I was minutes from ordering a drone strike on a Taliban insurgent – until I realised I was watching

[cali]

an Afghan child at play.

Drone warfare's deadly civilian toll: a very personal view

I find myself caught between the need to follow the drone debate and the need to avoid unpleasant memories it stirs. I used drones – unmanned aerial vehicles – during the nadir of my military career that was an operational tour in Afghanistan. I remember cuing up a US Predator strike before deciding the computer screen wasn't depicting a Taliban insurgent burying an improvised explosive device in the road; rather, a child playing in the dirt.

After returning from Afghanistan at the end of 2009, I left the British army in 2010. I wanted to put as much distance as I could between myself and the UK, leaving to study in America (where I still reside). By doing so, I inadvertently placed myself in the country that is spearheading development in drone technology and use, highlighted by each report of a drone strike and the usual attendant civilian casualties.

Political theorist Hannah Arendt described the history of warfare in the 20th century as the growing incapacity of the army to fulfil its basic function: defending the civilian population. My experiences in Afghanistan brought this issue to a head, leaving me unable to avoid the realization that my role as a soldier had changed, in Arendt's words, from "that of protector into that of a belated and essentially futile avenger". Our collective actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were, and remain, futile vengeance – with drones the latest technological advance to empower that flawed strategy.

Drones are becoming the preferred instruments of vengeance, and their core purpose is analogous to the changing relationship between civil society and warfare, in which the latter is conducted remotely and at a safe distance so that implementing death and murder becomes increasingly palatable.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/drone-warfare-deadly-civilian-toll

[newfie11]

1. K&R

[Ian62]

2. Drone strikes are counter productive

For every US drone strike in Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan it is estimated that 30 - 50 innocent civilians on average are killed as "collateral damage".

The casualty rates are so appalling that the military is now classifying enemy combatants as any male over the age of 13 to reduce the civilian casualty numbers.

For every bad guy killed the drone strike will recruit more Jihadists and Islamic Extremists.
No numbers or estimates are available.

Each extremist leader killed is replaced by a younger even more angry and extreme leader.
There are no shortage of recruits - males of fighting age whose relatives have been indiscriminately killed by the US.

There is no shortage of testosterone laden angry young males in Yemen.
Yemen has one of the fastest growing populations in the world (despite US attempts at culling).
It also has one of the youngest demographics in the world (according to CIA demographic reports).
Yemen also has a very high unemployment rate.
A perfect recruiting ground for guerilla warfare, which the US is currently encouraging.

Jeremy Scahill on Obama's drone strike policy
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/02/jeremy-scahill-says-drone-strikes-murders_n_1565441.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=63338,b=facebook

N.B. drones don't just have missiles.
Cluster bombs to wipe out entire villages are being used in Yemen.

In this cluster bomb attack 35 women and children were killed.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/yemen/7806882/US-cluster-bombs-killed-35-women-and-children.html

[Gregorian]

3. All military is counterproductive.

The world needs consciousness, not bombs.

[onethatcares]

4. my thoughts always return to

"How are we protecting OUR civilians by being in Afganistan/Pakistan, or any of the other "stan" countries around the world?

I may have this completely ass backwards but I've yet to see an Afgani Drone patrolling the skies above Tampa.

Or a battalion of the Taliban running up I 95.

We've lost our soul in pursuit of empire, drones are just a symptom of that loss.

Just my .02

Peace

[ronnie624]

5. Exactly.

I don't want kinder, gentler empire. I want the aggression to stop.

[moondust]

6. "Not to worry, boys--it's just a pack of moochers."

"Any more targets today, President Romney?"

[countryjake]

7. Vengeance with no emotional attachment...

exacted from 7000 miles away.

And the MIC is chomping at the bit, determined to make this the preferred method of killing in the 21st century, as the Pentagon just recently approved the sale & export of our drones to some 66 countries throughout the world.

The little people on the ground don't matter when profit is to be made.



US Drone Pilot: 'I Feel No Emotional Attachment'
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/07/30-0


Pentagon OK with selling US drones to 66 countries
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/06/13695931-pentagon-ok-with-selling-us-drones-to-66-countries?lite

[Solly Mack]

8. K&R

[Egnever]

9. "that of protector into that of a belated and essentially futile avenger"

This is part of his problem in the first place.

Throughout history this has been soldiers jobs. There is nothing new about civilian casualties in war and I think that a very good argument could be made that drone strikes significantly reduce the amount of civilian casualties as they take away the need to put a full force on the ground and all the destruction such a force brings with it.

I would prefer we stop killing each other on this planet but that's clearly not going to happen any time soon.

Bottom line I think this article is fantasy land feel good BS.