On and On We Drone
Today a CIA drone bombed the house of a Taliban official's in-laws in Pakistan (the 29th drone attack this year). He may or may not have been there but three children and one woman (possibly his wife) were killed. [Added: Initial reports were that he (Baitullah Mehsud) was definitely not killed. If he was, that is good in that it will at least justify the attack to many Pakistanis (and he was a murderous thug). But there have been many drone attacks launched against him before, only resulting in the deaths of civilians. That is one problem with remote control killing- the downside doesn't seem so steep from such a distance.] All this will do, as it has in the past, is turn more Muslims against us. If this is how we'll continue to prosecute the war on terror, whose side are we on? This attack will likely spawn more unrest in Pakistan. In Viet Nam the word was escalation (through troop increases). We are escalating our WOT, as we did in Iraq, by creating more and more enemies through our military actions.
How are drone attacks not assassinations or murder (unsuccessful or not)? What is the difference between someone pulling a trigger on a Somalian "rebel" from right behind them or from a control room in Florida (and don't answer 5,000 miles, smart-ass)? I realize that there is argument now about CIA and/or military assassination squads, which was not so much a surprise as was the fact that Congress was left out of the loop. Bush allegedly rescinded President Ford's loosely defined assassination ban, but that hardly seems to matter considering the Bush administration's demolition of limitations on executive and military actions. (And when did the CIA become our military lead?) At the very least, it will surely at some point, encourage others to do likewise. What will we say then? What will our conflicts look like then?
Is this what America has come to- big brother type remote-control assassinations anywhere in the world, with or without that country's cooperation, of people, some innocent, some not, who are not shooting at us. In fact, the point of the drone is to go where we cannot, so I can't see how this can even be called warfare when the only shooting is that of a machine. I recall one of the first drone attacks in Yemen on an Al Qaeda officer suspected in the Cole bombing. It killed five or six others (who, of course, were all Al Qaeda) including one American.
I cite this instance only as an example of the ambiguous "global" nature of the endless war against "terrorists." It may, in fact, be a good example of the use of remote controlled killing since the target(s) were top Al Qaeda officers, shortly after we had been attacked by Al Qaeda. The Taliban, regardless of one's opinion of them were a state government. Does their association with AL Qaeda make every Taliban a target for assassination from here to eternity? I do not have a legal mind or background, but I wonder how remote-controlled assassinations in autonomous countries can be legal. And this does not even address the perpetual problem of "collateral damage."
Here's the latest model (being shown anyway). Travels almost 500 MPH and carries four Hellfire missiles.
Lt. Gen. David Deptula, USAF, explains that the next phase will enable a single drone to provide as many as 60 simultaneous live video feeds directly to combat troops. Some new drones will be as small as flies, others walk -- all appear destined to work with decreasing human input.
"The future of how you use these un-manned systems or remotely piloted systems is really unlimited," says Deptula, based at the Pentagon and racing to keep pace with battlefield needs as well as Gates's demands. "We need to open our minds and think more about capability and impact we are going to achieve as opposed to how we've done business in the past."
What will our Global War on Terror look like in ten or twenty years, when the skies are full of invisible cameras and these killer drones, exponentially smaller, faster and more lethal, are scattered around the globe, ready at a moment's notice to pop up and take out anyone deemed a suspect and any unfortunate bystanders?
You mean to tell me murder is murder?
This is the dream of cheney and bolton and feith.
We would just send the robots in, kill and somehow it was all right.
WHO IS THE TERRORIST AGAIN?
I forget
August 7, 2009 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be surprised if Cheney sat at the controls of a Predator at least once ("Let me shoot one! Let me!"). I mean, he is that brave (and he has shot people before).
"The Vice President is standing by his decision to shoot Harry Whittington. Now, according to the best intelligence available, there were quail hidden in the brush. Everyone believed at the time there were quail in the brush. And while the quail turned out to be a 78- year-old man, even knowing that today, Mr. Cheney insists he still would have shot Mr. Whittington in the face. He believes the world is a better place for his spreading buckshot throughout the entire region of Mr. Wittington's face." --"Daily Show" correspondent Rob Corddry
August 7, 2009 1:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oy. 1984.
Or maybe, Dr Zhivago.
Captain: "Were they white drones, or red drones?"
Citizen: "Drones....They were drones...."
August 7, 2009 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since I heard Bill Clinton proudly state in that infamous angry Fox interview a couple of years back, that he tried to assassinate Osama bin Laden, as if it was nothing he had to hide, in the back of my mind, I wondered about the legal thing.
I found that this recent article in Slate was quite helpful on that front:
I think it is also helpful to keep in mind that by its very nature, terrorism is a tactic that doesn't play by any rules, actually often tries to subvert and utilize the rules against the enemy.
Al Qaeda for one certainly does political assassinations without excuse--Masood blown up by an interview crew is one famous example. And they also purposefully target civilians. While we take cover for civilian deaths under the "collateral damage" explanation, they unashamedly target civilians in order to hurt their enemy (keep in mind not just 9/11 but many examples--all the innocent African victims in the 98 embassy bombings, people waiting in line for cooking oil in Iraq, Spain's 3/11, numerous Asian resort attacks, Mumbai, etc.) with a fatwa from a flunky imam as their moral excuse.
