Problems with Drone Warfare

[SGOS]

I got to wondering about this after watching a trailer for Eye in the Sky, about a woman drone operator who has a 13 year old girl walk into the kill zone causing her great angst and a reevaluation of her career.  There have been two or three other movies in the last couple of years following this plot.  In addition, there has been criticism of drone warfare because of similar collateral damage like blowing up weddings.  There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too.  But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale?  Or are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?

[widdershins]

When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism.  If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist.  But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war.  Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.

[SGOS]

When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism.  If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist.  But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war.  Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.

Drones are weapons.  Terrorism uses weapons.  But weapons and terrorism are two different things.  What you have done above is attempt to define, compare, and contrast terrorism from war.  While that is certainly a worthy topic, I don't think that automatically classifies drones as weapons of terrorism, since any weapon can be used for terrorism.  Boots on the ground have even been defined as terrorism.

[josephpalazzo]

When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism.  If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist.  But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war.  Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.

The use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.

[TomFoolery]

But are the problems with drone warfare any different than problems with 20 year old warfare, where more conventional weapons caused the same kind of damage, and I would venture on an even wider scale?

Ranged weapons like guns and artillery and later aerial bombs freed us from having to get up close and personal and hack our opponent's arms off with swords and axes and war got a little more "gentlemanly." Someone came up with rules of conduct for war, and we pretend like it's ok as long as things seem "fair." In WWII both sides used to bomb the shit out of each other, resulting in massive losses of life and historical/cultural heritage sites, and we thought that was bad. Think of the children... think of the Louvre. But drones, well, those go off in primarily rural areas and the victims are mostly dark-skinned, so who cares, right?

Or are the criticisms of drones, just an extension of the criticisms of war in general?

After serving in the Army, it gave me cause to think a lot more on the subject of war and killing, and I realized how awful and unjustified it really is. It's one thing to defend yourself from an attacking enemy, and another to be belligerent. I became more vocal about it. I've been called a number of names, most of them relating to hating America and loving the Taliban. I remember when the issue of chemical warfare in Syria came out and I was mostly nonplussed.

I was told as a liberal war-hater, I should be vehemently condemning these attacks. Well, of course I condemn them, but but not more than any other attack. They used mustard gas, which causes irritated mucous membranes, blisters, and eventually suffocation. Not a great way to go. But neither is being shot in the chest and slowly dying as your lungs collapse. Or having your feet blown off by a mine and slowly bleeding to death. Or drowning when a roadside bomb flips your car into a nearby river. We have this fucked up notion that some means of killing in war are acceptable and others are not, and I think that's even crazy.

Drones, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, they're all awful and have unintended consequences. But putting boots on the ground and shooting them one by one isn't better. It's just less efficient.

[Mike Cl]

When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism.  If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist.  But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war.  Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.

This drone warfare is just plain wrong!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I used to swing a pair of .50 machine guns. They can kill at four miles. (Aimed shots at shorter range, of course.) I don't know how many people I killed, but I do know that the locals were highly conversant with the armed folks' movements, so they should have been able to be elsewhere when the shit hit the fan.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

This drone warfare is just plain wrong!

So is making nine Star Wars movies.

[Hydra009]

This drone warfare is just plain wrong!

Would airstrikes/cruise missile strikes be better?  Would boots on the ground be better?  Drone strikes can have horrible outcomes, as can the other options.

[Hydra009]

The use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.

Finally, someone who still remembers what terrorism actually is.  That's a rare quality these days.

[Mike Cl]

The use of violence per se does not define terrorism. It's the intentionality behind the use of weapons that defines whether or not we have terrorism. The terrorist wants to blow up a bus or a plane in order to strike terror into its enemy. OTOH, the US strikes a target trying to minimize damage in order not to strike terror in the area of the target as that is counter-productive.

Well, Joseph, have to disagree with you here.  Whether the 'intent' of the US Govt is to 'not' inflict terror, it is inflicted anyway!  It's akin to the drunk driver who did not 'intent' to kill those people.  I disagree--you proved your 'intent' when getting behind the wheel being drunk.  The US is increasing terrorism by the drone program.  I understand that the drones make a distinctive noise as it passes over an area, and I understand that that noise is now quite terrorizing to those that hear it.  And the drone program simply causes more and more to hate us and our policies.   

[Mike Cl]

So is making nine Star Wars movies.

Can't argue with that!

[Mike Cl]

Finally, someone who still remembers what terrorism actually is.  That's a rare quality these days.

What is an isn't terrorism is a very slippery concept.  It is in the eyes of the beholder.  And it is as old as mankind.  Terror is built into all armed conflicts and has been used to control the masses forever.  It is like trying to figure out what is a religion and what is a cult; eye of the beholder.

[Mike Cl]

Would airstrikes/cruise missile strikes be better?  Would boots on the ground be better?  Drone strikes can have horrible outcomes, as can the other options.

No, it would not.  How about using a sane policy in the world instead of blunt force all the time??!!  But then, the corporations would not be making the profits they are without constant war.

[SGOS]

To Tom Foolery:

Yes, war has always been about (and usually won) on an advancements in technology, be it a bow an arrow, an atom bomb, or a drone.  In addition to technological advantages, war involves strategies of tricks, deception, surprise, and a prudent deployment of resources.  Terrorism is just one more strategy, whether it's done openly as a PR move to draw attention, or redefined as something else that is a little less offensive to those at home.  Defining various strategies or technological advancements as fair or unfair can be very subjective, with entirely different perceptions depending on whether you are winning or losing at any given time, or depending on the way you want to spin your own propaganda.

Humans do make a big deal about fairness in war, but as much as we do, when it comes right down to it, how fair is crushing a whole society into submission?  That's pretty much what war does, whether it's done in so called self defense, to protect selfish interests, or just a way to bully a set of values onto another group of people.