[Peace-discuss] drones and the human cost of war

Tue Jan 8 17:18:57 UTC 2013

Hello Mr. Helbig.  Glad you are on this list, to push the discussion 
beyond the choir preaching to ourselves.

The article you post makes a familiar point - this seems to be the heart 
of it:
> pinpoint strikes kill terrorist chieftains
> and their immediate adherents (or, at worst, their willing hosts) while
> sparing the family next door.

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.

But there are big problems with it.

    - 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.

http://www.alternet.org/story/155723/i_met_a_16-year-old_kid._3_days_later_obama_killed_him?page=entire

    - 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.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/30/11475659-us-official-acknowledges-drone-strikes-says-civilian-deaths-exceedingly-rare

    - 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):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html

    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

    - Who is the "enemy" anyway?
       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.

       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.

http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/letters/06-Jan-2013/drones-killing-our-allies

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.

      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.

On 1/8/13 6:06 AM, Roger Helbig wrote:
> 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!
>
> *16) Drone Cold Truth--LTC Ralph Peters, USA (Ret.) *
>
> New York Post
>
> January 7, 2013
>
> Pg. 19
>
> Drone Cold Truth
>
> Sparing innocents, not terrorists
>
> By Ralph Peters
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.)
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Ralph Peters is Fox News' strategic analyst and a retired US Army officer.
>
> On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:30 PM, Roger Helbig <rwhelbig at gmail.com 
> <mailto:rwhelbig at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     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.
>
>     On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Karen Medina <kmedina67 at gmail.com
>     <mailto:kmedina67 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         > But the US has no right to wage war in the first place.
>
>         That is, of course, very true. But it is the hard to convince
>         enough
>         people of this.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         Peace-discuss mailing list
>         Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>         <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>         https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> https://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20130108/c876a2e5/attachment-0001.html>