Hubbry Logo
Surgical strikeSurgical strikeMain
Open search
Surgical strike
Community hub
Surgical strike
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Surgical strike
Surgical strike
Surgical strike
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

A surgical strike is a military attack which is intended to damage only a legitimate military target, with no or minimal collateral damage to surrounding structures, vehicles, buildings, or the general public infrastructure and utilities.[1]

Description

[edit]

A swift and targeted attack with the aim of minimum collateral damage to the nearby areas and civilians is a surgical strike. Neutralization of targets with surgical strikes also prevents escalation to a full-blown war. Surgical strike attacks can be carried out via air strike, airdropping special ops teams or a swift ground operation or by sending special troops.

Precision bombing is another example of a surgical strike carried out by aircraft – it can be contrasted against carpet bombing, the latter which results in high collateral damage and a wide range of destruction over an affected area which may or may not include high civilian casualties. The bombing of Baghdad during the initial stages of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by US forces, known as "shock and awe" is an example of a coordinated surgical strike, where government buildings and military targets were systematically attacked by US aircraft in an attempt to cripple the Ba'athist controlled Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.

Examples

[edit]

Azerbaijan

[edit]

On 14 October 2020, during the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijan carried out surgical strikes against Armenian forces and destroyed three R-17 Elbrus tactical ballistic missile launchers in Kalbajar District, de jure part of Azerbaijan, but under de facto independent Artsakh's control.[2] According to Azerbaijan, the missile launchers had been targeting Ganja and Mingachevir, and the strike was in retaliation of the 11 October Ganja ballistic missile attack, which resulted in ten civilians getting killed[3] and 40 more getting injured, with women and children being among the victims.[4] Armenia confirmed that sites within Armenia had been struck while continuing to deny it had attacked Azerbaijan.[5]

Israel

[edit]

Israel's Entebbe raid in 1976, through which Israeli passengers were freed from a hijacked plane that landed in Uganda, is considered a successful surgical strike. Even though it did not involve taking out a specific military target, the operation was carried out deep inside foreign territory and the IDF commandos travelled 5,000 miles from start to finish without engaging any other forces or causing any collateral damage to the country where the operation took place, thus befitting the term.[6]

Israel's 1981 bombing of the Iraqi nuclear reactor Osirak is considered a prime example of a surgical strike.[7]

United States

[edit]

The 1986 bombing of targets in the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi were carried out using surgical strike tactics, with both ground-based and carrier-based attack aircraft striking airports, barracks, and military training centers.[8][9] The stated goals of the attack were to cripple Libya's ability to train and support terrorists, but it has been rumored that the attack was also an assassination attempt on Muammar Gaddafi.[citation needed]

The United States carried out numerous surgical strikes against Al-Qaeda targets in Afghanistan using cruise missiles. It also used the same technology against a purported chemical weapons facility in Sudan.[10]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Surgical strike

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A surgical strike is a targeted employing precision-guided munitions, special operations forces, or other advanced capabilities to neutralize specific enemy personnel, , or assets while seeking to limit unintended damage to civilians and adjacent areas. These actions prioritize intelligence-driven selection of high-value targets, such as command centers or terrorist launch pads, to disrupt adversary operations without broader escalation. The tactic evolved from early 20th-century aerial bombing limitations, gaining prominence with post-World War II developments in guided weaponry and real-time , enabling the "revolution in military affairs" through reduced reliance on massed firepower. Historical precedents include Israel's 1967 preemptive strikes and the 1976 rescue, but widespread adoption accelerated in the late amid needs, where full-scale invasions risked political costs. In practice, surgical strikes have defined modern conflicts by allowing states to assert deterrence—such as India's 2016 cross-border actions against militant camps following the Uri attack—yet outcomes often spark disputes over efficacy and veracity, with targets denying impacts to maintain narratives of invulnerability. While technological precision has empirically lowered civilian casualties relative to indiscriminate alternatives, intelligence failures or adaptive foes can still yield collateral effects, underscoring that no strike is entirely "surgical" absent perfect foresight.

Definition and Principles

Core Definition and Objectives

A surgical strike constitutes a targeted focused on neutralizing specific, legitimate military objectives—such as enemy leadership, command nodes, or weapons facilities—through methods including raids, drone strikes, or precision-guided munitions, with an emphasis on confining effects to the intended target and restricting broader destruction. This approach derives from core principles of and discrimination, enabling the degradation of adversary capabilities without the indiscriminate impacts associated with large-scale conventional assaults. Empirical assessments of such operations, particularly in contexts, indicate that their precision stems from integrated and , though outcomes hinge on verifiable target identification to avert misfires. The primary objectives encompass immediate disruption of hostile networks, elimination of key threats to forestall attacks, and signaling resolve to adversaries as a deterrent mechanism short of full-spectrum . By prioritizing high-impact, low-footprint actions, these strikes seek to uphold proportionality, ensuring anticipated military advantage outweighs incidental harm, as required under customary . This calculus aligns with causal mechanisms where accurate, real-time intelligence causally links the strike to operational success, thereby reducing escalation risks and preserving strategic restraint compared to alternatives like . In adherence to frameworks like the ' Additional Protocols, surgical strikes operationalize the principle of distinction by differentiating combatants from civilians and military objects from protected sites, thereby mitigating humanitarian costs inherent in conflict. Their efficacy, however, demands rigorous pre-execution validation of targets as military necessities, as deviations—often critiqued in post-strike analyses—can erode legitimacy and invite retaliatory cycles, underscoring the realism that precision alone does not guarantee minimal collateral absent flawless execution parameters.

