States is safer”. This is a fallacy. It is not based on factors and the number of successful cases, the writer never minds to touch.

In conclusion, I can say that the article is a fallacy. There have been detailed statistics in the USA government about the successes of the drones. Additionally, some of the leaders of terrorist groups have been killed via drones. The lack of statistical data on the same also confirms the fallacies presented herein.


Mirkos, M., (2016). Drone warfare and civilian deaths. Retrieved from

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/opinion/letters-to-the-editor.html?ref=opinion on

2th, March, 2016.