What We Misunderstand About Drones

[xchrom]

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/06/what-we-misunderstand-about-drones/257778/



An anti-drone protester flashes the victory sign in front of an image of drone during a rally in Karachi. (Reuters)


The New York Times' blockbuster article on President Obama's counterterrorism policies has sparked wide discussion of his evolution into a president focused very strongly on killing terrorists. Americans are also debating the effectiveness and morality of drones. These are important conversations to be having, to which I'd add some of the common misconceptions about drones. The first is that drones are cheap, and the second is that they're replacing other forms of military operations.

Drones might seem like a cheap and easy way to wage war, but that's not always the case. They require a substantial base of operations and support staff to function, which means they can actually cost more than traditional aircraft to purchase and function. And public anger over drones in the targeted countries has created severe political blowback, adding challenges for U.S. diplomacy and influence in parts of the world that are already tough enough to manage.
There's also a common assumption that defeating terrorism requires a fundamentally kinetic approach. Obviously, that's often true, but the point is that it's not categorically true. And sometimes the kinetic approach can be costly. In Yemen, there is very little evidence that the growing use of drones has actually reduced the threat posed by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In Pakistan, while drones have reduced the presence and reach of al-Qaeda Central, they have not necessarily diminished the global challenge posed by the group's ideology. Furthermore, this drone-associated political turmoil has had disastrous consequences for that country's internal politics and economy -- meaning there is some risk that our drones might contribute to further destabilizing a country armed with a hundred nuclear weapons.

There are other ways of addressing the problem of terrorism. Current U.S. strategy is primarily about violence: hunt down and kill suspected terrorists. But allowing the Defense Department and the CIA to target people they cannot identify -- to kill people who behave suspiciously without knowing who they are or what their intentions are -- doesn't really seem like self-defense. And it risks creating more instability, more state failure, and thus bigger problems in the future.

[jeanV]

1. The alternative to drones is war

In Pakistan, while drones have reduced the presence and reach of al-Qaeda Central, they have not necessarily diminished the global challenge posed by the group's ideology.

Worse than that. Ever since Zia ul Aq, to play petty internal politics, Pakistani politicians have propped up militant islamism.

So, true, drones are not adressing the issue of "the global challenge posed by the group's ideology"

Herakles had the same problem a few millenia back:

The problem is, the article could very well be pointing in the direction that, the drones not working, there's no substitute for WW III.

À la Huntington

[bemildred]

2. Welcome to DU.

[bemildred]

3. Praying at the Church of St Drone By Tom Engelhardt

Be assured of one thing: whichever candidate you choose at the polls in November, you aren't just electing a president of the United States; you are also electing an assassin-in-chief. The last two presidents may not have been emperors or kings, but they - and the vast national-security structure that continues to be built-up and institutionalized around the presidential self - are certainly one of the nightmares the founding fathers of this country warned us against. They are one of the reasons those founders put significant war powers in the hands of congress, which they knew would be a slow, recalcitrant, deliberative body.

Thanks to a long New York Times piece by Jo Becker and Scott Shane, "Secret 'Kill List' Proves a Test of Obama's Principles and Will", we now know that the president has spent startling amounts of time overseeing the "nomination" of terrorist suspects for assassination via the remotely piloted drone program heinherited from President George W Bush and which he has expanded exponentially.

Moreover, that article was based largely on interviews with "three dozen of his current and former advisers." In other words, it was essentially an administration-inspired piece - columnist Robert Scheer calls it "planted" - on a "secret" program the president and those closest to him are quite proud of and want to brag about in an election year.

The language of the piece about our warrior president was generally sympathetic, even in places soaring. It focused on the moral dilemmas of a man who - we now know - has personally approved and overseen the growth of a remarkably robust assassination program in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan based on a "kill list." Moreover, he's regularly done so target by target, name by name. (The Times did not mention a recent US drone strike in the Philippines that killed 15.) According to Becker and Shane, President Obama has also been involved in the use of a fraudulent method of counting drone kills, one that unrealistically de-emphasizes civilian deaths.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/NF07Df01.html

[bemildred]

4. CIA gets nod to step up drone strikes in Pakistan

KABUL, Afghanistan — Expressing both public and private frustration with Pakistan, the Obama administration has unleashed the CIA to resume an aggressive campaign of drone strikes in Pakistani territory over the last few weeks, approving strikes that might have been vetoed in the past for fear of angering Islamabad.

Now, said a senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity in discussing sensitive issues, the administration's attitude is, "What do we have to lose?"

Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta made clear the deteriorating relations with Islamabad on Thursday, saying the United States is "reaching the limits of our patience" because Pakistan has not cracked down on local insurgents who carry out deadly attacks on U.S. troops and others in neighboring Afghanistan.

"It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan," Panetta told reporters here on the last stop of his nine-day swing through Asia. He made it clear that the drone strikes will continue.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-drone-surge-20120608,0,2211014.story

[xchrom]

5. The Peaceniks are having a very hard time these days.

And I don't know the answer to 'where we go' or 'what we do'.

[bemildred]

7. One hardly knows what to say.

It's like watching a train wreck, to use a cliche. The thing that befuddles me is that despite mountains of real-world evidence to the contrary, they persist in believing dogmatically that this sort of assassination program can produce some sort of useful results, like a monkey pulling the lever when the pellets are gone.

[cbrer]

6. If one presupposes that our foreign policy is rational

Then drones are a good tactic to enforce it. In none of the preceding posts (incl. OP) did I see mention of the human costs "saved" by using drones. The savings in lives is substantial but incalculable. The savings in lives NOT torn apart by injury or psychosis is present but also impossible to put a number on.

These savings could also be accomplished by having a foreign policy that avoids imperialism, and corporate importation.

[sad sally]

8. As long as there's no concern about who's lives ARE torn apart, these attacks will continue.

Afghan villagers search for bodies of persons killed in a NATO airstrike. Photo: AFP



AFGHAN officials say at least 15 civilians, including women and children, have been killed in a NATO air strike on a home in Afghanistan's Logar province, south of Kabul, but NATO says only militants were killed.

NATO's International Security Assistance Force said ''multiple insurgents'' were killed in yesterday's air strike, which was ordered after troops came under fire from insurgents.

But deputy provincial police chief Rais Khan Sadeq Abdulrahimzai said: ''Eighteen civilians, including women and children, are dead.'' He added that seven Taliban insurgents were also killed.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/claims-of-civilian-deaths-in-nato-strike-20120606-1zwzo.html#ixzz1xEYgHlRo

[cbrer]

9. Hi Sally

As usual, your post is clear, concise, and cogent. And more to the point, illustrates the fact that I neither specified American lives, nor drew a distinction of the values of other nations citizens. Thank you.