The Drone News and Discussion Thread

If that happened, Peking's residents would need factor one million sunblock. There is no possible world where the Americans would not have access to nuclear weapons and means to launch them.

I got the impression from your previous comment that you thought Iran's sponsorship of terrorism, particularly Islamic terrorism, was a recent thing. Since you seem to know your history pretty well, I don't think I need to explain the hostage crisis to you. I will concede that everything was and is political, and yeah, the current regime came to power partially as a result of dissatisfaction with US support for the Shah beforehand. Ditto Libya, which has also sponsored terrorism overseas long before the present day.

Wise Papa Smurf, corrupted by his own power. CAN NO LEADER GO UNTAINTED?!

I'm unclear to your train of thought. So from my perspective what I'm presenting is a cause and effect relationship.

Event A: US supports oppressive regime.

Event B: Iran supports militants poised against the USA.

What is it that you are presenting? Are you stating that Iran was supporting anti-American militants before the Americans supported the oppressive regime?

It almost seems like your suggestion is that "these countries have endeared themselves to hostile activities to somebody in the past, therefore we can be hostile to them". And that this suggestion doesn't actually care who they were hostile toward or what the hostility was caused by.

@ Tam

So I think I've proven my point. Don't complain if Pakistan hits back if you're willing to use nuclear weapons over it.

edited 2nd Sep '12 2:02:46 PM by breadloaf

@breadloaf: You said it was a definite fact that for every militant taken out, a hundred civilians were also killed. I pointed out that some statistics kinda agree with you, and some definitely don't (eg. the one with 30 civilians to 1,300 militant deaths).

Ergo it's not a fact and no-one's at all sure what the ratio of militant to civvy deaths are. I'm pretty damn sure that the number's a lot less than 1 militant 99 civvies.

Your China / US scenario: For it to be a reasonable base of comparison, don't forget those US-based insurgents are also targeting and killing people by the dozens and trying to take over other countries. The US is also not just tolerating the terrorists, the government is massively corrupt and has lost large swathes of its territories to warlords, and just doesn't have the manpower to deal with the militants.

Not that I'm saying that China is in the right to use drone attacks because the US can't handle this problem themselves (damn, that's basically the USA In Name Only), I'm saying that's the kinda of grey-vs-grey situation that drone attacks are being deployed in.

Pakistan hitting back? Yup, could happen.

There BEING a Pakistan left once they did?

No way in hell.

Tam, I think you might be missing breadloaf's point just a wee bit.

As a weapon and as an observation tool, the predator drones are admittedly impressive. I'm not an expert in military hardware, but predator drones seem to demonstrate a new phase in information warfare and by-the-minute, real-time information acquisition. We're steadily reaching the point where we can relay accurate and up-to-date information to infantry troops in such a way that it's going to revolutionize the way we perceive battle space, as well as how asymmetrical warfare will likely change in the next few decades. Someone in the military thread posted an article about this not too long ago.

In terms of diplomacy and international stability, I have a few reservations about the technology. If we're talking about predator drones in terms of killing power and cost effectiveness, they're pretty good. But to borrow breadloaf's perspective, the international community has reason to regard the US with adversity because of the frequent collateral damage from said strikes. Your average Afghan or Pakistani is probably not going to have the prettiest picture of the United States when they realize that their families and homes have been leveled by our hardware.

Barkey has a good point, as well. Ground forces are not being adequately equipped and trained to interact with the locals in such a way that peace and stability can be established. Many military personnel have multiple tours of duty in Afghanistan, and the time the average combat person spends in Central Asia and the Middle East rivals that of the time personnel spent in Vietnam. Our personnel are being psychologically and emotionally strained, yet there is a strong temptation to keep them in Afghanistan because the experience and technical knowledge they've gathered has become a hot commodity for peacekeeping efforts. To make a long story short, our troops are getting worn out, and like Barkey said, you end up with situations like Haditha.

It's a tough call for the locals, too. If they tell US forces the locations and plans of significant Taliban operatives, their families can and will be raped and killed and their homes will be razed. If they stay quiet about the operatives' whereabouts, US forces will antagonize them. I'm not saying we can solve this by placing flowers in the barrels of our guns, but the predator drones aren't helping on ideological and diplomatic grounds. Our shaky allegiance - if you can even call it that - with Pakistan also isn't helping, and it seems to be a sad state of affairs when you have to rely on airspace and intelligence disclosure from a nation that has a notoriously corrupt leadership.