Key Characteristics and Principles of Precision

Surgical strikes are characterized by their limited scope, focusing exclusively on specific high-value targets such as enemy , command nodes, or weapon systems, rather than encompassing broader territorial or population centers. This constraint ensures operations remain narrowly tailored to neutralize immediate threats without expanding into wider engagements. Execution is typically rapid, often completed within hours to minimize exposure and escalation risks, leveraging synchronized elements like forces or precision-guided munitions for swift ingress, action, and egress. Real-time intelligence from sources such as satellites, drones, and human assets underpins these operations, enabling dynamic adjustments to target locations and conditions during the mission. Stealth technologies and tactics, including low-observable aircraft, suppressed weaponry, and covert insertion methods, are employed to evade detection and achieve surprise, thereby preserving operational secrecy. Core principles guiding precision in surgical strikes include , which mandates distinguishing between combatants—who may be lawfully targeted—and noncombatants, who must be spared intentional harm, aligning with established doctrines on lawful targeting. This principle drives the selection of munitions and methods calibrated to the target's specifics, such as laser-guided bombs or small-yield warheads, to confine effects to the intended objective. further emphasizes deploying the minimal resources necessary for decisive effect, avoiding overcommitment of personnel or assets that could invite retaliation or resource drain. Post-strike, empirical verification through battle damage assessment (BDA) evaluates physical destruction, functional impairment, and systemic impacts against pre-mission benchmarks, informing whether re-engagement is required and refining future intelligence. In contrast to indiscriminate tactics like —which saturated areas with unguided ordnance, yielding high civilian casualties—or large-scale invasions involving prolonged occupation, surgical strikes seek a metaphorical "excision" of threats with restrained . Precision-enabled operations, per analyses, inherently prioritize lower collateral through technological fidelity to norms, though actual outcomes depend on accuracy and environmental factors. This approach reflects doctrinal evolution toward accountability, where verifiable targeteering reduces unintended harm compared to area-denial methods historically linked to disproportionate civilian exposure.

Historical Evolution

Pre-Modern and Early 20th-Century Precursors

In pre-modern warfare, targeted raids by small elite units foreshadowed the principles of surgical strikes, emphasizing disruption of key enemy assets or leaders to avoid protracted battles. A notable example occurred in 1663 when Maratha forces under infiltrated the camp of Mughal general near , , using stealth at night to wound the commander and kill several officers before withdrawing, thereby forcing a Mughal retreat without engaging the full army. This operation, conducted with approximately 400 men against a larger force, highlighted the tactical value of surprise and minimal to achieve strategic withdrawal of enemy troops, though it relied entirely on human agility and intelligence rather than technology. Similarly, in the 1670 , Maratha commander led a contingent of about 1,000 to scale sheer cliffs under cover of darkness, seizing the strategically vital fort from Mughal defenders numbering around 2,000, resulting in heavy casualties on both sides but restoring Maratha control over a key stronghold. These actions stemmed from necessities, where outnumbered forces sought to impose costs on superior enemies through precise hits on command or logistics, achieving partial success despite risks of detection and counterattack. Ancient precedents included specialized units for reconnaissance and sabotage, such as the Roman exploratores and , who conducted deep incursions to assassinate leaders or destroy supplies during campaigns like Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars (58–50 BCE), where small teams targeted enemy chieftains to fracture tribal alliances. Persian Immortals, an elite 10,000-strong force under , executed selective strikes during the (e.g., 480 BCE at ), focusing on isolating Greek commanders to disrupt cohesion, though broader battles often negated precision gains due to melee limitations. These efforts, driven by the high costs of mass mobilization in pre-industrial eras, demonstrated causal realism in warfare: targeting high-value nodes could yield disproportionate effects, but rudimentary tools like blades and scouts yielded inconsistent results, with failures often leading to unit annihilation. In the early 20th century, saw rudimentary aerial attempts at targeting, such as the 1911 Italian bombing in the , where Lieutenant Giulio Gavotti dropped grenades from an onto Ottoman troop concentrations near Tripoli, marking the first use of air-delivered ordnance for specific suppression rather than indiscriminate . Ground-based precursors emerged in guerrilla actions, like T.E. Lawrence's 1917 raids during the , where small Bedouin-led teams derailed 20 Turkish trains on the using explosives on precise sections, disrupting logistics with minimal forces (often under 100 men) and avoiding direct confrontations with larger Ottoman armies. These operations, motivated by resource constraints in colonial and , achieved tactical disruptions—such as delaying troop movements by weeks—but suffered from inaccuracy, as manual placement of charges allowed enemy repairs and retaliation. By World War II's outset, sabotage missions like British (SOE) insertions in occupied Europe (1940–1943) refined this, with agents targeting factories and rail hubs; for instance, the 1943 Operation Gunnerside destroyed the facility in using a team of six commandos who planted timed charges on specific electrolytic cells, halting Nazi atomic research without widespread destruction. Such pre-technological efforts underscored the empirical drive toward precision to conserve manpower amid threats, yet their mixed efficacy—due to and lack of real-time intelligence—paved the way for technological integration.

Post-World War II Advancements in Precision Technology

Following , advancements in guidance systems for air-to-surface missiles marked a shift toward precision targeting, building on wartime experiments with radio-command and . The U.S. , introduced in 1959 as the first operational air-to-ground guided missile, used radio guidance to achieve accuracies of approximately 10 meters at ranges up to 13 kilometers, enabling attacks on hardened targets with reduced reliance on unguided bombs. This paved the way for more sophisticated systems like the , whose development began in the late 1960s with the first guided test launch in December 1969 and operational acceptance by the U.S. Air Force in August 1972; its television-guided variants allowed for day/night precision strikes against armored vehicles from standoff distances, with over 69,000 units produced by the 2000s. Doctrinal innovations complemented these technologies, emphasizing small-unit precision operations. In 1977, the U.S. Army established the 1st Special Forces Operational Detachment-Delta () on November 19, specifically to execute , hostage rescue, and direct-action raids requiring minimal through specialized training in infiltration, , and close-quarters engagement. This formation reflected a post-Vietnam recognition that technological precision alone insufficient without elite ground forces capable of verifying targets and mitigating risks in denied environments. The 1990s introduced satellite-based navigation and unmanned systems, dramatically enhancing standoff precision. During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, laser-guided bombs such as the GBU-12 achieved hit rates of 60-95% against fixed targets like bridges, representing about 9% of munitions expended but accounting for 75% of successful hits, a stark improvement over unguided bombing accuracies where fewer than 20% of bombs landed within 1,000 feet of aim points. GPS, operational since 1995 for military use after selective availability was mitigated, enabled all-weather targeting and reduced sortie demands by integrating with munitions like early Joint Direct Attack Munitions prototypes. Concurrently, the MQ-1 Predator unmanned aerial vehicle program commenced with its first demonstration flight in July 1994 and achieved initial reconnaissance operations by 1995, allowing persistent surveillance and eventual precision strikes via Hellfire missiles from 1999 onward. These technologies converged to lower empirical collateral risks; for instance, Desert Storm's precision strikes required fewer aircraft sorties per target—often 1-3 versus dozens in —while maintaining high destruction rates against command nodes and armor concentrations. Emerging AI-assisted targeting systems in the 2000s further refined for dynamic threats, though reliant on human oversight to counter biases in sensor .

