drone strikes in his country, he recognized their ability to eliminate terrorists without unnecessary casualties. The U.S. government should limit its strikes to high-valued targets, insurgents possessing weaponry, or fixed installations. A high-valued target is a military commander, above the average foot soldier, who is responsible for giving orders. High-valued targets could include anyone from a mid-level Taliban leader to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State. When and where to strike these targets would be up to the discretion of the drone operators and their supervisors, who have most likely been watching the target for an extended period of time. If both the operator and the supervisor believe that the deaths of civilian bystanders can be prevented by acting sooner or later, appropriate action will be taken. Insurgents possessing heavy weaponry, such as anti-aircraft missiles, or anti-tank rockets would be necessary to attack in the event of that requires more heavy bombardment by manned aircraft or to cover advancing ground forces. In this way, drones could be used to better assist local friendly fighters as well as American troops in the case of the necessity of an invasion. Lastly, the drones could be used to destroy fixed installations, which would more likely than not be needed in the global war on terror, but would most certainly be necessary in inter-state conflict. The U.S. needs to end its signature strikes, strikes which target unknown people, buildings, or areas that demonstrate suspicious behaviors. Unless the United States can create a true definition for what constitutes these suspicious behaviors, attacks against those merely acting suspicious in the air need to cease. Human rights groups can rest assured that U.S. policy is clear and concise in the use of drones for lethal