<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hello Mr. Helbig. Glad you are on this list, to push the discussion
beyond the choir preaching to ourselves.<br>
<br>
The article you post makes a familiar point - this seems to be the
heart of it:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">pinpoint strikes kill terrorist chieftains<br>
and their immediate adherents (or, at worst, their willing hosts)
while<br>
sparing the family next door.</blockquote>
<br>
Who could object to killing only the truly deserving bad guys? We
heard this kind of line during the Iraq War's use of "precision
weapons", during the Israeli bombardments of Gaza, etc.<br>
<br>
But there are big problems with it. <br>
<br>
- The "intelligence" system, which is supposed to identify those
deserving bad guys, is flawed. Remember how Guantanamo prison got
filled with the worst of the worst, many of whom turned out to be
just ordinary people in Afghanistan who'd been turned in by other
Afghanis for the bounties we were offering? That same corruption
can apply to the targeting of people for drone strikes, as for
example here. Note the comment that the bounty system actually
encourages turning in innocent people, since they're less likely to
have peers who can retaliate.<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://www.alternet.org/story/155723/i_met_a_16-year-old_kid._3_days_later_obama_killed_him?page=entire">http://www.alternet.org/story/155723/i_met_a_16-year-old_kid._3_days_later_obama_killed_him?page=entire</a><br>
<br>
<br>
- The job of a bureaucracy is to hide faults in the work it does.
John Brennan, nominated yesterday for head of the CIA (!), said
publicly in 2011 that there had not been a single collateral death
due to drone strikes. In April, 2012, he corrected that to
"exceedingly rare". Independent estimates suggest that several
hundred civilians had been killed among the 2500-3300 killed by
drone strikes since 2004 in Pakistan - a sixth or more - and that
the numbers of "high level" militants killed was only about 2% of
the total.<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare">http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare</a><br>
<br>
- Drones aren't necessarily used in the sparing way this article
leads you to think. (If they're extremely precise, and the job's
not getting done, why not just use more of them?) Robert Naiman of
Just Foreign Policy, who was part of a delegation to Pakistan which
spoke to the US ambassador there, wrote about it (and posted it on
this list last October 5th):<br>
<a
href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html</a><br>
<br>
He cites several studies looking into "double tap" drone strikes,
where, after having bombed some supposed militant, the operators
wait for rescuers to rush to the site and then bombs it again.
Presumably the theory is that fellow militants might be among those
rushing to the aid of injured people, but <br>
<br>
- Who is the "enemy" anyway?<br>
A few months ago we learned that the Obama administration has
adopted a high standard for identifying militants killed: any male
of military age in an area where hostilities are going on is deemed
a militant unless there's compelling reason to think otherwise.<br>
<br>
Just last week, a drone strike in Pakistan killed a number of
militants including a high-level Taliban commander, Mullah Nazir.
Who is he? Well, he had a truce with the Pakistani government, and
had been actively working for a peace treaty.<br>
<br>
<a
href="http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/letters/06-Jan-2013/drones-killing-our-allies">http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/letters/06-Jan-2013/drones-killing-our-allies</a><br>
<br>
This letter notes, "According to observers the timing of the recent
drone attacks is very significant; only days ago militants had
offered peace negotiations to government and the government and
Pakistan Army were also seeing peaceful solution to end the ten
years of bloodshed in the country and had agreed to negotiate with
the militants to control growing militancy and raising suicide
attacks in the country. This untimely drone attack, and killing of
Mullah Nazir will affect these peace negotiations." - and points out
that there had been a similar drone attack in the past killing
another militant engaged in peace talks.<br>
<br>
<br>
This behavior is consistent with an imperial US that thrives on
endless war. It's not so consistent with the story of the
peace-loving US, fighting reluctantly against implacable enemies,
which you'd be led to imagine from reading this New York Post
article.<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/8/13 6:06 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CALZ0NqXsmK4rJErkETCu1VpdOkozv0uycKWj9zN200N7OXrQBg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<div>just saw this - he writes better than me - sorry that he
works for Fox, but he still makes sense despite my strong bias
against Fox thanks to my watching (paid admission both times)
Outfoxed twice!</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">16)
Drone Cold Truth--LTC Ralph Peters, USA (Ret.) </span></b><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">New
York Post</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">January
7, 2013 </span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Pg.
