Problems with Drone Warfare

[Hydra009]

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.

Intent actually does matter.  Intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter and part of the difference between terrorism and military conflict.

[Hydra009]

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.

The main point of drone strikes is to make a targeting killing instead of using other, much more indiscriminate options.

[widdershins]

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.

I don't disagree with most of that.  I'm just saying there is not so much difference between walking a bomb into a military base, an act always called "terrorism" in the Western world, is really not all that far removed from a drone strike.  In both cases the attacker is using what means they have available to attack an enemy.  I don't think the mindset is so simplistic as just, "I'm going to make you afraid."  I think if there were an Arabian occupation of America by overwhelming forces many Americans would be labeled "terrorists" for doing what they could to strike back at what they perceived as an oppressive enemy using whatever means they had available to them.  I just don't see it as quite so black and white, good guys vs bad guys.  There's a little of both in both sides.

We are quick to label any attack by "NOT a technologically advanced foe" as "terrorism".  When a small boat pulls up to a ship and blows up, that's terrorism.  But really, it's not like they had the option of launching a drone strike against the USS Cole.  And Tienanmen Square could technically be labeled a "terrorist" attack by the government of China, but it isn't.  And in America we have a tactic called "Shock and awe" technically designed to cause "terror" in the enemy, while it's not described in quite so simplistic means.

All I'm saying is that some of the things labeled as "terrorist attacks" differ from what we do only in technological sophistication.

[Mike Cl]

Intent actually does matter.  Intent is precisely the difference between murder and manslaughter and part of the difference between terrorism and military conflict.

That may be so with the drunk driver--and I have to say I disagree with how 'intent' is used in those cases.  But who knows what the actual 'intent' is of our govt. ?  I am not sure that the govt wants less war.  And I am just as sure that the govt wants the drone to strike terror in the hearts of the 'terrorists'.  So, what's the difference?

[Mike Cl]

The main point of drone strikes is to make a targeting killing instead of using other, much more indiscriminate options.

Maybe that is the main published point of drones.  But what is the actual result of those strikes--and just not on those getting the blunt end of the drone, but of the drone operators as well.

[Baruch]

This drone warfare is just plain wrong!

I agree with your sarcasm.  Have one leader slap another with an iron gauntlet, have the second leader slap the first leader back with his iron gauntlet.  Then they go outside and kill each other like gentlemen ... they have to do it, not their flunky, and they have to use hand weapons (as in hand tools in carpentry) no ranged weapons.  It is a foul even to toss your sword at the other guy hoping to hit him before he gets to close.

So the question is, why didn't humanity realize this millennia ago?  Why are we still avoiding a fair fight?

[Baruch]

That may be so with the drunk driver--and I have to say I disagree with how 'intent' is used in those cases.  But who knows what the actual 'intent' is of our govt. ?  I am not sure that the govt wants less war.  And I am just as sure that the govt wants the drone to strike terror in the hearts of the 'terrorists'.  So, what's the difference?

What is the intent?  Lots of bullshit on that.  Vietnam = Middle East ... just less jungle.  The point is that war means profits.  And so you don't want victory in war, you want continuous profits.  This is why WW II turned into the Cold War so quickly (not that Stalin wasn't scary, but his country was wrecked by Germany for 10 years at least) ... this is why the anticipated post-war depression didn't happen after WW II.  And there are other less economic reasons for being at war perpetually or periodically.

To get a victory, you have to psychologically defeat your opposing leadership, and if necessary the society's psychology as well.  This is part of the reason for area bombing in WW II (it was a war crime) and using the nukes on Japan (it was a war crime).  To defeat the opponent psychologically at the top and bottom.  This is also why the US has not won a war since 1945.  No opposing leadership has said uncle, nor did their populations.  And it wasn't intended that they should, just that they should provide convenient targets for the MIC.

[SGOS]

I don't disagree with most of that. 

I don't think there is much disagreement on a lot of the basics here, either.  But somewhere down the line, we differ in perceptions and end up seemingly disagreeing, and I think it hinges on the next comment:

I'm just saying there is not so much difference between walking a bomb into a military base, an act always called "terrorism" in the Western world, is really not all that far removed from a drone strike. 

Yes, they are both acts of violence.  Terrorism and war have that in common.  My purpose here is not to define "terrorism" or "war", and as you point out, defining them is often political semantics, so calling drone warfare terrorism is kind of irrelevant.  What I'm wondering about is what is wrong with drone technology?  It has the advantage of killing at a greater distance, which is what almost every advancement in war technology has done since man first picked up a rock.  They are designed to be more surgical in nature, and while the operator screws up however often, that's not anymore of a problem than with an F-16.

In both cases the attacker is using what means they have available to attack an enemy.  I don't think the mindset is so simplistic as just, "I'm going to make you afraid."  I think if there were an Arabian occupation of America by overwhelming forces many Americans would be labeled "terrorists" for doing what they could to strike back at what they perceived as an oppressive enemy using whatever means they had available to them.  I just don't see it as quite so black and white, good guys vs bad guys.  There's a little of both in both sides.