Planning and Execution

Intelligence Gathering and Target Selection

Intelligence gathering for surgical strikes relies on a combination of (HUMINT), (SIGINT), (IMINT), and cyber reconnaissance to pinpoint high-value targets such as terrorist leaders or financiers. HUMINT provides on-the-ground insights through informants and defectors, revealing operational patterns and locations that technical means alone cannot confirm. SIGINT intercepts communications, including phone calls and electronic signals, to track target movements and associations, while IMINT from satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles offers visual verification of physical sites and personnel. Cyber methods extract digital footprints, such as online planning or financial transactions, supplementing traditional collection. Target selection criteria emphasize individuals or facilities posing imminent threats, defined as those actively planning or enabling attacks with verifiable intent and capability. Verification requires chain-of-custody documentation across multiple intelligence disciplines to establish legitimacy, including cross-correlation of HUMINT reports with SIGINT patterns and IMINT imagery to mitigate risks of deception or error. Military doctrines mandate multi-source fusion in the targeting cycle, where analysts assess target vulnerability, operational value, and collateral risks before nomination. This process prioritizes high-value targets whose elimination disrupts networks, such as operational commanders, over lower-priority figures. Inaccurate intelligence has repeatedly resulted in strikes hitting unintended civilians, eroding operational legitimacy and fueling recruitment for adversaries. reviews of airstrikes reveal patterns where flawed targeting data led to dozens of deaths, often due to unverified assumptions in single-source reliance. Such failures underscore the causal link between insufficient confirmation and strategic setbacks, including loss of local support and heightened threats, necessitating redundant validation to align strikes with precise objectives.

Tactics, Technologies, and Operational Methods

infiltration tactics in surgical strikes frequently involve High Altitude Low Opening (HALO) parachute insertions, where operators jump from altitudes above 25,000 feet while using supplemental oxygen, delaying canopy deployment until low altitudes to evade detection and achieve precise landing zones up to 30 kilometers from drop points. High Altitude High Opening (HAHO) variants extend horizontal glide distances for standoff infiltration, allowing teams to cover greater ranges while maintaining tactical surprise. Exfiltration under enemy fire emphasizes rapid disengagement through from supporting elements, terrain exploitation for concealment, and phased withdrawal to pre-designated rally points or extraction assets like helicopters. Standoff strike tactics rely on unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or missile systems to deliver payloads without ground presence, reducing operator exposure while enabling dynamic target adjustment via real-time feeds. Key technologies include -guided munitions, such as the (APKWS), which converts unguided 70mm rockets into precision assets with (CEP) under 1 meter by homing on laser designators from ground spotters or aerial platforms. Loitering munitions like the 300 and 600 provide extended endurance—up to 40 minutes for the 300 model—with man-portable launchers, integrated electro-optical/ sensors for target identification, and kinetic warheads for beyond-line-of-sight engagements. Night-vision devices, including Generation III image intensifiers in like the , amplify ambient light by factors exceeding 40,000 to enable and aiming in near-total , though performance degrades in complete light absence without supplemental illumination. Operational methods incorporate time-sensitive targeting (TST) cycles, compressing find-fix-track-target-engage-assess processes to under 15 minutes for transient threats through fused intelligence from satellites, UAVs, and human sources. mandate real-time collateral damage estimation, requiring mission abortion if presence or disproportionate effects violate proportionality principles, often enforced via on-scene commanders with authority to withhold fire. Post-execution debriefs systematically review sensor data, engagement timelines, and outcomes to iteratively refine tactics, such as adjusting loiter patterns or ROE thresholds based on empirical hit rates exceeding 90% in controlled tests.

Notable Operations

Israeli Operations

Israel has frequently employed surgical strikes as a preemptive measure against existential threats, including state and non-state actors, leveraging advanced intelligence and precision munitions to minimize while neutralizing high-value targets. A seminal example is on June 7, 1981, when eight Israeli F-16 fighter-bombers destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor at the Tuwaitha complex near , preventing Saddam Hussein's regime from acquiring nuclear weapons capability before the facility became operational. The raid resulted in 10 Iraqi military deaths and one French civilian casualty, with no Israeli losses, demonstrating effective low-altitude penetration and bomb delivery that rendered the reactor inoperable. In the 2000s, amid the Second Intifada, intensified targeted killings against and leaders in Gaza and , often using drone-launched missiles or helicopter-fired precision weapons to disrupt command structures and operational planning. Notable operations included the November 2000 assassination of commander Hussein Abayyat and subsequent strikes on militants, which empirical analysis shows temporarily reduced the frequency of suicide bombings and other attacks by eliminating key planners. These efforts, part of a broader campaign, succeeded in degrading organizational capabilities, as evidenced by multivariate studies linking killings to short-term declines in terrorist incidents during 2000-2005. Throughout the 2010s, conducted over 200 airstrikes in targeting Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps personnel and proxy militias, such as , to interdict arms shipments and prevent the establishment of forward bases threatening Israeli territory. These operations achieved high success rates in destroying weapons depots and command nodes, contributing to deterrence by limiting proxy escalation capabilities and reducing cross-border threats from Iranian-aligned groups. While effective, these strikes have faced international criticism for occasional civilian casualties, such as in six Gaza drone operations from 2009 that documented as killing 29 s alongside targets, prompting scrutiny over proportionality. contends such outcomes stem from militants embedding in populated areas, with overall civilian harm proportionate to the prevented attacks—evidenced by lower civilian-to-combatant death ratios compared to urban counterinsurgencies like U.S. operations against —and necessary to avert larger-scale rocket barrages or invasions that have historically caused hundreds of Israeli civilian deaths annually.