19</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Drone
Cold Truth</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Sparing
innocents, not terrorists</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">By
Ralph Peters</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">The
inexhaustible America-haters on our domestic left are
absolutely correct that drones — unmanned aerial vehicles,
or UAVs — are morally ambiguous weapons. All weapons of
war are morally ambiguous, as are even “just wars” waged
for purely defensive purposes. All wars violate a
universal commandment: Thou shalt not kill.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">But
in this imperfect world, we sometimes must kill if we are
to survive. In developed societies (such as our own) that
strive toward moral behavior, killing enemies in a
conflict is regulated by laws, conventions and ethics. At
times, as in the city bombings of World War II, we cast
our strictures aside in a desperate hour. But we really do
our best to spare the innocent.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Warfare
is imprecise, though, shaped by confusion and emotion as
much as by plans. It’s unlikely that humans will ever
eliminate war or find a way to wage it so “cleanly” that
every noncombatant will be safe.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">But
— contrary to the reflexive claims of the left — UAVs mark
a significant in sparing the innocent: morally ambiguous
still, but less so than an artillery shell or a cruise
missile.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Never
before has a state been able to target its deadly enemies
with such precision. And contrary to one of the countless
myths of the left, we’re trigger-happy. Under rules
adopted in the Bush years and broadly retained now,
targets must be screened and approved at multiple levels
in a process so rigorous that, frequently, our enemies
escape. It’s hard to see how we could fight more
ethically.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Instead
of bombing a city or invading yet another country where
terrorists have found refuge, pinpoint strikes kill
terrorist chieftains and their immediate adherents (or, at
worst, their willing hosts) while sparing the family next
door. But our critics, foreign and domestic, hold us to an
impossible standard, questioning whether we have the right
to kill enemies proud of their resolve to murder us. Those
same critics revel in the rare drone strikes that go awry
as evidence of our alleged savagery.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">But
there will always be mistakes in war, because war is waged
by human beings, even if they command brilliant machines
(which themselves may err). What should be deemed
remarkable is how few innocents have become casualties in
proportion to the number of confirmed terrorists
eliminated. That ratio is without precedent in warfare.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">What
should trouble all of us — especially those of genuine
conscience on the left — is the hard left’s willful
blindness to the atrocities of the terrorists we hunt.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">These
men slaughter teachers, doctors and aid workers, anonymous
shoppers in the marketplace and elementary-school
students, especially girls. (In Islamist terror’s
homelands, Newtown is everywhere.)</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Yet
leftists romanticize America’s enemies, excusing their
sins while exaggerating our missteps. And when other
accusations fall short, they trot out the N-word of
security affairs, “assassination,” equating terrorist
chieftains with JFK.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">The
hard left’s position is ultimately simple: America is bad,
our troops are monsters and attacks on our known enemies
are criminal. And drones are hateful because they not only
make our military more effective, but also because they
spare the innocent: For leftists, it’s better if we kill
more civilians, since that reinforces their dogma.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">It’s
also interesting that, while the left personalized every
action of President George W. Bush, President Obama
largely gets a pass, as if he’s being duped by
bloodthirsty generals. But Obama has learned to stop
worrying and love that drone: For him, UAVs are effective,
politically convenient, diplomatically defensible and
(given the cost of ground interventions) cheap.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Yes,
there are moral questions. There always will be in
warfare. Practical issues arise, as well, such as the
limits of sovereignty in a world of porous borders. And,
yes, there are legal and ethical matters that remain
unresolved.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">But
there’s one more point that the left and its fellow
travelers in the commentariat get wrong: their claim that
drone strikes only create more terrorists.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Well,
no. Drone attacks deprive terror organizations of
experienced leaders and fanatical executors. And a village
kid mad that his goat ran away from the blast doesn’t
automatically turn into a suicide bomber.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Do
drone strikes excite anger? You bet: not least, among the
terrorists and their supporters (including sympathizers
here at home). For the rest of us, terrorists slain by
UAVs mean soldiers and Marines come home alive — and a
safer world.</span><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";font-size:13.5pt">Ralph
Peters is Fox News’ strategic analyst and a retired US
Army officer.</span><br>
<br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Roger
Helbig <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rwhelbig@gmail.com" target="_blank">rwhelbig@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">
since when are you a judge in an international court of law -
maybe if we had had armed drones in 2000, Bin Laden would have
been taken out and 9/11 would not have happened. You and most
of the so-called peace establishment believe the propagandists
and ignore reality. <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Karen
Medina <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kmedina67@gmail.com" target="_blank">kmedina67@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"
class="gmail_quote">
> But the US has no right to wage war in the first
place.<br>
<br>
That is, of course, very true. But it is the hard to
convince enough<br>
people of this.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Peace-discuss mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net"
target="_blank">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss"
target="_blank">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Peace-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net">Peace-discuss@lists.chambana.net</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss">https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>