I agree.  Terrorism is a strategy, just like cutting off a supply line.  It may or may not involve more terror in the final analysis

We are quick to label any attack by "NOT a technologically advanced foe" as "terrorism".  When a small boat pulls up to a ship and blows up, that's terrorism.  But really, it's not like they had the option of launching a drone strike against the USS Cole.  And Tienanmen Square could technically be labeled a "terrorist" attack by the government of China, but it isn't.  And in America we have a tactic called "Shock and awe" technically designed to cause "terror" in the enemy, while it's not described in quite so simplistic means.

All I'm saying is that some of the things labeled as "terrorist attacks" differ from what we do only in technological sophistication.

I agree.  It's the reason I would like to separate definitions of terrorism and/or war from the questions I have about drone technology.

[widdershins]

What I'm wondering about is what is wrong with drone technology?

Were it used exclusively for warfare, nothing.  It's just another technological tool, realistically different from an air strike, mortar strike or missile, except for the precision it offers, which is actually a good thing in warfare.  Compared to the way we ended WWII a drone brings you chocolates and flowers before it fucks you.  As a military tool, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with it.

Drones are being used increasingly, however, in our already overly militarized police forces.  And I don't so much even have a problem with that for surveillance.  If our police are truly operating within the role of the "good guys" I want them having as much information as possible before, say, risking their lives to end a standoff or hostage situation.  The problem is that's not where it will stop.  Cops in America do have a tendency to sometimes bring a tank to a word fight, though.  Sometimes quit literally.

To be honest my entire first post appears to be a digression from the spirit of the topic.  I have nothing against drones.  Hell, I have nothing against drones being used to kill "American citizens" (as in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki, a terrorist who just happened to have citizenship).  If you want to blow up schools and hospitals I hope they do shove a missile up your ass, and I really don't care whether it's delivered by drone, Apache, ship or in person by the clone of Bruce Lee.  As long as it gets where it belongs all is right in my world.

[Mike Cl]

What is the intent?  Lots of bullshit on that.  Vietnam = Middle East ... just less jungle.  The point is that war means profits.  And so you don't want victory in war, you want continuous profits.  This is why WW II turned into the Cold War so quickly (not that Stalin wasn't scary, but his country was wrecked by Germany for 10 years at least) ... this is why the anticipated post-war depression didn't happen after WW II.  And there are other less economic reasons for being at war perpetually or periodically.

To get a victory, you have to psychologically defeat your opposing leadership, and if necessary the society's psychology as well.  This is part of the reason for area bombing in WW II (it was a war crime) and using the nukes on Japan (it was a war crime).  To defeat the opponent psychologically at the top and bottom.  This is also why the US has not won a war since 1945.  No opposing leadership has said uncle, nor did their populations.  And it wasn't intended that they should, just that they should provide convenient targets for the MIC.

Then I guess, we are mostly in agreement. 

[Mike Cl]

I agree with your sarcasm.  Have one leader slap another with an iron gauntlet, have the second leader slap the first leader back with his iron gauntlet.  Then they go outside and kill each other like gentlemen ... they have to do it, not their flunky, and they have to use hand weapons (as in hand tools in carpentry) no ranged weapons.  It is a foul even to toss your sword at the other guy hoping to hit him before he gets to close.

So the question is, why didn't humanity realize this millennia ago?  Why are we still avoiding a fair fight?

For our country I am in favor of making all those old white men who take us to war have to serve in a frontline unit for awhile; and/or force their children to do so.  There would be far less war.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

For our country I am in favor of making all those old white men who take us to war have to serve in a frontline unit for awhile; and/or force their children to do so.  There would be far less war.

Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.

[josephpalazzo]

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.   

Very bad analogy.

A drunk kills indiscriminately, the US doesn't. The US tries in every way possible it can muster to minimize damage. The fault is not with the US when the enemy hides among the civilians. And this terrorists' tactic is to make you to believe the US is also a terrorist organization, and you have taken the bait.

[Unbeliever]

There may be other reasons to criticize drone warfare, too.

Yep, here's one right here:

http://www.thewire.com/politics/2013/10/saddest-words-congresss-briefing-drone-strikes/71048/

"I no longer love blue skies. In fact, I now prefer grey skies. The drones do not fly when the skies are grey," a 13-year-old Pakistani boy named Zubair told Congress on Tuesday. Zubair was 12 when he and his younger sister, Nabeela, were injured in a drone strike near North Waziristan last October. "When sky brightens, drones return and we live in fear," Zubair told Rep. Alan Grayson and others at the congressional briefing.

They used to love the sky - now they fear it.

[Mike Cl]

Kingdoms went to war with the king lead from the front. Better idea needed.

My point being that do you think it would be as likely we would go to war if Cheney and Bush had had to serve in a combat role?  And being led by the leader is a better system than we have now.