Our Drones Killed Some Folks
Sad .. to be honest, I hate many things I am forced to fund indirectly
Another POV; not mine, necessarily; but another.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2015/04/u_s_drone_strikes_civilian_casualties_would_be_much_higher_without_them.html
The outrage is understandable. But these two deaths, tragic as they are, don’t change the fundamental truth: For civilians, drones are the safest form of war in modern history. As I’ve documented before, they’re more discriminating and more accurate. If you want to minimize civilian casualties, getting rid of drones—and steering warfare back to bombing and shelling—is the worst thing you could do.
The column in Slate explains the situation very well. The trick with the drone strikes is to make sure the intended target is worth the possible cost in innocent lives.
I think that Slate piece is a propaganda piece Glenn Greenwald has been talking about for years
Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.
Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official, who requested anonymity to speak about what is still a classified program.
This counting method may partly explain the official claims of extraordinarily low collateral deaths. In a speech last year Mr. Brennan, Mr. Obama’s trusted adviser, said that not a single noncombatant had been killed in a year of strikes. And in a recent interview, a senior administration official said that the number of civilians killed in drone strikes in Pakistan under Mr. Obama was in the “single digits” — and that independent counts of scores or hundreds of civilian deaths unwittingly draw on false propaganda claims by militants.
But in interviews, three former senior intelligence officials expressed disbelief that the number could be so low. The C.I.A. accounting has so troubled some administration officials outside the agency that they have brought their concerns to the White House. One called it “guilt by association” that has led to “deceptive” estimates of civilian casualties.
“It bothers me when they say there were seven guys, so they must all be militants,” the official said. “They count the corpses and they’re not really sure who they are.”-------End of Quote(Not sure how you prevent the rest of the page from having green background after a quote)----------------------
There is so much secrecy by the CIA and the Government with the Media being complicit, I don't believe anyone's numbers. To compare the rates to those of WWII doesn't even pass the smell test. Are we at war with Yemen? Are we at war with Pakistan? And what of these numbers? 41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes – the facts on the ground
And really, let's say these bogus numbers are true. So, just fewer than 4,000 people have been killed by American's remote control assassination machines. Big friggin whoop! Though I do remember one country kind of freaking out over fewer innocent people being killed on their soil. You know throwin the baby out with the bath water. Nationalism, Militarism, Police/Surveillance state. The whole thing. What a bunch of ninnies! Huh?!?!
But, I guess you've gotta do whatchya gotta do to get rid of the bad guys. AMIRITE?!?! This here Andrew Cockburn cat wrote a book about the drones called Kill Chain: The Rise of the High Tech Assassins Apparently, according to studies, when we assassinate these meanies, the guy who takes their place tends to be even worse. And usually, the new guy attacks more to make a point. Here's Cockburn chewing the fat with Jon Stewart for you non-reading types
The most disturbing part of this incident is that the only reason it is news is that Americans were killed. Otherwise, Americans could give a rats patootie. Someone once said: You reap what you sow. I sure as ***** hope not.
The reality is that we could be the best behaved nation on Earth and we would still find ourselves in wars from time to time. War means death and destruction. Drones are good weapons and are here to stay. So, the focus needs to be on avoiding war and being as precise as possible when war comes.
tjohn said:
The reality is that we could be the best behaved nation on Earth and we would still find ourselves in wars from time to time. War means death and destruction. Drones are good weapons and are here to stay. So, the focus needs to be on avoiding war and being as precise as possible when war comes.
Agreed. Arguing technique or method when a decision has been made to go to war is one thing. Drones are arguably a better technique than missiles or carpet bombing, with respect to collateral damage (and, of course, better than asking a person to risk his or her life instead). I'm not defending any technique, I'm just agreeing that the real question is, "What are we doing in this war?"