United States Operations

The has employed surgical strikes extensively as part of its global strategy following the , 2001, attacks, prioritizing precision operations to target high-value terrorists while minimizing broader military engagements. These operations, often conducted by or unmanned aerial vehicles, integrated intelligence-driven targeting with rapid execution to disrupt and affiliated networks. A landmark example was Operation Spear on May 2, 2011, in which U.S. Navy raided a compound in , , killing leader after a decade-long manhunt based on courier tracking and . The operation involved two Black Hawk helicopters inserting 23 SEALs, an interpreter, and a combat dog, resulting in bin Laden's death and the recovery of intelligence materials without U.S. casualties, though one helicopter crashed due to mechanical issues. Drone-based surgical strikes formed the backbone of U.S. efforts in and , enabling persistent pressure on militant sanctuaries without committing ground troops on a large scale. In 's , strikes beginning in 2004 under CIA authority targeted , killing key figures and denying safe havens, which contributed to a degradation of the group's operational tempo. These operations, praised for averting the need for full-scale invasions, faced Pakistani government protests over sovereignty but aligned with tacit cooperation in some instances, as evidenced by reduced cross-border threats. In , the U.S. executed 374 air, drone, and ground strikes against targets through 2020, killing an estimated 1,376 to 1,773 militants according to congressional assessments. Empirical outcomes included disrupted attack planning, with U.S. intelligence reporting no successful al-Qaeda-directed attacks on the American homeland since 9/11 by 2013, attributing this in part to via precision strikes. Against the in from 2014 onward, U.S. surgical strikes under combined manned airstrikes with drones to dismantle command structures and territorial control, focusing on precision to support local partners without extensive U.S. boots on the ground. These efforts, involving thousands of strikes, significantly reduced ISIS's capacity to orchestrate external plots, as coalition operations eliminated key planners and financiers. While critics highlighted risks of civilian casualties and host-nation strains, verified metrics showed substantial diminishment in al-Qaeda core and ISIS external operations capabilities, with drone and strikes credited for shifting militants to a more fragmented, less potent posture. Overall, these operations demonstrated causal efficacy in constraining terrorist networks through targeted elimination, though long-term resurgence risks persisted absent complementary ground stabilization.

Indian Operations

India's surgical strikes have primarily targeted terrorist infrastructure across the (LoC) in Pakistan-occupied , as retaliatory measures against cross-border attacks attributed to Pakistan-based militant groups such as and . These operations mark a shift in India's doctrine toward proactive, limited incursions to disrupt infiltration networks, following repeated failures of diplomatic and conventional deterrence. On September 18, 2016, militants attacked an base in , killing 18 s in one of the deadliest strikes on Indian forces since 2001. In response, Indian conducted surgical strikes on September 29, 2016, crossing the LoC to target seven terrorist launch pads used for staging infiltrations into . Indian officials reported neutralizing 38 to 40 militants during the operation, which lasted less than four hours and involved no engagement with Pakistani military personnel. denied the strikes occurred, claiming only cross-border firing and two deaths from Indian shelling, though independent analyses and shared with select nations corroborated the incursion and damage to targeted sites. The action faced domestic politicization, with opposition parties questioning evidence disclosure, but military accounts emphasized precision to minimize escalation risks. The airstrike on February 26, 2019, extended this approach to deeper territory following the suicide bombing in , Jammu and Kashmir, on February 14, 2019, which killed 40 personnel. Mirage 2000 jets struck a training camp in , province, , claiming to have eliminated a large number of militants, estimated at 200 to 300 by government sources, though exact casualty figures were not publicly verified due to operational secrecy. reported the bombs hit an empty forested area with no militant casualties but acknowledged aerial engagement, downing an Indian MiG-21 and capturing the pilot. from commercial providers showed structural damage to the camp, supporting Indian assertions of a hit despite Pakistani claims of minimal impact, highlighting evidentiary challenges in such operations amid mutual denials. Allegations of additional surgical actions in Pakistan-occupied in 2023 surfaced in media reports following sporadic cross-border incidents, but official Indian confirmation was absent, with operations remaining unverified and limited to routine LoC responses rather than publicized strikes. These events underscore ongoing tensions, where empirical threats from infiltration drive targeted responses, though casualty claims often rely on unilateral reporting amid source biases in regional media.

Operations by Other Nations

In the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, initiated on September 27, 2020, conducted precision drone strikes using Turkish-supplied Bayraktar TB2 unmanned aerial vehicles to target Armenian air defense systems, artillery, and armored units. Within the first two weeks, these operations destroyed approximately 60 Armenian air defense assets, predominantly 9K33 systems, enabling to achieve air superiority and dismantle entrenched positions. Additional strikes neutralized specific artillery pieces, including at least six 122 mm guns and five BM-21 rocket launchers, contributing to 's recapture of significant territories by the on November 10, 2020. This campaign highlighted the transfer of drone technology from , which facilitated 's rapid victories through targeted degradation of enemy capabilities rather than large-scale invasions. Turkey has employed armed drones, including the Bayraktar TB2 and indigenous models like the Anka-S, for surgical strikes against (PKK) militants in northern and since the mid-2010s. These operations prioritize the elimination of high-value targets, such as PKK leaders and operatives, with documented instances including a September 16, 2024, strike in northern that killed one militant and wounded two during a meeting. Another operation on November 10, 2024, resulted in the deaths of five PKK members via drone attack, reflecting a pattern of intelligence-driven, low-collateral targeting to disrupt insurgent networks and secure border regions. Such strikes have enabled territorial control gains in PKK strongholds without committing ground forces en masse, underscoring drones' role in asymmetric counterinsurgency. Russian forces in , beginning with their intervention on September 30, 2015, integrated precision-guided munitions into airstrikes against opposition groups, including the first combat use of Kalibr cruise missiles launched from the on October 7, 2015, targeting 14 ISIS-related sites over 1,500 kilometers away. These operations, involving Su-34 bombers and other platforms, aimed at high-value targets like command centers and weapon depots, contributing to regime advances in areas such as and by 2017. However, while Russian claims emphasized accuracy rates exceeding 90% for guided munitions, independent analyses documented discrepancies, with strikes often causing unintended civilian harm despite the intent for surgical precision. The campaign tested Russia's emerging standoff capabilities but revealed limitations in consistent target discrimination amid dense urban fighting.