I would like to see us move closer to weapon systems that minimize lost lives, and deploying special operations forces and using observation predator drones are high on that list. SOF troops like the Green Berets and SEAL teams have an exceptional skill set such as their fluency in Urdu and Pashtun as well as their ability to infiltrate and intercept the drug and arms movements in Northern Afghanistan. Rumor has it that some SEAL teams have gained such a reputation that Taliban fighters will actually drop their weapons and surrender without resistance the moment they suspect they're being raided. Unfortunately, SOF troops are also human beings who can get killed, and the logic behind predator drones killing civilians unintentionally in the process of striking a Taliban enforcer is basically "better them than our troops" for many people.

edited 2nd Sep '12 2:51:37 PM by Aprilla

I was thinking you'd need the permission of the Pakistani government to allow Special Forces insertions. As angry at drone strikes as they are, I think just dropping these guys in would be a step way too far. Boots on the ground are far more controversial than drone strikes as soldiers can be used to occupy land, ferment rebellions etc.

That said, hell, maybe it's already going on? There's undoubtedly spies and informants in there sending info on militant positions to the US so those drone attacks can go ahead. Wouldn't be that surprised if there's some spec ops chaps in there too, coordinating spy networks. Though that sorta thing is more the CIA's bag.

Drone strikes are effective to the point where they are forcing Arab militants out of the Pakistani tribal regions, according to this article. But other militants are coming in to replace them, to the point where there's more Central Asian militants there than Arab ones.

edited 3rd Sep '12 5:57:19 AM by betaalpha

The CIA operate MQ-1 Predator drones of their own, too...

Keep Rolling On

The problem with the argument of 'drones are less offensive than actual people' is that both means are just as 'intrusive and offensive' , and there's no way to prove that neither is better than the other. We ARE talking about offensive drones, armed to kill, and activated by switch. The intent and purpose behind the drone was already crystal clear, and therefore no better than feet on the ground with bullets loaded in magazines.

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...

Human beings have the capacity to discern enemy combatants from non-combatants better than machines. Predator drones carrying explosive munitions are more likely to kill unintentionally. A SEAL operator or Delta Force operator is highly trained to fire at targets with a level of precision on par with an Olympic marksman. There are limitations to humans' ability to identify combatants for reasons that have already been listed in this thread, but I've never heard of human personnel turning an entire encampment into a crater the way a predator drone can.

If you're thinking of situations where several non-combatants were killed in droves, those were most likely situations where the troops reached their psychological breaking point, which is why Barkey and I referred to Haditha. And if you're talking about "intrusive and offensive" in a legal and cultural sense, then I agree completely, hence the negative reaction to the SEAL raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, but if we're talking about actual number of collateral damage kills, human resources win over air strikes more often than not. This is a given.

Your arguments are factually suspect and your conclusion doesn't follow.

First of all, and most importantly, the comparison between the Imperial Japanese Army's conduct in occupied China and US activities in Iraq and Afghanistan is completely absurd. One was an institutionalized campaign of rape and murder deliberately designed to break the will of a defeated people in preparation for subsumation into an empire; the other is an unfortunate result of collateral damage despite efforts to minimize it. They are not analogous; not in scale, not in purpose, not in moral culpability.

Secondly, the idea that I only support international law in this instance because it allows me to condemn the people we're fighting is incorrect. The Chinese and French fighters that you mention resisting occupation in WWII were also unlawful combatants by the current definition (though I admit I'm uncertain whether or not the same laws applied at the time); that doesn't mean I condemn them, only that they give up the protections granted by international law. You can't ignore the law's requirements and claim its protections at the same time.

Even granting your points for the sake of argument, though, it doesn't follow that the US a) shouldn't have gone in, or b) should stop drone strikes. The question of whether we should have attacked in the first place is a complicated and contentious one that's outside the scope of this thread, so I'll put it aside here. But assuming you're correct and the American presence in the middle east is an abomination of human rights abuses and international law violations, what does that have to do with drones? If you want to say that we shouldn't be there at all, fine, I won't argue that point with you. But this thread is about drone strikes. What makes drone strikes any worse than a conventional infantry assault, a special operations mission, a cruise missile strike, or a bombing run by a ground-attack fighter?

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I think many here who are opposed to drone strikes are opposed to most, if not all, the options you have listed. However, it should be noted that the operation that involved special forces to kill Osama Bin Laden also did not cause collateral damage. You notice that the reaction by the Pakistani people was different. They were angered over the breach of sovereignty, not over the killing of Bin Laden. Whereas with drone strikes, they are angered by the deaths of civilians and sovereignty. One has them demand international justice, the other has them demand blood.

And if you don't like being compared to oppressive occupation forces, don't occupy countries. I don't think that your personal offence matters while people are dying in those places, nor do I think that the individual moral integrity of soldiers matter when it is about their overall command structure. Even terrorists are human beings with families even if you like to dehumanise them into enemy targets.