One can't say, "NO DRONES" and also say that the current Administration should have kept more troops in Iraq or Afghanistan. Although there are some GOP candidates who will try to thread that needle.
tjohn said:
The reality is that we could be the best behaved nation on Earth and we would still find ourselves in wars from time to time. War means death and destruction. Drones are good weapons and are here to stay. So, the focus needs to be on avoiding war and being as precise as possible when war comes.
I'm not so sure. I think Drones are here to stay as long as we dominate the technology. I think once adversarial countries acquire this technology, the tune might change.
Also, when are we not at war? We always seem to be at war. This is not about war. This is about Empire Maintenance. When war comes? I mean, that is just silly.
I don't think drones are a good weapon. The person who wields a weapon ought to be risking his life. I'd like a rule like that. Let's go back to hand-to-hand combat. Of course, I don't expect to see it passed.
TylerDurden said:
tjohn said:
The reality is that we could be the best behaved nation on Earth and we would still find ourselves in wars from time to time. War means death and destruction. Drones are good weapons and are here to stay. So, the focus needs to be on avoiding war and being as precise as possible when war comes.
I'm not so sure. I think Drones are here to stay as long as we dominate the technology. I think once adversarial countries acquire this technology, the tune might change.
Also, when are we not at war? We always seem to be at war. This is not about war. This is about Empire Maintenance. When war comes? I mean, that is just silly.
The discussion of why we go to war and the weapons we use are two separate topics. I have noticed that we try to avoid war with countries having strong militaries. However, I have also noticed that when we get into wars with strong countries, with few exceptions (e.g. chemical weapons), all weapons are used.
I almost agree completely with Tyler here. At what point is the United States out of the policing business? Bin Laden is dead, the war on terrorism needs to stop and be replaced with a justified retaliation when a crime is committed. Such justified retaliation would be diplomacy and extradition in the first and only in the place where such is not possible should retaliation be death by military means.
Theres so much that I can't reconcile about what so called collateral damage is.
hoops said:
I almost agree completely with Tyler here. At what point is the United States out of the policing business? Bin Laden is dead, the war on terrorism needs to stop and be replaced with a justified retaliation when a crime is committed. Such justified retaliation would be diplomacy and extradition in the first and only in the place where such is not possible should retaliation be death by military means.
Theres so much that I can't reconcile about what so called collateral damage may be,
This is a question of when should we use military force as opposed to what weapons should we use.
tjohn said:
hoops said:
I almost agree completely with Tyler here. At what point is the United States out of the policing business? Bin Laden is dead, the war on terrorism needs to stop and be replaced with a justified retaliation when a crime is committed. Such justified retaliation would be diplomacy and extradition in the first and only in the place where such is not possible should retaliation be death by military means.
Theres so much that I can't reconcile about what so called collateral damage may be,
This is a question of when should we use military force as opposed to what weapons should we use.
Absolutely. I have nothing against drones - in fact I think they are more effective then almost anything else we have in the arsenal.
I agree that drones are a tool. But, as Tom_Reingold essentially points out, they lower the bar in risk/cost/publicity the attacking country takes on.
The fact of the matter is that these drone bombings are not war activities. Rather, they are standard operating procedure. These are covert missions, the people know very little about. You had Americans die in this January bombing and we are just finding this out now.
I can completely support stricter limits on when we order drone strikes. The fact is that terrorists are a dime a dozen and grow like weeds and, in almost all cases, killing the current leadership makes no difference and doesn't justify the political cost in terms of other people killed. In some cases, killing a leader can take the starch out of an organization and in such cases, drone strikes make sense.
tjohn said:
I can completely support stricter limits on when we order drone strikes. The fact is that terrorists are a dime a dozen and grow like weeds and, in almost all cases, killing the current leadership makes no difference and doesn't justify the political cost in terms of other people killed. In some cases, killing a leader can take the starch out of an organization and in such cases, drone strikes make sense.