Framework Under International Law

The legal framework for surgical strikes under bifurcates into , governing the resort to force, and jus in bello, regulating its conduct during hostilities. Under , Article 51 of the Charter preserves the inherent right of individual or collective in response to an "armed attack," permitting states to undertake necessary and proportionate countermeasures until the Security Council restores peace. This provision has been interpreted to encompass responses to significant operations, such as terrorist attacks, particularly when the host state harbors perpetrators or fails to prevent recurrence, reflecting customary state practice and responsibility for attribution. In jus in bello, international humanitarian law (IHL) imposes core principles of distinction and proportionality on surgical strikes executed amid armed conflict. The principle of distinction, a customary norm codified in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), requires parties to direct operations solely against military objectives, distinguishing them from civilians and civilian objects to avoid deliberate civilian targeting. Proportionality, under Article 51(5)(b) of the Protocol and customary rule 14, prohibits attacks where anticipated incidental civilian harm or damage to civilian objects would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected. These apply irrespective of the conflict's initiation, binding states and non-state actors proportionally in international or non-international armed conflicts. Precedents from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), including the Nicaragua judgment (1986), affirm that self-defense measures must be instantaneous, necessary, and strictly proportionate to the armed attack's scale and effects, with cessation required once the threat abates. Customary law, as elaborated in the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (2001), attributes non-state actor conduct to a state if it exercises effective control or acquiesces, enabling lawful cross-border strikes against imminent threats in such territories. State practice, including notifications to the UN Security Council under Article 51, routinely frames surgical strikes as compliant self-defense against non-state threats harbored by unwilling host states, underscoring empirical alignment with treaty and customary baselines despite interpretive variances.

Debates on Sovereignty, Proportionality, and Assassination

Cross-border surgical strikes frequently provoke debates over infringement, particularly when conducted without host state consent. U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, numbering over 400 from 2004 to 2018, have been condemned as direct violations of Pakistani , with the declaring in May 2013 that such operations breach national under . Pakistani officials and groups further argue that these incursions erode state authority and invite escalation, regardless of the targets' terrorist affiliations. Opposing viewpoints invoke the "unwilling or unable" doctrine, positing that self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter extends to extraterritorial action against non-state threats when the host government demonstrably fails to neutralize them, as evidenced by Pakistan's historical harboring of operatives in ungoverned tribal areas. Legal scholars defending this interpretation assert it aligns with precedents, such as responses to safe havens in failed states, though detractors, including analyses from developing nations' perspectives, counter that it lacks universal acquiescence and disproportionately burdens weaker sovereigns unable to fully police their borders. The principle of proportionality, enshrined in Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I to the , mandates that incidental harm from attacks not exceed the anticipated advantage, fueling contention in surgical strike contexts. Critics of strikes like U.S. operations in highlight instances where precision munitions still yielded casualties—estimated at 2-17% of total deaths in Bureau of data from 2004-2013—arguing such losses render operations excessive relative to disrupting terrorist networks. Defenders, drawing from assessments, contend that surgical methods achieve proportionality by averting broader invasions; for example, drone campaigns in theaters have been linked to death rates below those of manned airstrikes or ground assaults in comparable scenarios, with a 2016 CNA study noting reduced collateral through real-time intelligence integration. Yet, UN reports caution that opaque targeting criteria and signature strikes—based on behavioral patterns rather than confirmed identities—often skew the harm-benefit calculus, potentially violating the principle absent rigorous post-strike verification. These debates underscore tensions between technological precision claims and empirical casualty variances, with academic analyses emphasizing the need for independent audits to resolve proportionality assessments. Debates on assassination within surgical strikes hinge on distinctions between peacetime prohibitions and wartime targeting under . Additional Protocol I does not categorically ban killings of military objectives, including leaders, during international armed conflicts, where such actions constitute lawful direct participation rather than perfidious ; U.S. Department of Defense interpretations affirm this for ongoing hostilities against groups like . Human rights advocates, however, equate peacetime targeted killings—such as drone strikes outside declared wars—with extrajudicial executions, citing violations of under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and arguing they blur combatant-civilian lines. Proponents of broader permissibility, including strategic policy analyses, maintain that prohibiting high-value target eliminations in asymmetric conflicts effectively grants immunity to terrorist commanders, prolonging threats and incentivizing evasion tactics; this view posits that legal equivocation on leader targeting undermines deterrence, as evidenced by sustained operations against figures like . Conservative-leaning security experts further argue that overly restrictive interpretations, often amplified by institutional biases toward restraint, handicap states facing non-state actors who exploit such norms, advocating instead for contextual evaluations prioritizing causal threats over formalistic bans.

Effectiveness and Strategic Impact

Empirical Measures of Success and Failure Rates

Empirical assessments of surgical strikes, particularly targeted killings via drones or , indicate variable success rates contingent on accuracy, target value, and sustained application. of 207 terrorist organizations from 1970 to 2007 demonstrates that leadership decapitation—often executed through surgical strikes—increases the group's mortality rate by disrupting command structures and operational continuity, with decapitated groups facing significantly higher dissolution risks compared to non-decapitated peers. In the U.S. drone campaign against in , captured documents reveal that strikes neutralized key figures such as Hamza al-Rabia in 2006 and Sheikh Saeed in 2010, compelling the group to impose severe operational restrictions by mid-2010, including bans on meetings and delayed personnel promotions, thereby degrading efficiency in external plotting. High-profile successes include the May 2, 2011, raid eliminating , which inflicted a substantial blow to 's core by severing charismatic leadership and impeding successor Ayman al-Zawahiri's consolidation amid ongoing drone pressure that further eroded communications and lieutenants. Post-raid metrics from declassified assessments correlate with diminished Al-Qaeda central attack orchestration, as affiliates assumed greater autonomy but lacked unified direction, contributing to a measurable decline in core-directed operations through . Failures arise primarily from intelligence shortfalls or evasion, as in the August 20, 1998, cruise missile strikes on camps in , , which killed approximately 20 Pakistani and 15 Arab militants but missed bin Laden—protected by relocation to —and inadvertently bolstered recruitment by highlighting U.S. vulnerabilities in follow-through. Early-phase drone efforts (2004–2008) similarly exhibited limited disruption due to 's resilient succession, with effects materializing only after cumulative strikes post-2008 overwhelmed replacement capacity. Overall, while neutralization rates for confirmed high-value targets exceed 70% in vetted U.S. programs per operational reviews, incomplete sustains a 20–30% miss rate, underscoring the necessity of iterative campaigns over isolated actions.

Strategic Advantages in Asymmetric Warfare

Surgical strikes confer asymmetric leverage by enabling states to neutralize threats with minimal commitment of ground forces, thereby avoiding the high casualties and protracted engagements characteristic of conventional invasions. In operations against non-state actors, such as insurgents or terrorist networks, precision targeting limits exposure of personnel to hostile environments, reducing operational risks compared to occupations that have historically led to quagmires, as evidenced by the U.S. experience in where over 2,400 American service members died over two decades alongside trillions in costs. By contrast, drone-enabled surgical strikes have achieved high-value eliminations with near-zero direct combat losses to the executing force, preserving military resources for sustained campaigns. A core advantage lies in the psychological deterrence effect, fostering pervasive fear among adversaries that disrupts command structures, mobility, and planning. U.S. drone strikes against affiliates demonstrated this through behavioral adaptations: operatives curtailed communications, avoided concentrations, and relied on less efficient transport like motorcycles to evade , thereby degrading operational tempo. This fear-based inhibition has empirically correlated with temporary reductions in attack frequency and lethality in targeted regions, such as and , where leadership decapitation led to diminished coordinated plots. In protracted asymmetric conflicts, surgical strikes facilitate a "mowing the grass" doctrine of iterative degradation, periodically curtailing enemy reconstitution without necessitating territorial control or governance responsibilities. Israel's application against in Gaza exemplifies this, involving repeated limited incursions to impose costs and deter escalation while eschewing full occupation, which would entail indefinite burdens and economic strain—such as the $443 million indirect costs from a single 2014 operation. This approach sustains long-term security equilibria by enforcing deterrence through demonstrated reach, countering inaction's allowance for unchecked threat maturation and potential mass-casualty attacks, ultimately yielding net preservation of lives on the defender's side.

Criticisms and Limitations

Instances of Collateral Damage and Intelligence Shortfalls

In the 2015 U.S. on a Doctors Without Borders in , , 42 civilians were killed due to a combination of and faulty , as later confirmed by a U.S. military investigation attributing the incident to a mistaken identification of the facility as a Taliban position. Similarly, an August 29, 2021, U.S. drone strike in targeting a suspected ISIS-K operative resulted in the deaths of 10 civilians, including seven children from an aid worker's family, after erroneously identified their vehicle as laden with explosives based on partial surveillance data and . Israeli drone strikes in Gaza during the 2008-2009 conflict caused 29 civilian deaths across six documented incidents, where small, precise munitions failed to distinguish non-combatants in densely populated areas, as detailed in a Human Rights Watch analysis of video and eyewitness evidence showing strikes on individuals misidentified as militants. Empirical data on U.S. drone campaigns indicate civilian casualty ratios varying by source, with independent trackers like The Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimating 10-20% civilian deaths in some Pakistan strikes from 2004-2011, contrasted by U.S. assessments claiming under 5% through refined targeting protocols. Intelligence shortfalls have frequently stemmed from over-reliance on unvetted local informants or incomplete , as in the 2021 Kabul case where cross-verification of target data was inadequate, leading to the strike on uninvolved civilians. In , U.S. strikes such as the 2013 Hellfire missile attack on a vehicle killed four civilians alongside intended targets, due to flawed on convoy composition. Post-strike audits and procedural reforms have contributed to declining rates in precision operations; for instance, enhanced pre-strike reviews implemented after 2010 reduced reported U.S. drone-related civilian deaths from an average of 12 per month to one or fewer in subsequent periods, according to policy analyses. Technological advancements, including improved real-time imagery and AI-assisted , have further mitigated errors in target identification, with data showing decreased collateral incidents following root-cause analyses of prior failures.

Risks of Escalation and Long-Term Strategic Drawbacks

Surgical strikes carry inherent risks of escalation, as adversary states may interpret them as acts of prompting retaliatory actions. Following India's 2016 cross-border strikes targeting terrorist launch pads in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on September 29, Pakistani officials, including military spokespersons, publicly vowed countermeasures and heightened military alertness along the , raising fears of a broader conflict between the nuclear-armed neighbors. Despite such rhetoric, escalation to full-scale war has remained rare in practice, constrained by mutual nuclear deterrence and international diplomatic interventions that facilitate , as seen in the absence of conventional or sustained exchanges post-2016. A key long-term strategic drawback is the regeneration of targeted networks, where eliminated leaders or operatives are often replaced, allowing terrorist organizations to reconstitute capabilities over time. Analyses of targeted killings indicate that while initial disruptions occur, groups like those in Pakistan's tribal areas adapt by decentralizing command structures, potentially sustaining operational tempo unless paired with broader efforts. However, empirical assessments of similar operations, including drone-enabled strikes, reveal that such regeneration does not always equate to heightened threats, with data showing sustained reductions in attack frequency and leadership quality in cases like Central. Claims that surgical strikes fuel by creating martyrs or grievances, thereby expanding pools, have been advanced by critics but are not uniformly supported by . Quantitative studies on targeted killings find limited of net radicalization blowback; instead, the removal of key figures often degrades organizational cohesion and deters potential recruits through demonstrated vulnerability, leading to overall threat contraction in regions like Pakistan's . For instance, post-strike periods have correlated with decreased activity rather than surges, challenging narratives of inevitable backlash. Diplomatic repercussions represent another drawback, as strikes can isolate the initiating state internationally and exacerbate bilateral tensions, complicating trade, dialogue, and third-party mediation. India's 2016 actions strained ties with , prompting to intensify global advocacy on and seek sympathy from bodies like the , though without triggering sanctions or widespread condemnation due to recognition of India's imperatives. Inaction, conversely, risks emboldening adversaries by signaling , as evidenced by repeated cross-border incursions preceding strikes, suggesting that calibrated risks may avert costlier future confrontations.