Japan never had a stated intention of a campaign of "rape and murder". That's your own opinion lumped onto what they did. They occupied cities by driving out the original Chinese military forces. They installed ethnic Chinese as part of a puppet regime intended to win over the hearts and minds of the locals. Their idea was to utilise local resources for commercial development through a local regime that was friendly to the Japanese and would pacify the Chinese. When Chinese resistance occurred, they reacted with increasing level of frustration and force. You think they began with raping and pillaging everything?

They began with installing a puppet government. Then they instituted curfews. Then they started trying house to house searches. By the time a year was up, they were burning down whole cities as an "example" to resistance fighters. America is a nicer country, that's all I can say but when you look at Fallujah where the 3 mercenaries were brutally murdered by a mob, when the US marines were done, 80% of the structures were levelled.

EDIT: If you want to refuse the parallel, let me draw you a clear picture of the Japanese in WW 2.

China was in the middle of a civil war. The people were suffering greatly.

The Japanese roll in to (in their words) "liberate" the people, install order and peace. They used ethnic Chinese that grew up in Japan to form a new government. They had a media campaign to (in their words) "win over the hearts and minds" of the local population. Resources that were left idle by the Chinese due to civil conflict would once again be used for commercial development and restart business in China. And if the Japanese were to benefit the most of this, why not? Shouldn't the Chinese pay for the Japanese aid being given?

Japan was a far more advanced country, the Chinese should be thankful that they came in with their superior technology and know-how. But then Japanese forces were "harassed" by "Chinese bandits". On the roads with improvised explosive devices. Sometimes, the bandits were brave enough to enter into gun battles. Something needed to be done. These bandits were harming Japanese efforts to make China a better place to live through their violence and banditry!

So why not a curfew? Hm, not effective. Why not house to house searches? Still not effective? How about raids on suspected locations? Still not effective? Why don't we start executing suspected bandits without charge or trial? Still not effective? Why don't we take out neighbourhoods that support them, that way other neighbourhoods won't support them. Still not effective? Why don't we just burn down the whole city as an example.

edited 3rd Sep '12 12:49:35 PM by breadloaf

Breadloaf, what does any of that have to do with drones? I'm trying really hard to avoid a "general argument over American military policy in the Middle East" derail, and I still have no idea what Japan's war crimes in WWII have to do with anything other than bad people occupy countries sometimes, and we occupied countries too, so we must be bad people, which is logically unsound in addition to being irrelevant.

The only thing I can get out of your post that's actually about drone strikes is the implication that special forces missions are preferable to drone strikes since drone strikes sometimes cause collateral damage and the special forces operation that killed Osama Bin Laden didn't. There are logical holes all through that, too. I'm sure I could find an example of a drone strike that didn't result in civilian casualties and a special operations mission that did, and reverse the argument on you — just because one example of a thing is true doesn't make it true in general.

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:01:50 PM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

I'll just put it in one line then.

Would you be okay with the Chinese using drone strikes on American soil?

That would depend entirely on the exact circumstances of the drone strikes.

"It takes an idiot to do cool things, that's why it's cool" - Haruhara Haruko

For shits and giggles? No, of course not. In an analogous situation — where America was (at best) unable to effectively deal with or (at worst) actively aiding and abetting international terrorists that had attacked Chinese civilians in the past and were currently operating out of American territory? Yes, I'd say they were justified in using drone strikes on American soil in that situation. I wouldn't be happy about it — mostly because it would require our country to have so many domestic issues that international relations with China would be the least of our problems — but I wouldn't say they were wrong in doing so. Even if, in killing anti-Chinese terrorists, they sometimes accidentally killed innocents as well. I can't fault any nation for putting the protection of their own citizens above the sovereignty of another nation.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

Have to be recognized as terrorist by other people than the attackers, though, or they could slap the label on just anyone.

We don't want Iranian drone strikes on the author of The Satanic Verses, or American ones on Julian Assange.

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:18:31 PM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."

I doubt you'd be saying the same thing if America were bombed but I'll leave it at that.

We don't have a mechanism for naming people as terrorists internationally. The UN watch list is used by countries voluntarily and names are added by individual countries. It'd be neat to have a system but we currently don't have one.

EDIT:

What should be done about this? Special forces operation? Fighter jet strafe run? Drone strike assassination? Cruise missile? Conventional infantry assault?

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:33:31 PM by breadloaf

@Post 89: I agree with this because it's a double standard our country can't afford to ignore or dismiss any longer. We have more and more nations seeking legal action against us for our military and intelligence gathering operations outside of our borders, and while I'm no pacifist, I'd prefer it if we weren't so hypocritical about our fighting strategies.

On the other hand, other nations that have more actionable and viable intelligence on the activities and locations of terror suspects aren't really helping as much as I'd like, either because they are overwhelmingly corrupt or because they lack the internal resources to pursue these terrorists on their own. Providing other nations with these resources is having some undesirable consequences such as the killings of American forces by Afghan soldiers among them; "Green on Blue" killings, as they are called. I don't even really care for the haphazard use of the term "terrorist" because it has such a relativistic undercurrent to it. I mean, I wouldn't label Pakistan a terrorist-harboring state per se, but they are woefully incompetent in their counter-terrorism efforts due in part to the notion that they are basically tolerating the Taliban at the bare minimum.

However, there seems to be an at least somewhat justified belief that if other countries won't hunt down these suspects, the US will, and for it's worth, the predator drones are definitely intimidating Taliban enforcers. Whether or not that's a good thing in the long-term sense remains to be seen partially because they are taking their operations farther underground both metaphorically and literally. I would like to see predator drones used in the destruction of heroin manufacturing facilities in Afghanistan, but the US, being one of the top consumers of heroin, will have to do its part domestically by curtailing trafficking efforts. This opens up a whole can of worms with agricultural rights and providing flexible income opportunities for farmers in Central American and Central Asia (I'm looking at you, NAFTA and Corn Farmers Association of America) so they can actually compete in a legitimate market and not feel pressured into resorting to drug production. That's another topic entirely, though.

NOTE: When I refer to Central Asia, I've very loosely referring to Afghanistan and its neighbors since many supporters of the Taliban are entering from nearby areas.

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:41:12 PM by Aprilla

That is not what we're talking about. Seriously, if you want to start another thread on general American military policy, do it. But this is the thread on drone strikes. Stop bringing it up.

I meant "international terrorist" as opposed to "domestic terrorist". Meaning a terrorist that strikes international targets rather than a terrorist that attacks his own nation.

Not an analogous situation. A lone individual is vastly different than a huge paramilitary organization.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

@ jovian

I was editing and perhaps you missed this part of the quote so I'll repost in this reply.

@ Aprilla

It's probably more worth while to pay farmers to plant food crops than it is to bomb out drug operations. Farmers will like you more. But also we need conventional forces to protect them from drug lords. Other than that, the drones are really only helpful in conjunction with local ground forces.

True.

The analogy is sound to me. Carriles was backed by the CIA. Bin Laden was backed by Al Qaeda. Both are paramilitary organizations of dubious legitimacy and widespread influence, depending on who you ask. I see the parallel. However, a predator drone strike would personally not sit well with me in my own country, and that is the basis for its technological limitations as far as I can tell. I suppose our comfort in using special operations forces and drone strikes comes from the idea that Afghanistan is a highly unstable nation, and while Pakistan isn't a failed state, it's certainly not in tip-top condition, either.

Launching drone strikes in a nation like Afghanistan or Somalia, for instance, has a greater consensus than it would for a drone attack against a terrorist group hiding in Germany or Canada. In other words, if the nation is in shambles, predator drones get a free pass because low-intensity kinetic operations have become normalized and socially acceptable in those battle space scenarios (but usually not by the nation itself), even if those target areas are still officially nations on paper. Industrialized, stable, democratic nations? Not so much. When I hear about Rangers or US Marines capturing a heroin trafficker near Khyber Pass, I won't exactly spit my morning coffee out in surprise. If a predator drone strikes a Basque Separatist group in Marseille, my eyes will widen.

edited 3rd Sep '12 1:59:48 PM by Aprilla

Because something has gone very, very wrong?

Keep Rolling On

Well, yes. If a country that's pretty much known as a shithole with warlords, HIV and drug deals conducted in broad daylight gets bombed by a predator drone, it's not likely to get much attention. The Black September group that struck the Munich Olympics was terrifying not just because they attacked and killed athletes, but because it was done in what was thought to be a safe and secure area. I used Marseille as an example because there was a plane hijacking conducted by an anti-government group, and while the situation was defused by the GIGN, it shook the French media and the rest of Western Europe for quite some time because few people expected something like that to happen.

That's one of the underlying premises of terrorism, and counter-terrorism has a similar philosophy in the vein of "we will use dirty, shadowy tricks and devastating technology to wipe you from the face of the planet." The offensive use of predator drones seems to embody that mantra for what it's worth.

edited 3rd Sep '12 3:01:11 PM by Aprilla

@Aprilla - agreed, except that counter-terrorism is a pretty catch-all subject. I don't think there's a central philosophy - just "We're going to counter terrorism". Scaring the bejesus out of terrorists is certainly a strategy though, and one that drones do pretty well.

Though drones are not just about that. They're also about taking down targets that can't be reached any other way. YMMV but I don't think spec ops are anything like as viable for killing enemies in such deeply hostile territory (at least not for certain targets or situations).