I appreciate that. I really do. But, these types of drone attacks are like stealth attacks. But, instead of evading radar, they evade public knowledge. I think there is very little oversight in the way we think about oversight. I think the killing of innocent people is understated, and the media has been complicit in hiding this.
It's really disheartening. I think this makes empire building that much easier for the political elites. IMO, this lowers the bar. I think it likely aggravates the very threat(which IMHO is greatly overstated) that it is designed to limit.
TylerDurden said:
I agree that drones are a tool. But, as Tom_Reingold essentially points out, they lower the bar in risk/cost/publicity the attacking country takes on.
The fact of the matter is that these drone bombings are not war activities. Rather, they are standard operating procedure. These are covert missions, the people know very little about. You had Americans die in this January bombing and we are just finding this out now.
Drone operations are war activities. They are a choice, as to how to conduct said war.
That's why I wrote that the real question to consider is whether to engage in said war.
If an American is fighting against the United States in said war, it doesn't matter if it was a drone, a carpet bomb, or a Special Forces team that resulted in that person's death. The person in question was fighting against the United States. Period.
TylerDurden said:
tjohn said:
I can completely support stricter limits on when we order drone strikes. The fact is that terrorists are a dime a dozen and grow like weeds and, in almost all cases, killing the current leadership makes no difference and doesn't justify the political cost in terms of other people killed. In some cases, killing a leader can take the starch out of an organization and in such cases, drone strikes make sense.
I appreciate that. I really do. But, these types of drone attacks are like stealth attacks. But, instead of evading radar, they evade public knowledge. I think there is very little oversight in the way we think about oversight. I think the killing of innocent people is understated, and the media has been complicit in hiding this.
It's really disheartening. I think this makes empire building that much easier for the political elites. IMO, this lowers the bar. I think it likely aggravates the very threat(which IMHO is greatly overstated) that it is designed to limit.
But this is nothing new. There was a time when we would send battalions or regiments of soldiers into Central American countries with minimal publicity and discussion.
nohero said:
If an American is fighting against the United States in said war, it doesn't matter if it was a drone, a carpet bomb, or a Special Forces team that resulted in that person's death. The person in question was fighting against the United States. Period.
Okay. But the American killed in this particular strike mentioned in the Tyler's opening post was a prisoner who happened to be in captivity at that particular Pakistani compound when it was hit. He was a 74 year-old USAID country director.
ridski said:
nohero said:
If an American is fighting against the United States in said war, it doesn't matter if it was a drone, a carpet bomb, or a Special Forces team that resulted in that person's death. The person in question was fighting against the United States. Period.
Okay. But the American killed in this particular strike mentioned in the Tyler's opening post was a prisoner who happened to be in captivity at that particular Pakistani compound when it was hit. He was a 74 year-old USAID country director.
You are correct, but that leads to two thoughts.
1. Kurt Vonnegut was an American who could have been killed in the bombing of Dresden. He was not, so he survived to write eloquently about it. So, in the analogy one must ask anti-Drone politicians if they also would have opposed the bombings in WWII.
2. The Americans who concern Mr. Durden & company are not so much the collateral damage, as the people actively fighting against the United States (sort of like Confederates in the Civil War) who are killed as a result of drones (vs. bombs, vs. special forces).
TylerDurden said:
I agree that drones are a tool. But, as Tom_Reingold essentially points out, they lower the bar in risk/cost/publicity the attacking country takes on.
The fact of the matter is that these drone bombings are not war activities. Rather, they are standard operating procedure. These are covert missions, the people know very little about. You had Americans die in this January bombing and we are just finding this out now.
And they are just too easy to use. No need to garner support from the public, no lengthy debate, no mobilization of troops... just the press of a button.
dave23 said:
TylerDurden said:
What's the war we're fighting again?The Perpetual War.
Are you writing the history of H.sapiens?