References

  1. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/surgical-strike
  2. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/surgical-strike
  3. https://www.business-standard.com/about/what-is-surgical-strike
  4. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS37565/pdf/GOVPUB-D301-PURL-LPS37565.pdf
  5. https://www.facebook.com/mguruswamy/posts/what-is-a-surgical-strikethe-term-surgical-strike-has-now-truly-entered-our-lexi/10231500684049146/
  6. https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/27446/Transcript_of_Joint_Briefing_by_MEA_and_MoD_September_29_2016
  7. https://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/09/indian-commandos-strike-terrorists-inside-pakistan-occupied-kashmir.php
  8. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1038563
  9. https://www.swcs.mil/Portals/111/SW_2602.pdf
  10. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/AD1038563/index.html
  11. https://ijlmh.com/wp-content/uploads/Indian-Perspective-on-the-Legality-of-Surgical-Strikes.pdf
  12. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/al-zawahiri-strike-law-of-armed-conflict/
  13. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1194042.pdf
  14. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-98/fm3-98_2015.pdf
  15. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA434212.pdf
  16. https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/training/jts/cjcsi_3162_02.pdf?ver=2019-03-13-092459-350
  17. https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&context=vjtl
  18. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA425677.pdf
  19. https://doi.apa.org/doi/10.1207/s15327949pac1101_3
  20. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA523512.pdf
  21. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-international-security/article/most-humane-of-all-weapons-discrimination-airpower-and-precision-doctrine/6C987D68F17E128B4698B45372215B8C
  22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373324440_%27The_most_humane_of_all_weapons%27_Discrimination_airpower_and_precision_doctrine
  23. https://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-battle-of-sinhagad-how-shivajis-general-tanaji-gallantly-fought-off-the-mughals-to-reclaim-kondhana
  24. https://www.thestatesman.com/india/shivaji-maharaj-conducted-first-surgical-strike-govind-dev-giri-on-day-7-of-shivaji-maharaj-katha-1503290644.html
  25. https://militaryhistorynow.com/2015/02/09/classical-commandos-11-elite-forces-of-the-ancient-world/
  26. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-examples-of-special-forces-in-ancient-and-classical-times
  27. https://specialops.org/special-operations-forces-the-beginning/
  28. https://www.bombsawayexhibition.com/origins
  29. https://www.icip.cat/perlapau/en/article/from-massive-bombing-to-surgical-strikes/
  30. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/1980/december/birth-guided-missiles
  31. http://designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-65.html
  32. https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/104577/agm-65-maverick/
  33. https://sofrep.com/news/happy-birthday-delta-force/
  34. https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2021/02/wrong-war-right-weapons
  35. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/02/22/numerous-us-bombs-probably-missed-targets/42041647-ce8a-4aa8-a5e6-5ffdaaa7ccd2/
  36. https://warontherocks.com/2024/12/stealth-and-scale-quality-quantity-and-modern-military-power/
  37. https://defense-update.com/20050601_predator.html
  38. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA425579.pdf
  39. https://irp.fas.org/nsa/ioss/threat96/part02.htm
  40. https://usnwc.libguides.com/c.php?g=494120&p=3381426
  41. https://www.csis.org/analysis/collection-edge-harnessing-emerging-technologies-intelligence-collection
  42. https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDP_3-60/3-60-AFDP-TARGETING.pdf
  43. https://irp.fas.org/doddir/navy/ndp2.htm
  44. https://inss.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratperspective/inss/Strategic-Perspectives-4.pdf
  45. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/12/18/us/airstrikes-pentagon-records-civilian-deaths.html
  46. http://international-review.icrc.org/articles/the-overlooked-importance-of-intelligence-analysis-in-ihl-928
  47. https://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-SpecialForcesFreeFallOps.pdf
  48. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA323924.pdf
  49. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/ASPJ/journals/Chronicles/Danskine.pdf
  50. https://www.baesystems.com/en-us/product/apkws
  51. https://www.avinc.com/lms/switchblade
  52. https://www.army.mil/article/208537/seeing_around_corners
  53. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/iraq-nuclear-vault/2021-06-07/osirak-israels-strike-iraqs-nuclear-reactor-40-years-later
  54. https://www.idf.il/en/articles/2023/operation-opera-an-inside-look-into-one-of-the-most-infamous-idf-operations/
  55. https://www.cve-kenya.org/media/library/HafezHatfield_2006_Do_Targeted_Assassinations_Work_A_Multivariate_Analysis_of_Israel_s_Controversial_Tactic_during_Al_Aqsa_Uprising.pdf
  56. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/targeted-killings-work/
  57. https://boi.org.il/media/dtmpopvw/dp0502e.pdf
  58. https://www.csis.org/analysis/war-proxy-irans-growing-footprint-middle-east
  59. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09592318.2025.2512807
  60. https://www.hrw.org/report/2009/06/30/precisely-wrong/gaza-civilians-killed-israeli-drone-launched-missiles
  61. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/assessing-israel-s-approach-to-proportionality-in-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-gaza
  62. https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/minutes-and-years-the-bin-ladin-operation/
  63. https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions/digital-exhibition-revealed-hunt-bin-laden/operation-neptune-spear
  64. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-drones-work-the-case-for-washingtons-weapon-of-choice/
  65. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R43960/R43960.40.pdf
  66. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-President-national-defense-university
  67. https://oig.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/2025-03/Lead_IG_OIR_Q1_FY25_Final.pdf
  68. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2012/05/is-the-war-on-terror-over-not-yet.html
  69. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37504308
  70. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/indian-strike-pakistan-is-worst-fighting-between-neighbours-over-2-decades-2025-05-07/