Don't get me wrong, all I am not defending lowering ourselves to the level of our adversaries. I just find it an interesting question, and I think like you the advancement of drone technology makes it an important one to discuss, the potential is quite frightening.
I am reminded of Juan Cole's point long ago that most terrorist groups are like the Mafia in that they make it difficult for Western democracies to fight them and stay within their Enlightenment ideals, and that we often have to do workarounds like RICO to deal with them. It doesn't seem honest or right or true to send a gangster who has killed many to jail on tax evasion, but that's what we've had to do. There are always such shades of grey moral problems in dealing with terrorist groups, because they themselves are purposefully playing by their own rules and often not only just ignoring their enemies' rules, but working actively to upset that rule system.
It is possibly helpful to use an example out of the realm of Islamic terrorism and American military power to think about it. If Aum Shinrikyo had continued to target the Japanese subway system with poisonous gas attacks, is a "shoot on site" order appropriate?
And a crucial reminder: it isn't easy to arrest someone with a suicide belt on so that you can put them on trial. That's the point of using the tactic, actually, at least to my mind. It challenges our whole social order--we don't have a way of dealing with someone who already is resigned to giving up their life.
August 7, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
correction to second last paragraph: "shoot on sight," not "shoot on site."
As long as I am back here, I would like to add that I think it is unfair to label the Obama administration as seeing all Taliban as terrorists. I don't think they do. They are targeting those who have their own terrorist groups actively working to take over Pakistan and Afghanistan, who also happen to be Taliban, and are also basically following in brotherhood with original anti-western Al Qaeda goals and principles. They have actually done controversial outreach to more moderate Taliban, in order to set them against the others, in the same manner of turning certain Sunnis in Iraq against "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia." Interestingly, this is a similar tactic as getting a Mafia turncoat to work with you.
August 7, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and another P.S.: From my reading and intepretation of events, added to what I learned reading about Pakistan more intensely in the past, I suspect each and every U.S. drone attack on Pakistani soil so far has been done with permission from the Pakistani government. I think any protests you have heard from the Pakistani government were merely cover, for domestic consumption, to prevent domestic protest and upheaval. I think every time the U.S. knew in advance and agreed to Pakistan disavowing their approval if they felt it necessary. And BTW, recently read something about how we denied Pakistan access to drone technology that they wanted very much.
August 7, 2009 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
More thoughts keep coming to mind, sorry for the run on. In my recent reading, it was clear that over the last year that the efforts of Pakistani forces in trying to get certain terrorist group leaders were the cause of far far more civilian deaths than U.S. drone attacks or even U.S. bomb attacks in Afghanistan, that civilian deaths were really becoming a counterproductive problem for them. That syncs with them wanting the newer drone technology for themselves, and also syncs with them giving the U.S. approval for certain hits on their soil. The Pakistani forces have actually shown themselves to be quit incompentent at preventing civilian deaths in fights on their own soil, they are still mainly trained for war with India...hence the mass evacuation from Swat Valley, etc.
August 7, 2009 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
AA, I wrote a long reply to this and thought I posted it, but apparently it didn't take. I had some problems and couldn't get back to this but appreciate your comments.
August 12, 2009 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. Heck, no need to acknowledge though, as I usually am just going on the presumption that I am writing for myself and if anyone sees it, I am pleasantly surprised. :-)
August 12, 2009 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's ironic, that our reticence to risk US casualties by using ground forces, and instead opting for using drones, increases the odds of having future terrorists attack US military and civilian targets alike. To describe such weapon delivery devices as 'precision' anything is a total misnomer. I suspect this whole debate about robot warriors will go down in history as a severely misguided policy.
August 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are those the drones made by Insitu, the company that Boeing recently took over? I wondered how those were going to be used. Search Boeing, and you'll find an article about this company and their digs along the Columbia.
August 7, 2009 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
At first, there were doubts regarding who among the Taliban was killed in the drone attack, and if the attack had been a failure, it would have backfired politically and harmed U.S. relations with Pakistan. However, as it turned out, Mehsud, the leading Taliban commander in Pakistan was in fact killed, as confirmed by both the Pakistani government and Taliban witnesses. Even DNA evidence was used to prove that it was he.
This is an enormous loss to the Taliban, which is why the Pakistani government is expressing great satisfaction with the attack despite their frequent criticism of drone attacks in the past
Mehsud will be replaced, but his charisma and leadership skills will be difficult for his replacement to emulate, and so it is a tactical and psychological blow to the Taliban. More important, perhaps, it is a psychological lift to the Pakistani government and many citizens. Mehsud was one of the most ruthless killers among the Taliban, responsible not only for the assasination of Benazir Bhutto, but for a string of murders of all who stood in his way, even among sympathizers with his movement.
Most analysis see this event as an important step in bringing Pakistani and U.S. interests closer together, and facilitating further cooperation in trying to keep the terrorists on the run, even though their complete elimination is impossible.
August 7, 2009 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry everyone, I had an emergency that took me out of town for several days and couldn't reply to my own (poorly written) post.
August 12, 2009 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink