The Drone News and Discussion Thread

Pakistan cannot afford to let their not-very-well hidden hatred of the Americans to push them so far into stupidity that they make war on them overtly. At least not until their subsidiaries win across the border and start demanding payment for what actions they took against the Americans and their allies. Then things will start to get really interesting.

Awesome. Since sending troops in nuking is less of a declaration of war than nuking their capital, is it ok to send the troops in? Seriously though, slippery slope aside, how much bombing is ok without a war? Is anything ok so long as the one being bombed doesn't have the resourses or will to respond in kind?

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

The point is that you're not bombing the country, nor its soldiers: You're bombing a guy the country isn't supposed to "agree with" (and whom the country would disavow).

However, bombing a guy who is officially a refugee in that country would be an act of war against it.

Note: I'm talking of the principle here, not of the collateral damage which is definitely unacceptable.

edited 29th Aug '12 5:19:58 AM by Medinoc

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

Depends. War is evil, drones are evil, ground troops are evil, occupying whole countries is evil, nuking cities is eeeevil, stabbing someone in the face is evil, but if the threat is severe enough I'd say 'fine' to all of those things. Because sometimes, sitting back and not carrying out those actions is even more evil.

I believe, very reluctantly, that drone strikes in the Northern Territories of Pakistan are a necessary evil. You may believe otherwise.

Anyone have any opinions of Imran Khan's stance on said drone strikes? (4:08 into the video clip)

edited 29th Aug '12 5:22:24 AM by betaalpha

A bit late, but I just feel the need to point out that this is wrong. Resistance fighters are unlawful combatants under international law if they don't wear some sort of easily-recognizable-at-a-distance uniform or emblem that marks them as resistance fighters. The whole point of the combatant vs noncombatant distinction is to remove the incentive for soldiers to shoot civilians. If a soldier thinks a civilian may be a resistance fighter, they'll be more inclined to shoot them. That's why, under international law, all combatants need to be easily distinguishable from noncombatants — La Résistance included.

edited 29th Aug '12 8:18:58 AM by NativeJovian

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

That shit needs to be fixed. It is not a reasonable conclusion to expect soldiers to just patrol around, waiting to be attacked when the rebels feel like holding a gun, only for them to melt away and play innocent.

If anything can be gleaned here, it's that the current ROE is insufficient, and the rules need to be changed in a way that makes it so that countries can be equipped to deal with an insurgency in a way that is humane as possibly while still being effective, because if the current rules are not effective, then people will just bend those rules. If you don't want the rules to be bent, they need to actually work. Otherwise it's just a bunch of guys driving around getting blown up, which pisses us off and causes things like Haditha.

And, of course, part of the point of Al-Qaeda's tactics is that they want America to start using the nastiest tactics possible, because they themselves are immune to being terrorized, and it'll drive more people to desperation or revenge and give them more fodder.

I pretty much agree with him. Either kill the terrorists without collateral damage or don't kill them at all. Even if using drones saves the lives of soliders I don't count it as a win if it comes at the price of innocent civilians. At least the soliders have means to protect themselves and went there somewhat voluntarily.

The way I see it the way to fight terrorists isn't to find and exterminate them, but deprive them of would-be recruits. If you want to treat cholera passing around antibiotics won't help you if everyone keeps shitting in the well the drinking water comes from.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I was about to respond to

with "but you are required to wear something that visibly distinguishes you from civilians" but Jovian beat me to it. That's part of the verbage. Let me see if I can get the exact words.

The other wiki

Google's not cooperating for "Geneva convention lawful combatants".

Some kind of guided KKV would probably be apropos for air delivered assassinations, and should probably be worked on.

Fight smart, not fair.

SO they could just all wear a Red Shirt and they would be lawful fighters. Or if you dont want to be THAT obvious, a sash or and armband.

I'm baaaaaaack

I'm not exactly an expert on the laws and customs of war, so please forgive me if this is a stupid question: If you commit an act of war while you are not wearing a uniform, you're a war criminal, right?

^

Not a war criminal, but an unlawful combatant.

And to the people bemoaning about how insurgents cannot reasonably be expected to go out and wear uniforms openly and such, boo fucking hoo. There's a pretty big laundry list of shit that armies which recognize the geneva convention would otherwise do if it wasn't against the rules. Call me unsympathetic, and a little annoyed that there's all this passive support for people who behead their victims regularly.

If the sash or arm band were recognizable from a distance, presumably that would count. You have to visibly differentiable from random passersby. And carrying your weapons openly.

Fight smart, not fair.

It seems like Unlawful combat is not quite that simple

Who watches the watchmen?

A war criminal is a person who commits war crimes, such as intentionally killing civilians.

I'm not really sure what you are expecting when you're patrolling territory in a country you're occupying, why should you face no threat? The question you could be asking is whether you think it is worth your life to be over there occupying the country, whether it is worth the cost, but to expect a local population not to respond to an invasion is... well it's strange.

And I seriously dislike this idea that "militant Islamists existed before" modern day American policy. The USA was up in the mid-east's bumhole for a long long time and attacks against America only started very recently. The American government and the CIA have had plenty of time to clean up their mess but they didn't.

As for "well if they won't take care of something" is just crap. It's nothing but big power bullying. Drone strikes kill over a hundred civilians for any alleged terrorist they do kill. That is the ratio. There's no ifs. It's a fact. If you think it's totally okay to kill over a hundred civilians to knock off one terrorist, it's really strange to turn around and then say, but Pakistanis aren't allowed to retaliate over Americans killing Pakistani civilians. Personally, I'm a pacifist, there shouldn't need to be any killing.

And there's actually no indication that if America pulled out of the mid-east that the evil islamists would take over and form a bunch of democracies. Let's take a look at places America pulled out of:

• South America. Every country became democratic within a decade.
• Egypt and Tunisia. Oh right, they're democracies now.

From what I can tell, pulling out is the best damn thing we can do.

If you look at the ratios for civilians/enemies killed in any real ground invasion it's much worse. It's hard to compare it to other assassinations because, well, those tend to be hush-hush.

The only high profile assassination I can think of off the top of my head is Bin Laden. It took several months, the best people available and I'm sure a metric fuck-ton of cash to accomplish. A drone strike requires a date and a place.

Is using "Julian Assange is a Hillary butt plug" an acceptable signature quote?

South vietnam- was invaded by the north despite promises they wouldnt.

edited 29th Aug '12 9:48:18 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack

Don't forget the mass killings that followed. Also, Somalia and Lebanon.

America was never 'in' Tunisia or Egypt. They didn't support the actual government of Egypt and often condemned it, they simply funded and made deals with the military. If that counts as "being in", then we haven't "pulled out", because those arms deals are still going on. The American government urged Mubarak to step down and forgave a billion dollars of the Egyptian debt as a sign of good faith to the new government.

America was never really 'in' South America either. No US troops ever invaded a South American country*

, and US support for the dictators there was small at best, mostly consisting of political support or occasionally arms deals. That is not a good comparison.

If you count 'pulling out' as stopping political and military support to a country, then America doing that in the past has had bad effects. Look at... Afghanistan.

edited 29th Aug '12 11:04:46 PM by CPFMfan

...

Links please?

Fight smart, not fair.

^^

I suppose you could say Panama/Grenada counts. Though those conflicts don't bother me in any real way.

Call me naive or callous, but expecting the military not to adjust tactics to conform to whatever is the most effective against an insurgency because of rules is pretty stupid to me. If insurgents can do anything they want with no reprisal, I've no real qualms about us doing whatever it takes to get the job done.

We went in and killed or captured anyone who would face us openly. Then they stopped facing us openly and started just planting bombs all over the place. Because we can't do anything in particular to stop these actions in any meaningful way, shit like Haditha happens out of frustration. Seems like a simple mathematical equation to me. Either let the military do what it takes, or suffer the consequences of shit going south when soldiers get too frustrated at being attacked by an enemy that hides amongst the civilian populace.

If the populace don't accept the consequences of getting hit in the crossfire(Which should still be avoided when possible) then they should stop sheltering people they blatantly know are Insurgents. Either go with it until we go away, or suffer massive consequences, that's how I feel it should go. Sitting around with thumbs up our asses is not a viable option, because it will never lead to us winning. Ever.

That said, I've been in favor of pulling out of the middle east to focus on domestic issues for some time now, it's just that while we're there, and while we are mounting any attempt at winning, we should do it right so we have an actual chance of success.

edited 29th Aug '12 10:49:24 PM by Barkey

Iran and Libya. I wouldn't say it's just America that has suffered from the excesses of terrorism, state-sponsored or otherwise, coming out of predominantly Islamic countries. Rather, America is a convenient symbol of Western oppression that can be targeted by people with the means and the motives. A "Great Satan", if you like. Sorry UK, you only get to be the Little Satan.

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

I don't recall anyone actually say or imply this. Strawman?

I'm pretty sure they existed since the start of Islam, same for militants existed for Christianity and every other religion and political ideology.