  71. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-37702790
  72. https://www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/31090/Statement%2Bby%2BForeign%2BSecretary%2Bon%2B26%2BFebruary%2B2019%2Bon%2Bthe%2BStrike%2Bon%2BJeM%2Btraining%2Bcamp%2Bat%2BBalakot
  73. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-47366718
  74. https://www.reuters.com/article/world/india/india-refuses-to-share-proof-of-strikes-in-pakistan-amid-doubts-of-militant-deat-idUSKCN1QJ02U/
  75. https://www.stimson.org/2022/three-years-after-balakot-reckoning-with-two-claims-of-victory/
  76. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/nagorno-karabkah-drones-azerbaijan-aremenia/2020/11/11/441bcbd2-193d-11eb-8bda-814ca56e138b_story.html
  77. https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/303-insights-from-the-nagorno-karabakh-conflict-in-2020/
  78. https://www.irsem.fr/storage/file_manager_files/2025/03/10-retex-44-days-over-nagorno-karabakh.pdf
  79. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/drones-in-the-nagorno-karabakh-war-analyzing-the-data/
  80. https://media.setav.org/en/file/2023/08/remote-control-aerial-elimination-of-the-pkks-terrorist-leaders-and-operatives.pdf
  81. https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/turkish-drone-kills-pkk-member-northern-iraq-security-agency-says-2024-09-16/
  82. https://english.aawsat.com/arab-world/5080140-five-killed-turkish-drone-strikes-pkk-members-northern-iraq?_wrapper_format=html&page=2
  83. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/January-February-2020/Sinclair-Russia-Syria/
  84. https://ctc.westpoint.edu/russias-battlefield-success-syria-will-pyrrhic-victory/
  85. https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/2021-11/prs-19-3483-russian-lessons-learned-in-syria.pdf
  86. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA1100/RRA1170-1/RAND_RRA1170-1.pdf
  87. https://www.defensenews.com/home/2015/10/18/russia-shows-early-success-new-capabilities-in-syria/
  88. https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml
  89. https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/law-9780199231690-e241
  90. https://icct.nl/sites/default/files/import/publication/customary-international-humanitarian-law-i-icrc-eng.pdf
  91. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/proportionality-international-humanitarian-law-principle-rule/
  92. https://jindalforinteconlaws.in/2023/10/03/indias-surgical-strikes-implications-for-state-practice-and-self-defence/
  93. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3273&context=parameters
  94. https://www.justiceinitiative.org/voices/case-watch-court-pakistan-addresses-us-drone-attacks
  95. https://www.amnesty.org/en/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/asa330132013en.pdf
  96. https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1783&context=cilj
  97. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1134709/FULLTEXT02.pdf
  98. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/leiden-journal-of-international-law/article/targeted-killing-and-the-lack-of-acquiescence/95FFBCDB38CB59947C17266BA4F55BC6
  99. https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf
  100. https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=human_rights_institute
  101. https://www.cna.org/cna_files/pdf/RethinkingTheDroneWar.pdf
  102. https://docs.un.org/en/A/HRC/44/38
  103. https://civiliansinconflict.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/The_Civilian_Impact_of_Drones_w_cover.pdf
  104. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/assassination-law-of-war/
  105. https://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/19/q-us-targeted-killings-and-international-law
  106. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Portals/68/Documents/stratforum/SF-286.pdf
  107. https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=fac_works_papers
  108. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR1600/RR1610/RAND_RR1610.pdf
  109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41428119
  110. https://tnsr.org/2022/01/were-drone-strikes-effective-evaluating-the-drone-campaign-in-pakistan-through-captured-al-qaeda-documents/
  111. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/al-qaeda-after-osama/
  112. https://www.rand.org/pubs/commentary/2016/05/five-years-after-the-death-of-osama-bin-laden-is-the.html
  113. https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB253/index.htm
  114. https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/targeting-top-terrorists-how-leadership-decapitation-contributes-counterterrorism
  115. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6202&context=doctoral
  116. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9975.html
  117. https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/17/politics/kabul-drone-strike-us-military-intl-hnk
  118. https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/2831896/air-force-official-briefs-media-on-deadly-drone-strike-in-kabul/
  119. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/projects/drone-war
  120. https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/us-military-says-10-civilians-killed-kabul-drone-strike-last-month-2021-09-17/
  121. https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/10/22/between-drone-and-al-qaeda/civilian-cost-us-targeted-killings-yemen
  122. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/biden-can-reduce-civilian-casualties-during-us-drone-strikes-heres-how/
  123. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/journals/military-review/online-exclusive/2025-ole/operational-effectiveness/
  124. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/pols_pub/article/1028/&path_info=India_E2_80_99s_20Surgical_20Strikes_20__20Response_20to_20Strategic_20Imperatives.pdf
  125. https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/conflict-between-india-and-pakistan
  126. https://www.belfercenter.org/research-analysis/has-us-prevented-another-india-pakistan-war
  127. https://cissm.umd.edu/research-impact/publications/understanding-indias-surgical-strike-special-operations-and-pakistans
  128. https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/targeted-killing-thinking-through-the-logic/
  129. https://www.ugr.es/~jjordan/AlQaedaDronesPakistan.pdf
  130. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1253&context=sigma
  131. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/drone-strikes-and-evidence-based-counterterrorism
  132. https://icct.nl/publication/leader-isis-dead-are-targeted-killings-effective
  133. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-america-cant-escape-its-role-in-the-conflict-between-india-and-pakistan/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.