I think we all know next to nothing as to what really happens during war, either via a drone or by troops on the ground. We have no clue. Only those who have been there really know, and well most won't dare speak up. The atrocities are committed either way. And if you don't think that troops commit them as often or more than the drones, well, you don't have a clue as to what's really happening. And I bet that 99% of the time we never find out. So yes, drones are horrible. But I seriously doubt they are worse than the alternatives.
pmartinezv said:
I think we all know next to nothing as to what really happens during war, either via a drone or by troops on the ground. We have no clue. Only those who have been there really know, and well most won't dare speak up. The atrocities are committed either way. And if you don't think that troops commit them as often or more than the drones, well, you don't have a clue as to what's really happening. And I bet that 99% of the time we never find out. So yes, drones are horrible. But I seriously doubt they are worse than the alternatives.
You might be able to convince me that the atrocities by drones are LESS than by other weapons, but when the aggressor puts his own life at risk, it changes the equation. Think about why pilots are in the cockpits of commercial planes. It is no longer necessary to have them there. They could fly from the ground by remote control. But by putting the pilot's life at risk, he is more attentive and thereby does a better job.
Tom_Reingold said:
pmartinezv said:
I think we all know next to nothing as to what really happens during war, either via a drone or by troops on the ground. We have no clue. Only those who have been there really know, and well most won't dare speak up. The atrocities are committed either way. And if you don't think that troops commit them as often or more than the drones, well, you don't have a clue as to what's really happening. And I bet that 99% of the time we never find out. So yes, drones are horrible. But I seriously doubt they are worse than the alternatives.
You might be able to convince me that the atrocities by drones are LESS than by other weapons, but when the aggressor puts his own life at risk, it changes the equation. Think about why pilots are in the cockpits of commercial planes. It is no longer necessary to have them there. They could fly from the ground by remote control. But by putting the pilot's life at risk, he is more attentive and thereby does a better job.
Drones do a very good job. Weapons accuracy is better than ever and smaller bombs can do the job. Still, if you detonate 20 or 25 pounds of high explosive precisely on target, there will be collateral damage.
Tom_Reingold said:
pmartinezv said:
I think we all know next to nothing as to what really happens during war, either via a drone or by troops on the ground. We have no clue. Only those who have been there really know, and well most won't dare speak up. The atrocities are committed either way. And if you don't think that troops commit them as often or more than the drones, well, you don't have a clue as to what's really happening. And I bet that 99% of the time we never find out. So yes, drones are horrible. But I seriously doubt they are worse than the alternatives.
You might be able to convince me that the atrocities by drones are LESS than by other weapons, but when the aggressor puts his own life at risk, it changes the equation. Think about why pilots are in the cockpits of commercial planes. It is no longer necessary to have them there. They could fly from the ground by remote control. But by putting the pilot's life at risk, he is more attentive and thereby does a better job.
Drones do a very good job. Weapons accuracy is better than ever and smaller bombs can do the job. Still, if you detonate 20 or 25 pounds of high explosive precisely on target, there will be collateral damage.
But you do see the dilemma. Yes? You yourself mentioned you'd like to see greater oversight. While, on a case by case basis, it could perhaps be argued that drones are more precise than say a cruise missile or a bombing raid, it seems that they have a much lower bar than those other methods. Thus, we can bomb via drones on a daily basis in countries we are not at war with, and it never gets into the public consciousness. This is the dilemma.
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
For Sale
Advertisement
Surprised there's not more talk about this, but it seems as though we ran a drone raid on January 15 in Pakistan and killed 2 Westerners. This was apparently going to become public, so the most transparent administration ever tried to get ahead of this with a press conference.
This raises some questions. Why, can't the administration admit that these are drone strikes? Why are these referred only as counterterrorism operations? How many other innocent people have been killed? I mean this is 3 months after westerners were killed, and they are only telling us to get ahead of the story. How do these operations and our response to them affect how we are perceived in these regions?
We are our own worst enemy. The fact that I help fund this stuff makes me sick.