That's your opinion, not a fact. The Other Wiki reports numbers that go all over the place - from 9 in 10 victims being civilians to 30 in 1,300 being the same. This is probably because of how vague the difference is between militant and civilian is - just some guy transporting weapons to the site? A man who wants to kill the enemy but hasn't got a gun yet? Wives and children running intel and weapons deliveries? Part-timers?

I don't recall anyone actually say or imply this. Strawman?

The US has already pulled out of Iraq. It's moving along with pulling out of Afghanistan. I don't know whether they'll still be using drones on Pakistan's borders after that. What do folks think?

Assuming Pakistan is a rational actor attempting to play the US, I think yes. They will outwardly condemn them as a violation of sovereignty to maintain face with the ummah as well as countries hostile to the US but they'll continue to "not detect" the violation of their airspace as long as the drones continue to target groups not in the pay of the ISI.

edited 30th Aug '12 12:54:32 PM by HouraiRabbit

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

The point of lawful combatant rules isn't to protect one side or the other — it's to protect noncombatants. Unlawful combatants blur the line between combatants and noncombatants — they act like combatants (they fight) but they look like noncombatants (they don't wear uniforms). This encourages lawful combatants to treat noncombatants like combatants, because they might be. Since this is likely to get a lot of noncombatants killed, it's forbidden by international law.

It's the same reason why Playing Possum and I Surrender, Suckers is also against international law. If supposedly wounded and/or surrendering soldiers are actually still fighting, then soldiers will treat all wounded and/or surrendering enemies as potential combatants — and may very well kill them because of it.

Since we don't want people killing wounded/surrendered soldiers, we forbid combatants to pretend to be wounded or surrendering. Since we don't want people killing civilians, we forbid combatants to pretend to be civilians.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

@ Barkey

The American forces need to learn from the British how to deal with insurgency because it's not about bringing in more guns, more tanks and more powerful weapons. The British handled themselves very well in Iraq and they walked down the street with just hand-held weapons. So yeah, the military should adapt but I don't think they should adapt in the way I believe you are suggesting.

Drone strikes, heavy weapons and other methods that increase the ire of the location population will only make it even more threatening for American soldiers to be out and about in these foreign locations.

@ betaalpha

Barkey already responded to my post so, don't call strawman all over the place when there's people who have already responded to my points before you posted.

As for civilians killed, I'm not sure how implying that it could be "as low as" 10 civilians killed per militant to upwards to 300 is somehow destroying my point of killing a hundred civilians per militant. Killing even 1 civilian per militant is already horrendous. Does your police force massacre civilians en masse when attempting to arrest criminals? What is your implication here?

@ Hourai Rabbit

Okay, let's look at Iran/Libya.

Iran: US supported the rise of a dictatorial regime which was then overthrown in the Islamic Revolution. Or are you saying they were hostile before that? Like say, when we launched a surprise attack against them in WW 2?

Libya: So, I'm going to say that it was about the time that Gadhafi came to power there that they became hostile. First things he did was demand more revenue from us for being in his oil fields and shutting down British and American military bases. American bases would, I presume, indicate the presence of the American military in the country. The oil revenue demand is likely a sort of foreign-backed corporation resource spat.

@ native jovian

Sure, but also if you look at the international rules on engagement, if the forces slip back into civilian mode, you have to stop chasing and you can't punish civilians are aiding them. While what you say is a valid point, the only reason you're backing is because you're on the other side of the fence. French or Chinese resistance were being accused of exactly the same things.

In fact, go read transcripts of the imperial Japanese forces when they were brutally massacring entire cities in China. You replace the word "Chinese bandits" with "Iraqi insurgents", they read word for word the same.

America should never have gone in the first place and the American people are suffering the consequences of the militant decisions of their government.

Drone strikes should stop period.

@ All

I don't even see why this is a hard decision for anybody.

Let's say 30 years down the road, China is the top dog in the world. There is a global insurgent network against them, mostly central Africans. They've rebased many of their operatives in the United States, where the local government doesn't touch them so long as they don't cause local trouble. But the Chinese have military intelligence on the approximate location and whereabout of those individuals.

The Chinese have forced the Canadians into one-sided military treaties in exchange for trade rights and access to locations in East Asia, or else they'll ruin the Canadian economy. This allows them to plant air bases across the US-Canada border, just within spitting range of US soil.

The American authorities refuse to make moves on the militants despite vague Chinese threats over "tacit American support of anti-Chinese insurgents". Thus, the Chinese take it upon themselves to rid the world of this menace. So, they choose to make drone strikes on locations where intelligence suggests that those individuals are operating.

Each month, anywhere between 30-100 Americans die, with an unknown number being central African insurgents. China tells America "you're not handling the problem, therefore we have the right to hit these targets".

That's your world.