I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on.

[Redfairen]

Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program – aka drones – I wish I could ask them some questions. I'd start with: "How many women and children have you seen incinerated by a Hellfire missile?" And: "How many men have you seen crawl across a field, trying to make it to the nearest compound for help while bleeding out from severed legs?" Or even more pointedly: "How many soldiers have you seen die on the side of a road in Afghanistan because our ever-so-accurate UAVs [unmanned aerial vehicle] were unable to detect an IED [improvised explosive device] that awaited their convoy?"

Few of these politicians who so brazenly proclaim the benefits of drones have a real clue of what actually goes on. I, on the other hand, have seen these awful sights first hand. I knew the names of some of the young soldiers I saw bleed to death on the side of a road. I watched dozens of military-aged males die in Afghanistan, in empty fields, along riversides, and some right outside the compound where their family was waiting for them to return home from mosque.

The US and British militaries insist that this is such an expert program, but it's curious that they feel the need to deliver faulty information, few or no statistics about civilian deaths and twisted technology reports on the capabilities of our UAVs. These specific incidents are not isolated, and the civilian casualty rate has not changed, despite what our defense representatives might like to tell us.

What the public needs to understand is that the video provided by a drone is a far cry from clear enough to detect someone carrying a weapon, even on a crystal-clear day with limited clouds and perfect light. This makes it incredibly difficult for the best analysts to identify if someone has weapons for sure. One example comes to mind: "The feed is so pixelated, what if it's a shovel, and not a weapon?" I felt this confusion constantly, as did my fellow UAV analysts. We always wonder if we killed the right people, if we endangered the wrong people, if we destroyed an innocent civilian's life all because of a bad image or angle.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military

[GoneFishin]

1. The people who make money or whose careers are advanced by drone attacks do not

care who they hit IMO.

If they hit civilians then there will be more family members angry at the US which perpetuates the cycle of violence, which justifies the sale of more drones. It's a win-win, except for the poor bastards collecting firewood or hoeing their crops who get blown to bits, and american taxpayers who get to be fleeced by these assholes.

[polly7]

2. K&R. nt.

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. So s/he admits /she kills someone whom he cannot identify as armed

which makes me wonder how the hell can they identify the blown up bits as "militants".
IOW..it is all bullshit, people are being blasted needlessly.

Yet this person, who identifies as one of the "UAV troops", complains of suffering because of being a
remote murderer.
Not quite as much as the Afghan " bleeding out from severed legs" I would wager.

Note: changed gender reference as I am not clear if the story is written by a male or female.

[JaneQPublic]

4. Hellfire missiles can be fired from other platforms besides drones.

In fact "Hellfire" is an acronym for "Helicopter Launched, Fire and Forget Missile."

The Hellfire has been used since 1974 and has been fired from fixed-wing aircraft and boats, besides helos and drones.

Even if use of drones ended today, there would still be deaths by Hellfires, and "civilian" deaths included.

[dixiegrrrrl]

5. "how many troops working in UAV positions are heavily medicated "

"for depression, sleep disorders and anxiety."

Just noticed that sentence.