Bombing jungles, bombing deserts, same show, same targeting ethos--terrorists not communists--just different weapons systems--but more "acceptably" precise, nicht wahr?
3
The precision and accuracy that drones offer as surgical strikes raises ethical questions, however, of combat, and of the possibility of the proliferation of theaters of war worldwide. It is hard to deny the rise of drone warfare mirrors the problems of facing "non-state actors" where the US has little blueprint to operate, drones present a way to resolve the problem of a need for targeting enemies with which we have few maps to engage. The sole problem does not lie in the scale of engagement of enemies in drone warfare, but the ability and readiness to construct and indeed improvise theaters of war that lack the very legal precedents and ethical standards of war. ON the new maps of drone warfare, see my post, http://tinyurl.com/nv3y64a
1
Sorry NYTimes and most commenters, the drones are a better alternative to a ground battle. Period. And while you decry the US, it's history, and the history of the 'west' as somehow being responsible for 1000s of years of Islamic hatred, you are wrong. It is 2015 and we have thousands of Muslims ready to walk into a public space with a bomb tied around their midsection. We have thousands of women and little girls being stolen from their homes, their schools, and raped by merciless thugs with no consciense. We have murderous gangs that kidnap any westerner, and some from the east, to hold them for million dollar randsoms; only to be publically beheaded or burned to death on a video that goes viral on the Internet. We have Imams and clerics in the US, Britain, and throughout the 'evil west' that promote attacks and destruction on any that do not succumb to Sharia law. We have immigrants that come to our country and demand WE change for THEM. They are not here out of a love for the west or the US, they are here for money and to import their hatred for non-muslims, freedom of speech, and freedoms for women.
But then, I guess you've missed the last 15 years of news and history. Not as relevant as what happened during the crusades or whatever other history you've decided to fall back on?
But then, I guess you've missed the last 15 years of news and history. Not as relevant as what happened during the crusades or whatever other history you've decided to fall back on?
4
Mary,
I respectfully disagree.
We should enact a draft, multiply our special forces by ten, and put our blood at risk, in order to avoid the collateral damage that helps drive the recruitment of our adversaries. With the drone, it is too impersonal; it implies, we got the money, sacrifice is not our worry.
I respectfully disagree.
We should enact a draft, multiply our special forces by ten, and put our blood at risk, in order to avoid the collateral damage that helps drive the recruitment of our adversaries. With the drone, it is too impersonal; it implies, we got the money, sacrifice is not our worry.
2
Drone strikes won't "win the war against terrorism" but it apparently has made it less effective and that's good enough for me.
3
And how does one measure that, i.e., "less effective"? Based on what inferential evidence? Just feeling good, perhaps, safer, more protected, not as threatened as the past? The real versus the apparent success of this "war on terror" is quite nebulously tenuous. One thing seems clear, though--it's certainly going to drone on for a long time. Happy drone-makers, for sure.
4
The real issue in the drone wars is never talked about. How would you feel if some foreigners dropped missiles without warning in your neighborhood? How would you feel about it if it was a country like Pakistan doing it? How would you feel about your elected government representatives if they let it happen?
Any self-respecting person I can imagine would be incensed at both the US and the Pakistani government. It is a wonder the entire populace doesn't rise up and form a completely anti-US regime. Don't be surprised if it comes to pass.
Any self-respecting person I can imagine would be incensed at both the US and the Pakistani government. It is a wonder the entire populace doesn't rise up and form a completely anti-US regime. Don't be surprised if it comes to pass.
3
There is nothing "Holy" or pure or precise about executions by drones. For too many, they are as arbitrary as anything dropped from 40,000 feet over Vietnam by B-52s. When the bombs or missiles don't hit who they are intended to hit, it is straight-up murder, but sanctioned by the will of the people, i.e., US citizens, for it is ultimately their hand doing the killing, whether they like the concept or not. So right now, as long their house isn't hit by mistake, the average American citizen is okay with it. They are, after all, protecting the cherished "Homeland".
The notion that we have "a war on terror" is a meaningless phrase for the masses, the rabble, so the political ruling class and its munchkin bureaucrats and war-machine vendors can Pygmalionize the world the way they see it. Since "terrorists" can be found everywhere, it is, in fact, a de facto war on the world that is the "other".
So it goes in our "modern" age of man.
The notion that we have "a war on terror" is a meaningless phrase for the masses, the rabble, so the political ruling class and its munchkin bureaucrats and war-machine vendors can Pygmalionize the world the way they see it. Since "terrorists" can be found everywhere, it is, in fact, a de facto war on the world that is the "other".
So it goes in our "modern" age of man.
4
Then, it appears that the US goal was achieved. Next.
3
Drones are illegal beyond the battlefield
'the actual fighting of an armed conflict as defined under international law — limited geographical spaces where organized armed groups are engaged in actual fighting of some intensity.'
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/24/should-a-court-approve-a...
So many actions that are illegal have found their way into being the acceptable norm of society since 2001 torture, assassination, extra-judicial killing, kidnapping, rendition, black sites and on and on - and for what? I can't see any of it has made any positive difference, if anything it has made things 1000 times worse and severely impacted the moral standing and respect of the US. There is a valid and serious reason for international laws and for upholding them.
Osama Bin Laden's death heralded the end - no, it gave rise to something new, with more followers, more brutality, more lawlessness, the ME in chaos.
For once can't people look further than tomorrow, than the instant (empty) gratification of today's kill count and try to find a way forward that looks to a positive outcome long-term instead of adding fuel to a raging fire.
Maybe this needs a profound rethink of foreign policy if so surely that should be addressed now - instead of waiting for brutality and violence and death to force it, which will not be an advantageous position to be in for anyone.
'the actual fighting of an armed conflict as defined under international law — limited geographical spaces where organized armed groups are engaged in actual fighting of some intensity.'
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/24/should-a-court-approve-a...
So many actions that are illegal have found their way into being the acceptable norm of society since 2001 torture, assassination, extra-judicial killing, kidnapping, rendition, black sites and on and on - and for what? I can't see any of it has made any positive difference, if anything it has made things 1000 times worse and severely impacted the moral standing and respect of the US. There is a valid and serious reason for international laws and for upholding them.
Osama Bin Laden's death heralded the end - no, it gave rise to something new, with more followers, more brutality, more lawlessness, the ME in chaos.
For once can't people look further than tomorrow, than the instant (empty) gratification of today's kill count and try to find a way forward that looks to a positive outcome long-term instead of adding fuel to a raging fire.
Maybe this needs a profound rethink of foreign policy if so surely that should be addressed now - instead of waiting for brutality and violence and death to force it, which will not be an advantageous position to be in for anyone.
2
A far more meaningful analysis formulating public policy relating to the deployment of drones to attack precision targets juxtaposed to manned fighters and/or strategic bombers to assess "collateral damage" from the respective missions of each. Negative consequential damage from drone missions would be orders of magnitude less than from manned missions one can reasonably assume.
Well, there's a good reason: greater probably of killing the targeted--assuming real intelligence of same is accurate, well, close enough for the CIA, anyway--with fewer innocent dead lying about. Something you can go to bed at night with knowing, but still realizing, of course, there will always be the possibly of "acceptable" co-lateral losses, for the country doing the killing, of course.
2
Accepting the claims of these anonymous sources is questionable. As explained in "The Kill Chain," lie after lie kept the Vietnam War going. We bombed a bride in North Vietnam dozens of times, unsuccessfully, and losing aircraft and pilots. the NVA wasn't even using it. But they placed an anti-aircraft battery there to help lure our planes. Remember, Big Blue's biggest computer was asked in 1970: At current rate of Viet Cong and NVA being killed, when will the war end. It replied: 1968.
2
A correction. We bombed a "bridge"
1
Right, Use 'surgical' drone strikes to cut off the heads of Hydra...how's that working out? Oh, ceding "prominence and influence to more aggressive offshoots..."
"Trickle down" warfare hasn't worked yet this century, yet has for all of this century connived to generate a more vicious, unstable and warring political morass sitting atop all that desirable oil.
"Trickle down" warfare hasn't worked yet this century, yet has for all of this century connived to generate a more vicious, unstable and warring political morass sitting atop all that desirable oil.
2
Clark M. Shanahan Oak Park, Illinois Pending Approval
Drones really did a great job in Yemen..
You pro-dronin folk never take the time to consider the real costs of blowback and the mounting hate of peoples who see our vast technical and financial advantage as proof that we are the evil empire.
This resembles the Israelis crushing the Palestinians with lop-sided death rates.
Do we. also, intend keeping up this practice in perpetuity?
Do you really think we can kill off these movements?
That brings back memories of the Vietnam War and our net positive kill ratio.
Where did that get us?
No, there are more anti-American fighters today, than at the start of 'our inspirational leader's' tenure.
Like Clinton with his infatuation with 'smart bombs', drones are a convenient crutch for Obama, as we dig our hole ever deeper.
Drones really did a great job in Yemen..
You pro-dronin folk never take the time to consider the real costs of blowback and the mounting hate of peoples who see our vast technical and financial advantage as proof that we are the evil empire.
This resembles the Israelis crushing the Palestinians with lop-sided death rates.
Do we. also, intend keeping up this practice in perpetuity?
Do you really think we can kill off these movements?
That brings back memories of the Vietnam War and our net positive kill ratio.
Where did that get us?
No, there are more anti-American fighters today, than at the start of 'our inspirational leader's' tenure.
Like Clinton with his infatuation with 'smart bombs', drones are a convenient crutch for Obama, as we dig our hole ever deeper.
4
C'mon! George W. started digging the hole long ago. We just have never figured out when to stop digging. It is war - America loves war. War generates jobs and big corporate dollars. Eisenhower warned us long ago......
2
I know, US war-making has been present for the near totality of my nearly 60 yrs. We have a lot of responsibility as citizens of The Empire. Seems that there is very few who bother to question the status quo.
BTW: you needn't remind me of the crimes of Dubya.
BTW: you needn't remind me of the crimes of Dubya.
2
What is to be done when the terrorist leaders use their hostages as human shields? Will getting a judge's prior approval of drone strikes (as today's editorial suggests) somehow protect those hostages? Or are we to simply stop using drones and leave the work of rooting out terrorists to our troops? Shouldn't our focus be on minimizing the taking of hostages?
The use of drones seems pretty darn effective - what is the better alternative? The targeted deaths of Americans without due process is a bit of a hand wringer we should be concerned about. On one hand, if you join the enemy and declared war on the U.S. you are a viable battle target. On the other hand the U.S. government executing U.S. ctizens without a trial is to step out on the slippery slope.
The US Govt did not kill the US citizens without due process Al Qaeda did.
1
As to criticism of the President regarding the regretable drone related deaths of innocents; , nothing is assured with such undertakings, except the Republicans criticism when Mr. Obama takes strong action to protect us at home against terrorism - or in the alternative, when he does not. As in many circumstances, ask his critics what "specifically" they would do in the alternative, we get pivoting, rethorical, elusive responses. Specificity is something they won't/can't do.
3
It's like whack-a-mole, isn't it?
6
What happened to our peace prize winning president?
2
How interesting that in the wake of Obama's apology for "collateral damage" that a news article should appear suddenly talking about how successful drone strikes have been. The vision is incredibly short-sighted. If drone strikes and the "war against terror" are so successful, why is terrorism on the rise? Drone strikes are themselves an instrument of terror. We are unable to look in the mirror and see that for every terrorist or innocent that we kill, dozens of brothers, sisters, and cousins of the dead join the ranks against us. The war against terror is itself a terrorist act, feeding fear and hatred in those who earlier had no interest in harming the U.S. and its allies.
2
Interesting. In the past two days the topic of discussion has been how inaccurate and horrible these drone strikes have been to civilians and innocents. I guess the White House realized this wasn't looking good for them so now the press is spouting the government line of how wonderful drone strikes have been....even the start of the second paragraph diminishes killing of innocents because of these "American successes". Please - I am an American and I do NOT consider these actions to be successful.
I also note that with all of the intel and spying and listening in and flying over we do- the government still acknowledges that it does not know who actually is being killed. They only discovered two more bodies when they saw the graves being dug. I guess we are lucky that the "terrorists" buried "our" dead or else the Weinstein and Lo Porto families would still be in the dark.
I also note that with all of the intel and spying and listening in and flying over we do- the government still acknowledges that it does not know who actually is being killed. They only discovered two more bodies when they saw the graves being dug. I guess we are lucky that the "terrorists" buried "our" dead or else the Weinstein and Lo Porto families would still be in the dark.
8
we kill only the roaches that are seen……...
In another NYt articles Dr Wu Belmont writes;
"According to unnamed analysts any male over 17 killed by a drone is a terrorist."
"According to unnamed analysts any male over 17 killed by a drone is a terrorist."
1
"Analysts say", eh? Those "analysts" wouldn't happen to be war corporation toadies, would they?
Just sayin'...
Just sayin'...
3
What I find troubling about all of this is that this article suggests the drone program is effective despite civilian casualties, which, unfortunately, are all to often a consequence of war. On the other hand, Mr. Obama is publicizing the civilian casualties without explaining the possible benefits of the drone program, which does not implicate "boots on the ground" or US military casualties.
Let's not quibble. We are at war with terrorism. War is messy and by definition has casualties and disruption both military and civilian. No one wants to see civilian casualties or disruption. However, we must succeed in the war against terrorism, and, so long as we are taking reasonable steps to minimize the impact of the war against terrorism on civilians, we are going to have to accept that, in an imperfect world, they will occur from time to time.
Let's not quibble. We are at war with terrorism. War is messy and by definition has casualties and disruption both military and civilian. No one wants to see civilian casualties or disruption. However, we must succeed in the war against terrorism, and, so long as we are taking reasonable steps to minimize the impact of the war against terrorism on civilians, we are going to have to accept that, in an imperfect world, they will occur from time to time.
1
jpduffy3 - No, let's quibble.
The root of the problem here - and the error in your statement, I believe - is that one cannot "win" a war against a tactic or an ideology employed by non-state actors. The very nature of terrorism in this "war" makes it a travesty to expect to be able to "win." How do you envision a way in which terrorism is eliminated from the earth? How can you conceive of destroying an idea?
in 2001, President George H. W. Bush erred in bringing to the American mind a "global war on terror." It made us think we could actually effect a victory over it. 14 years, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, tens of thousands (more?) of broken service members, thousands of American families having lost loved ones, innocent civilians slaughtered, Americans target for assassination by their government without due process, Guantanamo "detainees" serving as examples of a failed justice system and a failing republic, and for what? A misguided idea that we can somehow eliminate a tactic and an ideology, an idea in the minds of sick, violent, twisted people?
It is time for us to accept that we have been misguided in our thinking. We were wrong. We must devise new ways of dealing with the problem of terrorism and its specific application within radical Islam. Terrorism has not been diminished since 2001; the problem has gotten worse and now encompasses a wider area and scope than ever before. We have made it worse by thinking we could eliminate it.
The root of the problem here - and the error in your statement, I believe - is that one cannot "win" a war against a tactic or an ideology employed by non-state actors. The very nature of terrorism in this "war" makes it a travesty to expect to be able to "win." How do you envision a way in which terrorism is eliminated from the earth? How can you conceive of destroying an idea?
in 2001, President George H. W. Bush erred in bringing to the American mind a "global war on terror." It made us think we could actually effect a victory over it. 14 years, trillions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives, tens of thousands (more?) of broken service members, thousands of American families having lost loved ones, innocent civilians slaughtered, Americans target for assassination by their government without due process, Guantanamo "detainees" serving as examples of a failed justice system and a failing republic, and for what? A misguided idea that we can somehow eliminate a tactic and an ideology, an idea in the minds of sick, violent, twisted people?
It is time for us to accept that we have been misguided in our thinking. We were wrong. We must devise new ways of dealing with the problem of terrorism and its specific application within radical Islam. Terrorism has not been diminished since 2001; the problem has gotten worse and now encompasses a wider area and scope than ever before. We have made it worse by thinking we could eliminate it.
8
To all those Bush Defenders out there. Ye we can blame Bush for a lot of this we also can blame Eisenhower. If you really knew history you would acknowledge that for every action there is a reaction and for every action and reaction they have an indefinite shelf life. I concur with Ed in Venice Fl.
1
It pleases me to know of the success of US drone strikes against al Qaeda leadership in Pakistan. Go USA, go!
2
The drone strikes are effective. And those westerners who choose to go work in dangerous areas of the middle east assume the risk of being captured and of being killed in air strikes. Everyone thinks that he is invincible. Then when one is captured, he wants to be saved by his country at any cost. Stay out of the middle east or don't expect to be ransomed by the USA. Keep the air strikes going.
2
As strategist like Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz have pointed out, war is a rather poor means that is applied when more subtle ones have failed.
The basic problem here is no-go areas where Al Qaeda can thrive. Drone killings do very little to solve that problem. In fact the Obama administration has helped creating new no-go areas in Syria and Libya and at the moment it is very active helping to expand the no-go area in Yemen.
The basic problem here is no-go areas where Al Qaeda can thrive. Drone killings do very little to solve that problem. In fact the Obama administration has helped creating new no-go areas in Syria and Libya and at the moment it is very active helping to expand the no-go area in Yemen.
1
The inventors of Drone should be awarded the Nobel Prize for technology.
I know such a prize doesn't exist,create one for this category.Immediately.
Incessant Drone targetting will collapse even Mount Everest let alone an bogus criminal driven organisation based on some filmsy ideology.
In every newspapers & Pamplets in Pakistan,Yemen,Sudan,....
Large photos of Criminals earmarked for being killed need to be printed & widely distributed.
When one of this Criminals are taken out then the name of the Drone should be published as a token of our gratitude to the Drone.
Drones can have chirpy names/Slangs like Miky,Swiny & other easy to remember names.
I take the Liberty on behalf of all readers of the NYT to thank the makers of the Drones.
Thank you,Drone.
I know such a prize doesn't exist,create one for this category.Immediately.
Incessant Drone targetting will collapse even Mount Everest let alone an bogus criminal driven organisation based on some filmsy ideology.
In every newspapers & Pamplets in Pakistan,Yemen,Sudan,....
Large photos of Criminals earmarked for being killed need to be printed & widely distributed.
When one of this Criminals are taken out then the name of the Drone should be published as a token of our gratitude to the Drone.
Drones can have chirpy names/Slangs like Miky,Swiny & other easy to remember names.
I take the Liberty on behalf of all readers of the NYT to thank the makers of the Drones.
Thank you,Drone.
1
At this time we are arguing for or supporting war against Syria, Iran and now the Houthi, who are the bitter enemies of al Qaeda! How much greater can the impact of a few drones be than the boon to al Qaeda, which our choice of enemies and allies presents? Our Sunni Allies arm, support and defend al Qaeda on every field of battle, and why wouldn't they? They created al Qaeda. By our reign of terror by drone we are creating either more al Qaeda or more future recruits for ISIS. If we don't want instability, then why are we working so hard to create instability by the perpetuation of barbarians like al Qaeda?
1
How delicious! You accidentally kill a few western hostages either by ineptness or miscommunication and you got Al-Qaeda re-thinking their entire strategy because the Americans might crazy!
You can kill one after the other, even scores of them, but they will always grow more replacements.
This is not a war against a political fraction or a small and thus limited group, this is a war against believers for who even death is no more than a confirmation of their cause.
You will not be able to win this war but only to confine its war zone by pulling out of the battle field and erect a confinement.
Let them simmer in their own juices and grow back to what they have been a few hundred years ago.
As small and locally isolated tribe.
If you talk to these guys, you will learn than no matter how much you try to conquer them and no matter how much you even might try to win them over with arguments and supplies, even medical support, there is always the argument of "God wants me to fight you and since I have lost a few times against you, I have a right and a duty to fight on".
Some you can't win and have to isolate.
So the drone strikes are only a small symptom of a lerger problem but not anywhere near a solution.
More a good reason to keep going.
This is not a war against a political fraction or a small and thus limited group, this is a war against believers for who even death is no more than a confirmation of their cause.
You will not be able to win this war but only to confine its war zone by pulling out of the battle field and erect a confinement.
Let them simmer in their own juices and grow back to what they have been a few hundred years ago.
As small and locally isolated tribe.
If you talk to these guys, you will learn than no matter how much you try to conquer them and no matter how much you even might try to win them over with arguments and supplies, even medical support, there is always the argument of "God wants me to fight you and since I have lost a few times against you, I have a right and a duty to fight on".
Some you can't win and have to isolate.
So the drone strikes are only a small symptom of a lerger problem but not anywhere near a solution.
More a good reason to keep going.
For the jihadists, loyal to the al-Qaeda brand of militancy, Osama bin-Laden could be compared to Che Guevara et al. Yet the Qaeda ideology is not the Marxist Guevarism, but Islamic extremism.
ISIS free rides on the Qaeda ideology and excels because of marketing and propaganda. With land grab in Syria and Iraq, ISIS had been able to eclipse al-Qaeda. No doubt Ayman al-Zahariri condemns the atrocities ISIS fighters have committed, thinking they are not Islamic! ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi keeps a low-profile and relies on delegates to run the organisations! These group leaders turn a blind eye to what foreign jihadists do - they cut hostages' heads off, indulge in hedonism, enslave women and girls etc.
ISIS free rides on the Qaeda ideology and excels because of marketing and propaganda. With land grab in Syria and Iraq, ISIS had been able to eclipse al-Qaeda. No doubt Ayman al-Zahariri condemns the atrocities ISIS fighters have committed, thinking they are not Islamic! ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi keeps a low-profile and relies on delegates to run the organisations! These group leaders turn a blind eye to what foreign jihadists do - they cut hostages' heads off, indulge in hedonism, enslave women and girls etc.
POTUS is naive. The Iranians have already created an impossible situation by declaring inspections of military facilities will not be permitted.We certainly have made mistakes in the past as when we overturned a democratically elected government and installed the Shah. That should not deter us from requiring Iran to submit to inspections and removing sanctions only after full compliance and the recognition of Israel, as well as the cessation of support for Hamas and other terrorists. We may need an aircraft carrier and a missile sub in the Gulf to get it done. So be it!
3
So if the Saudis provided the original seed money for al Qaeda, shouldn't our drone "warriors" be targeting the House of Saud? Oh, that's right, their "allies," right? They buy a lot of stuff from the Pentagon's favorites--perhaps the real problem.
4
Bring on the armed aerial drones. Use drones relentlessly and endlessly, to snuff the leadership of the Islamic terrorists.
Of course, so-called collateral damage occurs during drone strikes, as it does during other military action. In passing, let us note the subject of collateral damage, like the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent, if allowed to enter here, will inject a diversion from necessary warring activity. Morality has no place in this matter. After all, war means suffering and death minus morality.
In addition, the news media workers, biased to the bone, nearly always fail to mention drones remain a legitimate weapon of war. No "intense debate" -- except in the fevered minds of the news media workers -- exists in relation to the use of drones in warfare. Drones have decimated the leadership of the Islamic terrorists. A movement cannot succeed without effective leadership. The foot soldiers need the direction of leadership to do their part. For this reason, rain drones perpetually on the leadership of the Islamic terrorists, to defang the international jihad against the West, Russia, and China.
Of course, so-called collateral damage occurs during drone strikes, as it does during other military action. In passing, let us note the subject of collateral damage, like the nose of the camel under the edge of the tent, if allowed to enter here, will inject a diversion from necessary warring activity. Morality has no place in this matter. After all, war means suffering and death minus morality.
In addition, the news media workers, biased to the bone, nearly always fail to mention drones remain a legitimate weapon of war. No "intense debate" -- except in the fevered minds of the news media workers -- exists in relation to the use of drones in warfare. Drones have decimated the leadership of the Islamic terrorists. A movement cannot succeed without effective leadership. The foot soldiers need the direction of leadership to do their part. For this reason, rain drones perpetually on the leadership of the Islamic terrorists, to defang the international jihad against the West, Russia, and China.
Any discussion of the value of drones vs. troops in handling our issues with political and/or religious enemies in the middle East and elsewhere pales before the fact that the U.S. and its appointed puppets have exploited these peoples for decades and continue to do so. And in the indeterminate future when significant resistance to our empire-driven policies springs up on this continent from our own citizens, we will see the same discussion take place. The use of drones to take out houses and apartment buildings in our cities where suspected domestic terrorist insurgents are quartered will serve notice to the populace at large that the same fate awaits anyone who dares to try to wrest control from a government run amok.
2
As far as I know, we're not at war with Pakistan, but yet we use drones controlled by our CIA there killing innocents and terrorists alike. This is just the old CIA assassination program tricked out in new, imprecise technology. It is immoral and probably a violation of international law. It's an easy way out for President Obama and the Pakistanis to avoid "boots on the ground." But, that is what should have been done over a decade ago when the U.S. forced the Taliban from Afghanistan To provide them and other terrorists groups a "safe haven" in the "tribal areas" only results in endless killing of individual terrorists and needless deaths of innocent civilians in a never-ending cycle of assassination, recruitment of those angered by the murder of their innocent friends and family members, and kidnapping of foreigners like Dr. Weinstein and Mr. Lo Porto. This is another sad legacy of the Bush Administration that never should have been embraced, nevertheless enhanced, by President Obama.
3
I am sure that ISIS goes to get court permission to chop the heads off of innocent civilians and Christians before doing so. War is war and if there is collateral damage and death of innocents then so be it. It is war! It protects the national security of the United States. We may not like it, but it is what it is.
1
Drone attacks perfectly fit the description of terrorism for those who are not "terrorists"; you may be killed at any time without knowing your fate. This perception by public certainly helps ISIS and other terror groups if not Al Qaeda grow stronger.
1
After reading about the killing of two hostages along with militants, the question that has been lingering in my mind is, “will this not give idea to Al Qaeda militants to take more and more hostages and lodge them along with leaders, so that the U.S. will think hard before sending drones to attack?” Maybe, in future, hostages would be used as human shields against American drone attacks.
Al Qaeda is a sinking boat. I do not think they have capability now to do anything dramatic to grab the eye balls of world. I think, rather than flying over Afghanistan or Pakistan, now drones should be concentrating over Syria and Iraq to wipe out ISIS. Al Qaeda is not ISIS. There is a major difference between these two organizations when it comes to treating their hostages. Al Qaeda is willing to negotiate release of hostages for money whereas ISIS is keener in public executions. It is high time the U.S. concentrates more on ISIS since Al Qaeda is just shadow of its former self.
Al Qaeda is a sinking boat. I do not think they have capability now to do anything dramatic to grab the eye balls of world. I think, rather than flying over Afghanistan or Pakistan, now drones should be concentrating over Syria and Iraq to wipe out ISIS. Al Qaeda is not ISIS. There is a major difference between these two organizations when it comes to treating their hostages. Al Qaeda is willing to negotiate release of hostages for money whereas ISIS is keener in public executions. It is high time the U.S. concentrates more on ISIS since Al Qaeda is just shadow of its former self.
For every Al Qaeda leader we kill with drones, we create 25 more because of our reputation in Muslim countries for being 'the Great Satan'. Killing innocent Muslims is part of how we have earned this reputation. Even if we stopped using drones, our reputation won't go away. We continue to earn it by our almost unconditional support of Israel, and our bad behaviors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and especially at the prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Every war has citizen casualties and collateral damage. What we have decided, both Republicans under the two W. Bush administrations, and Democrats under the two Barack Obama administrations, is that the amount of collateral damage is worth the overall price we pay for being able to weaken Al Qaeda and the Taliban (different entities, please note) while maintaining fewer troops on the ground, hence fewer American troop casualties. In other words, drones cost us some treasure, but less blood. They are seen as cost-effective war machines, and are not going away.
If Al Qaeda and the Taliban get larger drones in the future, and they will, eventually, they will use them against us as well. A low-cost drone can now be had for about $100 U.S., but it can't carry much payload. It can, however, do surveillance, which may be worth a lot to Muslim terrorists in remote areas. The tech wars have only just begun around the world.
2
The drone killings have yielded "American successes" according to unnamed "counter-terrorism experts". We heard similar optimistic claims during the Iraq invasion earlier this century that turned out to be inaccurate, and the outcome was a dangerously destabilized region, so those who take this cheerleading at face value risk being fooled a second time.
The "errors" referred to in the headline are civilian deaths, and if a country attacked the US in a similar manner, it would rightfully be labeled terrorism. I noticed that Washington's terrorism "experts" do not speak of the effect civilian drone deaths have on al Qaeda and ISIS recruiting efforts, although it is obviously substantial.
After all the lies and inaccuracies these jingoistic, self-serving terrorism "experts" have produced in the past 12 years, they should be cowering in shame somewhere rather than being featured in the media.
There is much money to be made in war: military contractors and the career military men in the Pentagon benefit greatly from inflated risks and tales of US military supremacy, and the "experts" are always at their service.
The "errors" referred to in the headline are civilian deaths, and if a country attacked the US in a similar manner, it would rightfully be labeled terrorism. I noticed that Washington's terrorism "experts" do not speak of the effect civilian drone deaths have on al Qaeda and ISIS recruiting efforts, although it is obviously substantial.
After all the lies and inaccuracies these jingoistic, self-serving terrorism "experts" have produced in the past 12 years, they should be cowering in shame somewhere rather than being featured in the media.
There is much money to be made in war: military contractors and the career military men in the Pentagon benefit greatly from inflated risks and tales of US military supremacy, and the "experts" are always at their service.
1
The New York Times reports on the use of drones to target and kill alleged enemies of the United States in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East.
We find it deeply troubling that the U.S. Government sanctions the execution of foreign nationals without any attempt to respect legal procedures and due process. Nazi SS officers after World War II, arguably among the worst butchers and criminals in history, were publicly indicted and tried in the post-war Nuremburg proceedings prior to their sentencing and execution. It appears that today our government regards these sorts of proceedings as unnecessary legal niceties and now moves directly to execution.
Although the Central Intelligence Agency attempts to carry out "surgical" strikes and kill only terrorists, it is clear that there is considerable "collateral damage" as civilians, including women, children, the aged, and even Americans and other non-combatant foreign nationals are killed in these attacks.
We can think of nothing more calculated to infuriate militants in the Arab World, and engender their hatred, than these drone attacks. Just imagine our outraged response if such attacks were directed against us here in the United States. From the perspective of populations in the Arab World, we are the terrorists now. We are the terrorists now.
We find it deeply troubling that the U.S. Government sanctions the execution of foreign nationals without any attempt to respect legal procedures and due process. Nazi SS officers after World War II, arguably among the worst butchers and criminals in history, were publicly indicted and tried in the post-war Nuremburg proceedings prior to their sentencing and execution. It appears that today our government regards these sorts of proceedings as unnecessary legal niceties and now moves directly to execution.
Although the Central Intelligence Agency attempts to carry out "surgical" strikes and kill only terrorists, it is clear that there is considerable "collateral damage" as civilians, including women, children, the aged, and even Americans and other non-combatant foreign nationals are killed in these attacks.
We can think of nothing more calculated to infuriate militants in the Arab World, and engender their hatred, than these drone attacks. Just imagine our outraged response if such attacks were directed against us here in the United States. From the perspective of populations in the Arab World, we are the terrorists now. We are the terrorists now.
1
"...without any attempt to respect legal procedures and due process."
Well that certainly must be the answer to peace and tranquility in the region. Send in a couple of thousand lawyers to discuss the law with AQ, the Taliban and ISIS. That should work.
Well that certainly must be the answer to peace and tranquility in the region. Send in a couple of thousand lawyers to discuss the law with AQ, the Taliban and ISIS. That should work.
What's interesting is al Qaeda and ISIS would be equally happy with either of two diametrically opposed outcomes: the US starting yet another worse-than-useless war in the region or the US abandoning the region entirely.
In any attack, innocents are bound to die, it's for sure. Whatever may be the claims of the Americans, they couldn't eliminate all terrorists and will never ever be capable, have the capacity and the required will to do so.
It might not be possible to kill all terrorists but is it possible to stop making so many new ones.
A start would be to stop creating more followers by killing people with drones, stop supporting dictators and tyrants, stop aiding oppression and repression, stop seeing the ME as a personal resource and all the negative consequences that implies for the lives of the people who live there.
A start would be to stop creating more followers by killing people with drones, stop supporting dictators and tyrants, stop aiding oppression and repression, stop seeing the ME as a personal resource and all the negative consequences that implies for the lives of the people who live there.
It is sad that two humanitarians were killed in a drone strike, but so far drones have been the most effective tools in dealing with these psychopathic terrorists. Pakistan tacitly allows these drones strikes, because terrorists in Pakistan kill many of their citizens. Unfortunately, Al Qaeda kidnapped these Americans and you can be sure they were not being treated well. The Americans who were killed are one less mouth to feed in an American jail and any American who leaves to fight with ISIS should be allowed to go and then their whole family should be deported if they have not been here more than three generations. They have failed to integrate and don't accept the Pledge of Allegiance. Finally, drones save American lives. We should be using them, wherever we can, to route out and kill these pathological radical Islamics. They are not only killing Americans, they are killing everyone they don't agree with. The rape, pillage, crucify, behead, burn alive and subjugate woman and anyone else they feel like. They kidnap young girls. They genitally mutilate women. They stone people to death. Collateral damage is bound to happen, that's war. If we don't want to used drones, fine, withdraw everyone and build a really big fence.
2
I don't see drone strikes as a substitute for ground forces but merely as a tool with which to strike back at transnational terrorist groups with havens in nations that are incapable of policing or otherwise asserting control over parts of their interiors. Using ground forces in such situations would not be practical and would constitute an even greater violation of sovereignty than sending in drones.
In this case al-Qaida has been eviscerated by constant hits to its leadership which has kept it off-balance distracted, making it harder to strike at us. And lest we forget, al-Qaida is the group whose target first and foremost has always been the US along with its European allies.
ISIS does not have that as its primary aim (no matter what nightmares Lindsay Graham conjures) since its sights are set on the Middle East (which is not to say they won't take a shot at us if they manage to turn some home-grown recruit).
The US involvement under Obama has primarily been to help friendly governments in the region fight the terrorists themselves rather than rely on us. Its seems to me that is the smart way to go in the long run.
In this case al-Qaida has been eviscerated by constant hits to its leadership which has kept it off-balance distracted, making it harder to strike at us. And lest we forget, al-Qaida is the group whose target first and foremost has always been the US along with its European allies.
ISIS does not have that as its primary aim (no matter what nightmares Lindsay Graham conjures) since its sights are set on the Middle East (which is not to say they won't take a shot at us if they manage to turn some home-grown recruit).
The US involvement under Obama has primarily been to help friendly governments in the region fight the terrorists themselves rather than rely on us. Its seems to me that is the smart way to go in the long run.
1
Isn't it pitifully ironic that most horrible of terrorist organizations, al Qaeda, is collapsing because it has been out marketed by an even more horrible group which is ISIS. We have been picking al Qaeda apart with our drone strikes and celebrate. Certainly ridding the world of those people is worth doing but the weakening of the first group has allowed a much more virulent group to flourish. This is like when an insecticide is applied to a farm to rid it of a crop ruining pest and the resulting void allows an even more damaging pest to establish itself and ruin even more crops.
Should we keep applying more pesticides? Should we try a different strategy? I don't have an answer and it is doubtful that anyone does. However, we should at least reexamine the situation. We cannot truly celebrate the elimination of al Qaeda while ISIS and its affiliates continue to sprout and grow around the world. Perhaps our military strategists should study organic farming.
Should we keep applying more pesticides? Should we try a different strategy? I don't have an answer and it is doubtful that anyone does. However, we should at least reexamine the situation. We cannot truly celebrate the elimination of al Qaeda while ISIS and its affiliates continue to sprout and grow around the world. Perhaps our military strategists should study organic farming.
2
I recall my father, who flew bomber raids during WWII, talking to me about incidents where bombs were dropped on American troops. When the planes took off the maps they had were accurate as to what they knew at that moment but troops advanced faster then was known and American soldiers were killed by their own. War is ugly. One would hope that it is started as a last resort; but once started then the reality is soldiers, civilians, are all subject to the specter of death. What I object to are the self-righteous critics who snipe at the CIA and the President for doing their jobs. If you don't want accidental deaths or collateral damage then don't start wars in the first place.
4
If this is an issue with some, let's then discuss WW2 and the dropping of the bomb.
4
There is plenty of misery to conquer right here in NYC without getting yourself into the hands of terrorists in need of a drone. Adventurers who put themselves in the path of danger have done exactly that - put themselves in the path of danger. There are homeless sleeping on the Park Avenue medians - let us concentrate on that injustice.
4
I understand what war is, that innocents will die, and that there will be atrocities whenever there is a war. I also understand that sometimes a war must be fought. I would demand however that when one fights a war that our country's national interest be clearly at stake. That the war must be worth the sacrifice both in terms of blood and treasure.
We have been at war more or less continuously since WWII, almost 70 years of combat, both large and small. We have killed hundreds of thousands of our own people and spent Trillions. What have we accomplished? Is the Korean Peninsula stable? Did we drive out the communists from Vietnam? Does the Middle East have stable, democratic governments? Is there peace in the Middle East? Have we beat back the terrorists and made the world a safer place for our children?
Our expansionist use of power seems to have been a complete failure. How about trying something different? Let's pull back and support our friends and those who want to be our friends. Let's use our might to heal instead of hurt. Let us become a force for good instead of the biggest aggressor on the planet. If we must fight, then let us fight because we have no choice instead of "Projecting Power" or "Regime Change" or any of the other excuses for a policy of aggression that has not worked in 70 years of trying.
We have been at war more or less continuously since WWII, almost 70 years of combat, both large and small. We have killed hundreds of thousands of our own people and spent Trillions. What have we accomplished? Is the Korean Peninsula stable? Did we drive out the communists from Vietnam? Does the Middle East have stable, democratic governments? Is there peace in the Middle East? Have we beat back the terrorists and made the world a safer place for our children?
Our expansionist use of power seems to have been a complete failure. How about trying something different? Let's pull back and support our friends and those who want to be our friends. Let's use our might to heal instead of hurt. Let us become a force for good instead of the biggest aggressor on the planet. If we must fight, then let us fight because we have no choice instead of "Projecting Power" or "Regime Change" or any of the other excuses for a policy of aggression that has not worked in 70 years of trying.
29
Thank you Bruce - nobody ever answers these questions. But what is worse not enough people asks them. We should demand answers to all these questions and a lot more as well.
Drone on, would you prefer all out war like the twin disasters we just went through, that actually we are still contending with (and will be for who knows how long a century or more0. Where our youth were sent into an impossible situation with targets graphically displayed on their backs?
In fact it is time to set up a drone program in Africa purposed with hunting down the numerous murderous thugs utterly devoid of any legitimacy. And if I were King of the world I'd have finished off Syria's enemy of humanity a couple of years ago. All people have a right to self determination no matter if we agree with them or not. Time for the US to stop supporting criminal despots.
I'm all for the agenda of the left generally described but this I'd let someone murder me before i would fire a gun is mental illness.
In fact it is time to set up a drone program in Africa purposed with hunting down the numerous murderous thugs utterly devoid of any legitimacy. And if I were King of the world I'd have finished off Syria's enemy of humanity a couple of years ago. All people have a right to self determination no matter if we agree with them or not. Time for the US to stop supporting criminal despots.
I'm all for the agenda of the left generally described but this I'd let someone murder me before i would fire a gun is mental illness.
I dislike drones because of an ominous feeling that any time innocent civilians are killed in what we dismissively call "collateral damage", it's like sowing seeds of hatred that will produce hundreds, if not thousands, more fighters. If they retain Sunni/Shi'ite tribal hatreds and lust for revenge going back to Mohammed, they will not just forgive and forget the innocent children, sons, daughters, mothers, grandmothers, etc. drone imprecision takes out with the bad.
What's the solution then? I don't know, except that we should do nothing unilaterally over there. It's like painting a target on our backs that will last a thousand years.
What's the solution then? I don't know, except that we should do nothing unilaterally over there. It's like painting a target on our backs that will last a thousand years.
2
Well, we "sowed seeds of hatred" at Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But for some reason they never bore fruit.......Perhaps your reasoning may not be as rational as you think.............
For those that say the killing of innocent civilians via drone strikes strengthens militant recruitment, ask yourself why ISIS has streams of foreign volunteers despite, or because of, endless boasting about purposefully targeting fellow Muslim civilians in the most brutal way possible.
It's clear that potential recruits will use any excuse possible to justify their decision to target the west.
It's clear that potential recruits will use any excuse possible to justify their decision to target the west.
3
The unfortunate deaths were collateral damage. If we wont attack when hostages are being held we encourage the taking of such hostages.
What this does to ISIS/ISIL recruiting efforts needs to enter the calculation.
What this does to ISIS/ISIL recruiting efforts needs to enter the calculation.
1
Unable to say how many civilians it has murdered with its drone strikes, or how many of its own staff now suffer PTSD from having murdered civilians and remotely butchered entire families, the US turns to a pathetic lie for its propaganda war - that its global war policy is 'working'. This when we see more refugees, more terror attacks, more global uncertainty than ever before. What exactly is the US winning? Being more than 4 ft tall and dead does not make someone a terrorist, any more than it did in Vietnam or Korea, or S America, all places where the US has used its sick body count policy to justify its wars against humanity.
9
A message to President Obama from deep down in the most stubborn, loyal core of your base.
You disappointed me. Badly.
It was your first announcement of the tragedy. Clearly, you never stopped being concerned about Warren Weinstein's life.
But you seemed to have forgotten just how divided the country is about the use of drones, about the inherent risk of the "force from a distance."
Why not a simple, frank admission that a drone was involved?
Instead, you repeatedly spoke of the "counter-terrorism initiative" in which Mr. Weinstein died and came off as if you had used the popular "mistakes were made" phrase currently favored in political weasel-speak.
Euphemisms must be tempting, Mr. President, but trust me: They're more hollow than you think.
Bad choice. We already know that no one who would do us harm should ever stop wondering if today might be the day they pay the price for their actions. No honest observer would accuse you of flinching in the face of a threat.
But for goodness sakes, Mr. President, this was a case in which it was a drone, a case in which the inherent risks of this tactic became reality, and you should have admitted that in straight, specific language.
Instead, we got to hear you repeating the familiar "counter-terrorism" euphemism, and even your sincere willingness to take responsibility for the deaths lost much of its power because you couldn't bring yourself to say one, simple word:
Drone.
Go ahead. Say it. It was a drone.
You disappointed me. Badly.
It was your first announcement of the tragedy. Clearly, you never stopped being concerned about Warren Weinstein's life.
But you seemed to have forgotten just how divided the country is about the use of drones, about the inherent risk of the "force from a distance."
Why not a simple, frank admission that a drone was involved?
Instead, you repeatedly spoke of the "counter-terrorism initiative" in which Mr. Weinstein died and came off as if you had used the popular "mistakes were made" phrase currently favored in political weasel-speak.
Euphemisms must be tempting, Mr. President, but trust me: They're more hollow than you think.
Bad choice. We already know that no one who would do us harm should ever stop wondering if today might be the day they pay the price for their actions. No honest observer would accuse you of flinching in the face of a threat.
But for goodness sakes, Mr. President, this was a case in which it was a drone, a case in which the inherent risks of this tactic became reality, and you should have admitted that in straight, specific language.
Instead, we got to hear you repeating the familiar "counter-terrorism" euphemism, and even your sincere willingness to take responsibility for the deaths lost much of its power because you couldn't bring yourself to say one, simple word:
Drone.
Go ahead. Say it. It was a drone.
6
Give me a break. Obama was right on this one.
4
You are dealing with a problem of politically limited vocabulary. It also omits "Islamic Terrorism" among others.
The problem with these drone strikes is that they can't be certain who they are killing and maiming. Americans are so scared of the boogeyman that they acquiesce to the killing of innocence in this "war". The only thing we American's have to fear is fear itself. At least until the day that drones are roaming American skies.
5
"The problem with these drone strikes is that they can't be certain who they are killing and maiming"
Drone strikes are far more certain who they are targeting than an air strike or an artillery barrage.
Drone strikes are far more certain who they are targeting than an air strike or an artillery barrage.
2
The drone strikes are apparently very, very effective. They result in minimal loss of American lives and almost certainly minimal loss of non-combatant lives relative to other means. The loss of the innocents presents a field day for the media more concerned with ratings than with sober analysis, but the drone strikes should continue as long as the US is going to engage in military actions in the Mid East.
7
Drones are the future, using drones now, is akin to using aircraft in the first world war. It minimizes the loss of life. Reality is that war costs lives, I wish it were not so. My thoughts and prayers are, of course, with the Weinstein family and the Lo Porto family.
3
All the blame should be pointed in the direction of the inhuman terrorists who are intent on replacing civilization with wanton acts of rape, pillage and murder. They have left us no choice but to hunt them down to take them out, even if there is some utterly sad collateral damage.
5
The other choice is still on the table; disengage from that hell hole in the sand and stop feeding the military-industrial complex and their appetites for endless war (and profits).
1
For those who are having a problem with drones check the google page for images of "Vietnam bombing." Craterization is not a word we hear but was the effect of B-52s dropping 750 lb bombs from six miles up. And remember cluster bombs? This is hardly an endorsement of warfare but simply a statement to point of that things have been far worse in just my memory. Getting people to talk it over and stop fighting is pretty absurd - as the Old Testament testifies. The Middle East is as sample of what happens when populations over-run consumption, and the richest stash their ill gotten gains. How many other countries fit that strategy?
2
Drones are the weapons of a coward. We should never have armed them, as they were effective as surveillance, but as weapons there are too many horror stories of trigger happy CIA drone pilots in Las Vegas (or wherever they are). It's shameful that we have opened he door for armed drones which will someday soon be retro-engineered and show up here.
6
One way this story could have been written would have been to say: "In the wake of criticism, U.S. security elites have kick-started a propaganda campaign, attempting portray the drone program as a success." That could have been the lead here.
And that certainly would've been the approach if the drone program were, for example, Hillary Clinton.
For me, the most entertaining part of this story was the limited (limited!) ballyhoo: The drone program is an amazing success, but -- after many years -- it still hasn't been successful enough to wind down. Keep the program going!
That's the part that reveals the agenda of the sources who provided almost all the information the reporters used here. The things that must be done to keep sources talking to you as a reporter when they have so many other things to do.
Sigh.
And that certainly would've been the approach if the drone program were, for example, Hillary Clinton.
For me, the most entertaining part of this story was the limited (limited!) ballyhoo: The drone program is an amazing success, but -- after many years -- it still hasn't been successful enough to wind down. Keep the program going!
That's the part that reveals the agenda of the sources who provided almost all the information the reporters used here. The things that must be done to keep sources talking to you as a reporter when they have so many other things to do.
Sigh.
4
>
It is a shame that the Democrats are not as good as to fighting and destroying the GOP's inane ideas as they are killing terrorists.
It is a shame that the Democrats are not as good as to fighting and destroying the GOP's inane ideas as they are killing terrorists.
12
The development, manufacture and use of drones should be prohibited by international law and made a war crime, like poison gas, phosphorous bombs, blinding lasers and dum-dum bullets. How long before our enemies have drones to use against their enemies? This technology is not that sophisticated and plenty of multi-nationals would sell them to anybody.
Targeting is obviously only as good as the intelligence behind it, showing the notion of "pinpoint" attacks to be a myth - it's a marketing slogan used to sell expensive equipment.
And lastly, does anybody really believe the wars in the Mid-East started on 9/11 and everybody was living happily together and the US an innocent bystander till Al Quada started it all?
Targeting is obviously only as good as the intelligence behind it, showing the notion of "pinpoint" attacks to be a myth - it's a marketing slogan used to sell expensive equipment.
And lastly, does anybody really believe the wars in the Mid-East started on 9/11 and everybody was living happily together and the US an innocent bystander till Al Quada started it all?
8
While you are at it why don't you outlaw guns and knives. I think it is a bit sick to establish rules; to suggest that somehow there are nice or fair ways to kill people. Do you think it matters to someone who is dead how they are killed?
1
Of course,
We could GET OUT of the Middle East.
We must move beyond burning carbon.
And, every single US intervention dating to deposing Mossadecq in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein, arming the Afghan fundamentalists, the Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, subcontracting torture to, among others, Bashar al Assad of Syria, have been criminally stupid, bankrupting, disasters.
We could GET OUT of the Middle East.
We must move beyond burning carbon.
And, every single US intervention dating to deposing Mossadecq in Iran, arming Saddam Hussein, arming the Afghan fundamentalists, the Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, subcontracting torture to, among others, Bashar al Assad of Syria, have been criminally stupid, bankrupting, disasters.
22
It's been known for some time now that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. They are tools that benefit their manufacturers and all the others who have a financial stake in perpetual war.
8
Well, please show us the proof.
Pakistan only tolerates the drone operations as a way to educate themselves and the Chinese on US tactics. When the Chinese ask, Pakistan mobilises 100,000 troops to protect the China-Pakistan railway project.
Meanwhile, 25,000 foreigners have joined militant groups in Syria, not to mention the 10,000s of Americans in the IDF.
Meanwhile, 25,000 foreigners have joined militant groups in Syria, not to mention the 10,000s of Americans in the IDF.
If drone strikes were an effective military policy, then the expanding wars and rise of extremists across the Middle East and North Africa would not be taking place. While these strikes may temporarily result in the reduction of the number of active fighters in groups like Al Qaeda, they ultimately result in anger because the strikes inadvertently kill and terrorize the civilian population, who have conveniently been labelled collateral damage.
The Middle East and North Africa, where U.S. interventions have taken place, are at least in as bad a situation as before these interventions. Where a police action could have stopped those responsible for the September 2001 attacks, policies like drone warfare have done nothing to solve the resulting endless wars.
The Middle East and North Africa, where U.S. interventions have taken place, are at least in as bad a situation as before these interventions. Where a police action could have stopped those responsible for the September 2001 attacks, policies like drone warfare have done nothing to solve the resulting endless wars.
7
Read John Keegan's "The Face of Battle" for the dillio on soldiers in combat. Anything that reduces face to face fighting is an upgrade.
Often people who are hot over drones also oppose a draft, in an ironic self serving double-dip that not only has them thinking they are more moral, but frees their families to complain in safety while military families take all the real heat so they have the freedom to complain.
I support drone use, and a draft.
Often people who are hot over drones also oppose a draft, in an ironic self serving double-dip that not only has them thinking they are more moral, but frees their families to complain in safety while military families take all the real heat so they have the freedom to complain.
I support drone use, and a draft.
22
Well, I've read Keegan's work - and I come to a very different conclusion. If not faced with the horror of war it is easy to wage. And in my experience, those who are against drones are also in favor of the draft.
I do not support drone use and do favor a draft.
I do not support drone use and do favor a draft.
1
I offered no thoughts on the relative ease of waging war, so you do not address me with yours. Nor do I see what you've gotten from Keegan, as you do not explicitly say other than tooting your horn for having read him. Keegan does not agree with what little you do say, and never says being "faced with horror" prevents or even reduces warfare.
Keegan would certainly understand drone use; "support" not being a matter, because history shows when push comes to shove you always use the means you have.
Keegan would certainly understand drone use; "support" not being a matter, because history shows when push comes to shove you always use the means you have.
1
@CK: "Often people who are hot over drones also oppose a draft, ..."
And you know this how? Please cite a source other than yourself, or state the number of people you have polled on this topic.
And you know this how? Please cite a source other than yourself, or state the number of people you have polled on this topic.
The answer to when it is over is as a general said years ago, It isn't over 'til the enemy says it is." None of the adversaries have even hinted at that. ISIS, who our president called a "JV team" had withstood months of bombing and keep expanding. Not just in Iraq but Libya and other countries. Their numbers grow. Now one wants someone to be killed in war but it happens. Our forces tare extensively traind on how to survive inn harms way. Civilians may have the most noble f intention but if they are in an environment of Al Qaeda, ISIS or some other Jihadist, they put themselves in danger. Drone strikes are successful and keep our pilots and ground troupes safe. Colin Powell was asked how we were going to deal withvthe Iraq army in Kuwait. He replied, "First we are going to cut it off, and then we are going to kill it." He understood war, something that seems lacking in the present conflicts.
3
Their numbers grow in direct proportion to our violent intervention in the middle east. Leave them to their 7th century internecine warfare and keep ourselves clear. Our government, both parties, is in complete economic thrall to war profiteers that Eisenhower dubbed "the military industrial complex." As long as war profiteers like Dick Cheney have money to make, the "war" will NEVER end.
About 3000 Americans have been killed by terrorists. About ten times that number die from gunshots EVERY YEAR in this country, and a similar number die in and from cars, again, every single year. The latter two causes are easier to remedy, yet there is no will to do so. Ever wonder why, HRM?
About 3000 Americans have been killed by terrorists. About ten times that number die from gunshots EVERY YEAR in this country, and a similar number die in and from cars, again, every single year. The latter two causes are easier to remedy, yet there is no will to do so. Ever wonder why, HRM?
1
We have the upper edge with drones at this time but I fear for the future as drones become commonplace.
4
Anybody else see the timing of this article and its cheer-leader spin as being a little too convenient given the belated announcement of the Weinstein debacle?
I'm not a conspiracy theory type but this whole situation just smells really, really bad.
I'm not a conspiracy theory type but this whole situation just smells really, really bad.
4
The headline could just as easily said:
"Two hostages lose lives as do the four terrorist leaders who were using them as human shields."
Feel better now?
It is seriously doubtful that any military has ever shown more restraint than the US when confronted with those who would kill them.
The terrorists who lost their lives were leaders of the organization who have slaughtered 4400 innocents and counting as their primary targets.
When hostages are used as human shields or bargaining chips is the only ethical course of action to back off and give whatever is requested? Will this increase or decrease the incidence of terror and hostage taking?
Can't helping smelling the raw stink of one-way political nonsense.
"Two hostages lose lives as do the four terrorist leaders who were using them as human shields."
Feel better now?
It is seriously doubtful that any military has ever shown more restraint than the US when confronted with those who would kill them.
The terrorists who lost their lives were leaders of the organization who have slaughtered 4400 innocents and counting as their primary targets.
When hostages are used as human shields or bargaining chips is the only ethical course of action to back off and give whatever is requested? Will this increase or decrease the incidence of terror and hostage taking?
Can't helping smelling the raw stink of one-way political nonsense.
12
Drones and munitions are darn expensive.
Al Qaeda wins this war by bleeding American coffers.
This war of nearly 25 years going back to the first invasion of Iraq has cost us an absolute fortune....for zero victory.
Al Qaeda if you asked them would probably gladly sacrifice a soldier for a million dollars. And that is exactly what is happening.
Al Qaeda wins this war by bleeding American coffers.
This war of nearly 25 years going back to the first invasion of Iraq has cost us an absolute fortune....for zero victory.
Al Qaeda if you asked them would probably gladly sacrifice a soldier for a million dollars. And that is exactly what is happening.
2
If that were remotely true, they'd stop hiding. They hide as hard as they can for their lives.
Some of those commenting here seem to forget that the US was attacked by Al Qaeda, which carried out the equivalent of three airstrikes on 9/11 (two on the World Trade Center, one on the Pentagon) that killed roughly 3,000 Americans, the great majority of them civilians. They also attempted a fourth airstrike on 9/11, but were thwarted by the passengers of United Airlines Flight 93, whose effort to recapture the plane led to its crash. When it crashed, it was headed toward Washington, D.C., and their target is believed to have been either the White House or the Capitol. Al Qaeda has since carried out other terrorist attacks in London and Madrid, and has attempted at least two additional air strikes using U.S. airliners (one by the shoe bomber, the other involving a bomb in a printer toner cartridge that was found and defused just before the plane was scheduled to leave an overseas airport for the U.S.). They are still trying to mount additional attacks. Thus far, the U.S. has held them off through the war in Afghanistan, the killing of Asama bin Laden, and drone strikes.
Al Qaeda chose to start this war. Warfare is inherently immoral and evil. It kills not only military personnel, but civilian noncombatants, often by accident.
Airstrikes by manned aircraft place U.S. pilots at risk of capture and torture. Drones are far more precise, and kill far fewer civilians, than the massive numbers of civilians killed by WWII-style carpet bombing.
Al Qaeda chose to start this war. Warfare is inherently immoral and evil. It kills not only military personnel, but civilian noncombatants, often by accident.
Airstrikes by manned aircraft place U.S. pilots at risk of capture and torture. Drones are far more precise, and kill far fewer civilians, than the massive numbers of civilians killed by WWII-style carpet bombing.
43
So because 3000 Americans die, 100,000 Iraqis need to die? Twisted logic.
... and some forget that it was the United States that had Pakistan create a mujahedeen army to push the Soviets out of Afghanistan, which then became the core of the Taliban. Everyone is always their own worst enemy.
Yes, Al-Quaeda attacked the US - so why invade and decimate Iraq, which had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda. An action that ultimately led to providing a safe haven for ISIS to set up shop and expand it's reach and pull all over the M.E. and further.
If it's a game of tit for tat then at least find the right target instead of drawing more people and countries into the fray and killing more innocent men, women and children, adding fuel to a raging fire and creating more followers.
We were told Osama Bin Laden is dead - end of conflict. But it appears that there is a many headed hydra out there, for each head cut off two or more grow, stronger, more vicious with more power and more followers.
Aside from all that drones and extra-judicial killing are illegal outside the 'battlefield' as defined by international law, which the US is party to.
Thumbing one's nose at international law and treaties is what got he US into this mess and it has made and is making things worse by the hour.
If it's a game of tit for tat then at least find the right target instead of drawing more people and countries into the fray and killing more innocent men, women and children, adding fuel to a raging fire and creating more followers.
We were told Osama Bin Laden is dead - end of conflict. But it appears that there is a many headed hydra out there, for each head cut off two or more grow, stronger, more vicious with more power and more followers.
Aside from all that drones and extra-judicial killing are illegal outside the 'battlefield' as defined by international law, which the US is party to.
Thumbing one's nose at international law and treaties is what got he US into this mess and it has made and is making things worse by the hour.
The slight toll it may have taken on Al-Qaeda is more than offset by the increase in recruits to Al Qaeda and ISIS, not to mention the precedent it sets for international law and order.
I don't know how anyone can support this immoral and illegal policy. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has said that up to 25% of those killed were civilians, including children.
I don't know how anyone can support this immoral and illegal policy. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has said that up to 25% of those killed were civilians, including children.
30
Well, Irwin, we are all waiting to hear your recommendation, and hoping the "moral" alternative you require is something short of having us all throw our hands up in surrender out of fear of harming one fool after another who wanders into war zones to provide unwanted and undeserved "help", which invariably turns out to be service as a hostage. No cure for stupid.
I support it. Anyone who seeks to destroy the freedoms that we enjoy needs a visit from the drone. Maybe you need to see a few women stoned or gays pushed from roofs to get the picture.
War means suffering and death minus morality. One must set aside pussification in wartime. Few individuals posting their view on the Internet appear to grasp that the West faces a war to the death with an international jihad conducted by Islamic terrorists. We in the West in the end will have to do all necessary to rub out the active Islamic terrorists, to stop their murdering of more innocents. We have no choice but to pursue the Islamic terrorists to their lairs to kill them. As religious fanatics ready to die for their cause, the Islamic terrorists will stop their killing in the name of Islam only by experiencing their own death.
One day let us hope the moderate Islamic leadership will step forward with an olive branch to seek peace. This gesture alone, however, will not suffice for its purpose. This leadership must also dedicate itself for generations to teach the peace-loving version of Islam. Only then will the hateful ideology of the Islamic terrorists die out.
One day let us hope the moderate Islamic leadership will step forward with an olive branch to seek peace. This gesture alone, however, will not suffice for its purpose. This leadership must also dedicate itself for generations to teach the peace-loving version of Islam. Only then will the hateful ideology of the Islamic terrorists die out.
Keep pounding them with drones. Anything that destroys Al Qaeda terrorists and simultaneously preserves American military lives is OK with me.
43
Question is will it preserve the America that America has stood for these past few centuries.
Being at "war" with "terror" is like being at war with water, though most seems in the desert.
This will end when we have finally bled ourselves to death as we struggle about the world droning here, bombing there, and CIA everywhere. But worse, we will turn ourselves into the same evil we are fighting and become as inured to the deaths of the innocent as are the "terrorists". How noble is that fight?
Time to rethink this "war" on "terror".
This will end when we have finally bled ourselves to death as we struggle about the world droning here, bombing there, and CIA everywhere. But worse, we will turn ourselves into the same evil we are fighting and become as inured to the deaths of the innocent as are the "terrorists". How noble is that fight?
Time to rethink this "war" on "terror".
9
We aren't at war with terror. We are in a long war against terrorism perpetrated by followers of a violent, apocalyptic strain of Islamic fundamentalism. But if this is like being at war with water, our drone pilots appear to be pretty effective plumbers.
10
We aren't at war with terror. We're providing a lot of the terror that is out there, ourselves. We're in a war that was undeclared and one we had no business in which to involved ourselves. America has been doing serial, mendacious, and shameful dealing with the Mideast since 1915.
They're not "pilots"; they're stay-at-home RC operators--a better term, drone-drivers and executioners. But if they be "pretty effective plumbers," then why is the basement continuing to fill up with bodies, guilty and innocent alike, with no end insight?
1
I am definitely left leaning and get more so with each passing year. Yet, I can't really understand all the hand-wringing about drones.
Has anyone analyzed the alternatives? We have to send dozens if not hundreds of soldiers, give them backup, set up an entire organization and suffer heavy casualties --which includes civilians-- to achieve the same purposes that we can now achieve with one drone.
Because no one is seriously considering NOT invading or fighting in any of the countries that harbors ISIS and Al Quaeda.
Drones seem to be a much more rational way to kill people. Cheap, remotely-controlled, way less casualties. I mean, from a purely rational standpoint, it is so much more intelligent to launch some drones.
Has anyone analyzed the alternatives? We have to send dozens if not hundreds of soldiers, give them backup, set up an entire organization and suffer heavy casualties --which includes civilians-- to achieve the same purposes that we can now achieve with one drone.
Because no one is seriously considering NOT invading or fighting in any of the countries that harbors ISIS and Al Quaeda.
Drones seem to be a much more rational way to kill people. Cheap, remotely-controlled, way less casualties. I mean, from a purely rational standpoint, it is so much more intelligent to launch some drones.
119
I find myself mulling over the same questions. Yet perhaps it is the very 'attractiveness' of these flying killing machines that requires us to be circumspect in their use.
1
Dear MSA,
Well said, I agree completely. I'm a liberal myself, and have no problem with the drone strikes, but every time it comes up, people accuse me of being an apologist for Cheney and whatnot. It's very weird, I think some liberals are basically following propaganda akin to the conservatives that do Fox's bidding.
Well said, I agree completely. I'm a liberal myself, and have no problem with the drone strikes, but every time it comes up, people accuse me of being an apologist for Cheney and whatnot. It's very weird, I think some liberals are basically following propaganda akin to the conservatives that do Fox's bidding.
14
I'm a left enough Democrat to be thoroughly disgusted with Warren for NOT running, and with Dems apparently mostly telling pollsters they're all for Hillary, who's just as much the bought puppet of the rich and the Israel Lobby as any Republican. That said, I totally agree with MSA that it's absurd to wax "righteous" over drones. We are fighting a war quite literally to the nuclear death with the jihadis. There can be no question that their ultimate goal is to nuke NYC (and Tel Aviv) with loose Pakistani nukes. (Who needs Iranian ones?) The idea that on some crazed righteous "principle" we should drop the drone war seems to me morally mad. The only alternatives to drones are not fighting the jihadis at all, and thus bringing them much, much closer to vaporizing NYC (and the American economy with it) or, equally madly, invading the ever-spreading number of failed Muslim states with gigantic armies to try to kill the jihadis on the ground, with a loss of American soldiers' lives, faces, arms, and legs that would make the fool cost of our disastrous invasion of Iraq look like nothing. War is always grim and horrific. Would you have sat around moaning all day about how "wrong" it was to bomb Germany and Japan (before the nukes) on the long, bitter road to victory in WWII? Grow up and embrace the very common reality that lots of evil must be committed by all nations to prevent even greater evils.
12
When the cops are chasing the bad guys in the U.S. and kill or wound innocent civilians in the chase does anyone ever say: "It was the criminal's fault those people are dead." or "At least only 3 people were killed." or "That's the price some innocent people have to pay for keeping the rest of us safe."?
If someone said that wouldn't you think he or she is a pretty heartless person?
If someone said that wouldn't you think he or she is a pretty heartless person?
7
Not at all. I would agree with that heartless person. Of course, most cops try not to hurt innocent bystanders. War involves hard decisions and terrible sacrifices. Would you prefer to have American soldiers killed? When that happens, do you say, "Well, isn't it better to kill combatants, even if they're American, than to risk killing innocent civilians?" Who's heartless now?
4
WAR is heartless. And that is what we are involved in. Of course, you would not know that unless you once wore a military uniform and were involved in war up close and personal. IT IS HEARTLESS. Always has been. Always will be.
Notice, if you will, that all the talking heads are speaking to investors and shareholders. As if customers are just cogs in the machine, like labor and equipment costs.
When the talking heads do mention customers, they say, "Well, everyone hates the cable companies." Like it's a law of nature.
Is it completely ridiculous to think that if Comcast and other big corporations didn't go out of their way to antagonize their customers, that their bottom line would look better in the end? How did it get to be a truism of American business that corporations have to squeeze every bit of leverage out of their customers? What happened to the old idea that a business builds relationships with its customers and both parties benefit?
I guess what it really comes down to is, Comcast and Time Warner are flabbergasted that the gov't would side with customers rather than with investors. I'm sure they'll do everything they can to remedy that situation in the next election and install a government that can be relied on to side with the ruling class. It's too bad, because it really wouldn't cost that much just to do business in an honest way, that didn't antagonize everybody.
When the talking heads do mention customers, they say, "Well, everyone hates the cable companies." Like it's a law of nature.
Is it completely ridiculous to think that if Comcast and other big corporations didn't go out of their way to antagonize their customers, that their bottom line would look better in the end? How did it get to be a truism of American business that corporations have to squeeze every bit of leverage out of their customers? What happened to the old idea that a business builds relationships with its customers and both parties benefit?
I guess what it really comes down to is, Comcast and Time Warner are flabbergasted that the gov't would side with customers rather than with investors. I'm sure they'll do everything they can to remedy that situation in the next election and install a government that can be relied on to side with the ruling class. It's too bad, because it really wouldn't cost that much just to do business in an honest way, that didn't antagonize everybody.
I guess you are equating Comcast with Al Qaeda. Either that or your comment was posted to the wrong story.
3
Knowingly killing non-combatants should be classified as a war crime, whether the killers are members of Al Qaeda...or the US military. And any leader who orders such killings should be charged with a war crime.
3
So you would prefer sacrificing a larger number of American soldiers in order to achieve lesser results instead of risk the killing of a small number of innocent civilians? There are no perfect choices here. Killing combatants in a war, though there be collateral damage (sadly), is not a war crime.
7
How about stopping the war? Why are we killing people in the first place? People point to the 9/11 attacks, but the people being killed now certainly had nothing to do with that. This current "war" is all about American domination of the world and has nothing to do with real threats to our safety.
The reality of war is that people die. It is highly unfortunate that we lost two civilian friendlies in this attack. The president has offered a very public apology, and I think the nation accepts it.
I do find it typical that so many commenters use this incident to politicize the issue and celebrate the current administration's notion of fighting wars without committing troops as an alternative to the previous administration's commitment to war. I warn you that your notion that there could be such a thing as a clean war is dangerous and not very realistic.
I am thankful that I have not personally been in combat, but enough of my closest friends have. It should not be so simple to remain involved in conflicts where we don't have to see it or feel it. This notion follows Robert E. Lee's postwar philosophy on it, when he said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it."
America is not ready for another endless and expensive ground war. We should not desire to wage war by drone as an alternative.
I do find it typical that so many commenters use this incident to politicize the issue and celebrate the current administration's notion of fighting wars without committing troops as an alternative to the previous administration's commitment to war. I warn you that your notion that there could be such a thing as a clean war is dangerous and not very realistic.
I am thankful that I have not personally been in combat, but enough of my closest friends have. It should not be so simple to remain involved in conflicts where we don't have to see it or feel it. This notion follows Robert E. Lee's postwar philosophy on it, when he said "It is good that war is so terrible, lest we grow fond of it."
America is not ready for another endless and expensive ground war. We should not desire to wage war by drone as an alternative.
28
War is terrible. America is not in it by choice. Can we stop all violence simply by not participating in it? What's your alternative to drones?
3
I don't think it is quite fair to classify the two hostages as civilians. Civilians are free to come and go and carry out an identifiable daily routine. Hostages are held captive. They may be locked in a room and never let out for weeks or months. There may well be no possible way to know they are there.
The efficacy of drone warfare is wide open to question. All of the claims of Al Quaeda casualties and degradation is on offer here with a complete absence of on the record attribution. In fact, the only on the record quote comes from a Northern Irish academic expert on militancy, not identified as a middle east expert. And none of the claims from our government comes without a cloak of anonymity. I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night.
1
For the Cheneys and Netanyahoos and Richard Perles and Dan Stackhouses of the world, there is only good and evil, and when the US or Israel do something which would be evil if Iran, or the Shia people of Yemen did it, it is.merely 'collateral damage' and -mowing the lawn'... the destruction of hospitals, and power stations, and wedding receptions don't matter.
Muslims are terrorists and decades of interference, coups, bombings, state terror and an ongoing colonialist and apartheid scheme are not only good, but any resistance to them is 'hate' or 'terror'
Some men will burn the village to save it.
And some.people would rather watch the world burn than ask whether their own arrogance, violence, and obtuse and facile worldview is more kerosene than water.
Muslims are terrorists and decades of interference, coups, bombings, state terror and an ongoing colonialist and apartheid scheme are not only good, but any resistance to them is 'hate' or 'terror'
Some men will burn the village to save it.
And some.people would rather watch the world burn than ask whether their own arrogance, violence, and obtuse and facile worldview is more kerosene than water.
9
Dear Adam Benhamou,
I sensed my name taken in vain there. Sorry but you've got me all wrong, there isn't only good and evil, and the U.S. and Israel have done bad things. Every Muslim I've ever known personally has been a good, compassionate person, not a terrorist. I don't support colonialism or apartheid.
So I understand your reaction to the situation as a whole, but don't lump me in with Cheney and Netanyahu. I've always voted Democrat (or Green Party) and I've never killed anyone at all, despite having the opportunity a few times. Notice that I'm not accusing you of all sorts of stuff I have no idea if you do or not, which is a preferred method of arguing I'd say.
I sensed my name taken in vain there. Sorry but you've got me all wrong, there isn't only good and evil, and the U.S. and Israel have done bad things. Every Muslim I've ever known personally has been a good, compassionate person, not a terrorist. I don't support colonialism or apartheid.
So I understand your reaction to the situation as a whole, but don't lump me in with Cheney and Netanyahu. I've always voted Democrat (or Green Party) and I've never killed anyone at all, despite having the opportunity a few times. Notice that I'm not accusing you of all sorts of stuff I have no idea if you do or not, which is a preferred method of arguing I'd say.
2
'Analysts' say? Would that be the 'analyst' Mr. Semple from Northern Ireland or the anonymous 'analyst' in Pakistan?
Well I'm an analyst of the news I read, and this article doesn't cut it for me.
Well I'm an analyst of the news I read, and this article doesn't cut it for me.
4
Big GT
It seems all the commenters are right. War and bombs don't do much to attain pace; however, as one commenter asked: what's the alternative to using these drones. To me it's a lose lose situation.
However, I much prefer that we use drones than send in ground troops who will suffer serious casualties in this never ending global bloodshed.
Moreover, I agree with ED from Venice Fla. It's not drones we should be concentrating on, but rather the loonies who are urging a war with Iran.
It seems all the commenters are right. War and bombs don't do much to attain pace; however, as one commenter asked: what's the alternative to using these drones. To me it's a lose lose situation.
However, I much prefer that we use drones than send in ground troops who will suffer serious casualties in this never ending global bloodshed.
Moreover, I agree with ED from Venice Fla. It's not drones we should be concentrating on, but rather the loonies who are urging a war with Iran.
22
We need to ramp up the intelligence in Iraq like we've done in Pakistan and target these ISIS militants whether the Iraqis like it or not.
11
We are at war folks. Collateral damage is an ordinary event during wars albeit an unfortunate event. For those demonizing Obama and drones, I say "go ahead and enlist as a soldier and fight with your own fists if you like or send your own children but not mine."
40
We are at war with who? Last I checked, Pakistan was an ally, we are not at war with them. Instead, we seem to be at war with a tactic, with "terror". This is sheer folly. Killing people who might become terrorists, to kill them for what they might do, is murder and will be viewed as such, by the associates of the victims and by the world at large. The consequences of continuing this kind of "war" cannot be good.
The unspoken adage in politics is that some bad must be done to do greater good. Experts say that the Earth is in its most peaceful era in recorded history, with fewer humans dying as a result of armed conflict. That ended with WWII, even considering subsequent genocides in Africa, etc., they say.
Drones are a recent part, and ongoing continuation, of that trend.
Drones are a recent part, and ongoing continuation, of that trend.
6
Have no fear, folks. When Obama is under pressure, here comes the NYTimes to defend his honor. Does anyone doubt if the President were a Republican and the facts were exactly the same that the Times would run stories concern trolling the innocents who died rather than defending it as a necessary cost of war?
5
Did you read the paper yesterday? Apparently not. Let someone know if you need help with the big words.
16
So, in other words, drone strikes have decimated Al-Quaeda and forced the remaining remembers to retreat into their caves where they are unable to do any further damage to the United States. Bravo to the CIA!
Thanks to God that anyone who complains or finds fault with the CIA's strategy isn't in charge of national security. Next on the list: ISIS
Thanks to God that anyone who complains or finds fault with the CIA's strategy isn't in charge of national security. Next on the list: ISIS
36
>
Without commenting as to the overall morality of combat drones, the fact that drones killed two hostages is not in itself a sensible nor sufficient reason not to use drones.
Stuff happens! There are no perfect or clean wars, which is all the more reason to stay out of them from the start.
Without commenting as to the overall morality of combat drones, the fact that drones killed two hostages is not in itself a sensible nor sufficient reason not to use drones.
Stuff happens! There are no perfect or clean wars, which is all the more reason to stay out of them from the start.
50
As usual the leftest commentors in NYT get to America is bad an stop. The simple fact missed by the America is bad crowd is that the terrorist we are killing have perpetrated the indiscriminate killing of tens of thousands of innocents with their nearly daily bombings. In taking these terrorists out we are saving the lives of many.
19
I am truly sorry for the loss of two innocent humanitarians. It bears remembering that they would be alive if Al Quada had not kidnapped them and held them captive.
As for the American fighter for Al Quada, he got what he deserved. Those Americans who Joined ISIS: they are the enemy and deserve the same outcome.
As for the American fighter for Al Quada, he got what he deserved. Those Americans who Joined ISIS: they are the enemy and deserve the same outcome.
70
And it bears in mind al Qaeda would not exist had the U.S. not recruited the Muajhideen to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan in the '80's. And bombing and occupying Iraq based upon a lie it had WMD might just also have little bit to do with it. Oh, and bombing six other countries in the area might actually contribute to extremism.
If you really think targeting alleged terrorists and killing innocent civilians in the process makes you safer and stops terrorism you need to think again.
If you really think targeting alleged terrorists and killing innocent civilians in the process makes you safer and stops terrorism you need to think again.
2
The CIA tortured dozens of suspects captured in the Middle East war zones, most of whom were enemy combatants. The NYT widely and repeatedly criticised the Bush administration for their immoral actions. Obama incinerates 600+ women, children and elderly civilians and the NYT helps to explain that this is necessary collateral damage. It feels great to read the NYT and know we are now morally superior because of Obama's drones.
9
Frankly I am tired of words being used by the NYT in this and recent articles to depict civilian casualties as 'deeply troubling' and 'Disasterious'. These outcomes are unfortunate however we must remember there are very dangerous people plotting as we speak to kill Amiricans in the worst way possible, and trying hard to weaponize chemical, biological or nuclear materials to deploy their wrath in one of our cities. Unfortunate outcomes (civilian deaths) perhaps, but hardly disasterious.
13
War is war. People die. At least fewer of our own soldiers die with drones than with "troops on the ground", and even with "mistakes" the targeted drone strikes cause fewer civilian casualties than conventional warfare.
112
Expedient, convenient but hardly moral. Killing is a business in war and we have become as much a part of that evil as those whom we think we know we are righteously killing. Is this really the best "solution"? America the beautiful, nicht wahr?
6
If this is war, then you have to declare it or it will still only be murder in the first and that is illegal and a crime.
War has not been declared. This is not a War despite fanciful ways to try and make people believe it is to get past the illegal use of drones and other unlawful practices.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/24/should-a-court-approve-a...
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/24/should-a-court-approve-a...
This is such a bizarre and amateurish attempt by the NYTimes to understand the effects of drone strikes. Where is the data? How did you evaluate the other parameters that affect political leadership?
2
Reads a lot like a press release from the CIA.
10
Au contraire, a CIA press release would say, al qaeda appears to be engaging in self-martyrdom by blowing themselves up with mock drone strikes, eerily similar to the effects of U.S. munitions. And there's not much to see here folks, move along.
3
The drones are a marvelous invention. They allow to kill our enemies without risking American lives, that is, lives of the pilots. Unfortunately, a 'collateral damages' is inevitable, for families of the terrorists as well as for US and other hostages.
The problem with this approach to terrorism is that we are at least one step behind. Al Qaeda is bad but ISIS appears to be much worse. As readers of this great paper, we have no choice but hope that our drone controllers will catch up with the new wave of terrorists soon.
Terrorists (called some 115 years ago 'anarchists', they killed quite a few world leaders) are like non-vertebrates: you cut one arm but another replaces it fairly quickly...
The problem with this approach to terrorism is that we are at least one step behind. Al Qaeda is bad but ISIS appears to be much worse. As readers of this great paper, we have no choice but hope that our drone controllers will catch up with the new wave of terrorists soon.
Terrorists (called some 115 years ago 'anarchists', they killed quite a few world leaders) are like non-vertebrates: you cut one arm but another replaces it fairly quickly...
9
Let's see...military invasions, urban combat, many soldiers and civilians killed and wounded, versus drone strikes? There's no ambiguity about the preferred way to thwart Al Qaeda.
But what happens when our enemies, as they surely will, acquire their own bomb-equipped drones which they deploy globally? How do we thwart that?
But what happens when our enemies, as they surely will, acquire their own bomb-equipped drones which they deploy globally? How do we thwart that?
4
"But what happens when our enemies, as they surely will, acquire their own bomb-equipped drones which they deploy globally? How do we thwart that?"
Then we would have no alternative but to launch nuclear strikes on their countries and completely destroy them.
Then we would have no alternative but to launch nuclear strikes on their countries and completely destroy them.
4
It is so wonderful to see the NYT do the Obama administration's bidding with such shameless aplomb! So proud.
12
All the air strikes in Britain--- strengthened their resolve
Air strikes in germany --- strengthened their resolve
Air strikes in vietnam ---strengthened their resolve
air strikes in pakistan, yemen, syria, lebanan,lyberia
strengthen their resolve and their HATRED
Air strikes in germany --- strengthened their resolve
Air strikes in vietnam ---strengthened their resolve
air strikes in pakistan, yemen, syria, lebanan,lyberia
strengthen their resolve and their HATRED
4
The air strikes in Germany caused them to surrender.
The air strikes in Japan caused them to surrender.
The air strikes in Yugoslavia caused them to surrender.
Air strikes in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, the Falkland Islands, and many more places, caused them to surrender.
I'd rather win this war against barbaric fundamentalists. Which side would you prefer?
The air strikes in Japan caused them to surrender.
The air strikes in Yugoslavia caused them to surrender.
Air strikes in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, the Falkland Islands, and many more places, caused them to surrender.
I'd rather win this war against barbaric fundamentalists. Which side would you prefer?
32
Comment has the semblance of logic but it fails to account for the massive death toll the Terrorist are taking on the local population everyplace they are.
While our drone attacks on the terrorist certainly have killed civilians; the civilian death toll caused the the terrorist is significantly higher and much more pervasive.
While our drone attacks on the terrorist certainly have killed civilians; the civilian death toll caused the the terrorist is significantly higher and much more pervasive.
21
But...but...but...the bomber always gets through!
Sounds like the drone strikes are just assisting the terrorist core in strengthening into a far more deadly group. In the meantime, individuals and small groups will continue to crop up and commit terrorist acts where they are and nations that have descended into chaos, like Yemen and Libya, will become the headquarters of the most brutal terrorist forces, which will only be wiped out by a full-scale ground war or by using worst-case scenario options.
We hear about the Middle Eastern nations investment in weapons and defense; we're not hearing about their investments in countering the religious extremism and geopolitical issues at the root of all this.
We hear about the Middle Eastern nations investment in weapons and defense; we're not hearing about their investments in countering the religious extremism and geopolitical issues at the root of all this.
32
And, most especially, we never hear of any "boots on the ground" from any of the countries in the area. BTW, what happened to the outrage and determination exhibited by Jordan over the death by fire on their pilot. Why should we continue to throw our young men and women into that meat grinder when they won't even defend themselves?
And where are those Middle Eastern nations getting those weapons? From the United $tates, which i$ encouraging the u$e of the$e killing machine$ and making a very tidy profit, too. Afterall we have a huge military indu$try to keep feeding. (And our $urplus killing machine$ are going to local police force$ to help them Protect and $erve here in the good old U. $ of A....exactly whom they are $erving, I'm $ure we can all figure out.
The saddest thing about what you have said is that you are correct.l
Really? This reads like a Vietnam era dispatch about how well the war was going. Or even, a 2012 dispatch about how well the overthrow of Ghaddafi was going in Libya.
The views of those not quoted in this piece (and their antecedents) might say instead that the drone strikes—aka long distance death from the air—is leading to a rise in anti-US sentiment on the ground, especially among clans who have had innocents killed; either mistakenly targeted or just plain collateral damage. Read your Hebrew Bible: clans don't care, and they always take revenge.
When the Times runs its 2018 Week-in-review feature on "Who lost Pakistan(and Afghanistan)" don't forget to reference this article.
The views of those not quoted in this piece (and their antecedents) might say instead that the drone strikes—aka long distance death from the air—is leading to a rise in anti-US sentiment on the ground, especially among clans who have had innocents killed; either mistakenly targeted or just plain collateral damage. Read your Hebrew Bible: clans don't care, and they always take revenge.
When the Times runs its 2018 Week-in-review feature on "Who lost Pakistan(and Afghanistan)" don't forget to reference this article.
10
The real issue here is not drones. In other wars we bombed hundreds of thousands of civilians, e.g. Dresden, (fire bombed the entire city), Hiroshima, etc. Wars are the problem, people get killed, nobody really "wins" --see thousands of US troops with PTSD and other problems, from Vietnam, drug problems, etc. My comment is triggered, not by the tragic deaths of two innocents, but to put a perspective on the fools who are ready to start a war in Iran, rather than to find a peaceful alternative.
164
It makes sense that we fight the mad mullahs of Iran today before they have the bomb than tomorrow when they do. We can effectively destroy Iran with the expenditure of only two Trident D5 submarine launched missiles with seven x W88 warheads each.
2
Dear Ed,
Actually, people always do really win. We won in WWII, Germany and Japan lost. We lost in Vietnam, the northern Vietnamese won. The North won our Civil war. Wars are always best fought to a determinative conclusion, and often are a benefit for having been won by the right side. Imagine if Germany had won WWII.
In any case it's fundamentalist types that started this war, and they must be crushed in order to finish it. I'd rather win this one than lose it.
Actually, people always do really win. We won in WWII, Germany and Japan lost. We lost in Vietnam, the northern Vietnamese won. The North won our Civil war. Wars are always best fought to a determinative conclusion, and often are a benefit for having been won by the right side. Imagine if Germany had won WWII.
In any case it's fundamentalist types that started this war, and they must be crushed in order to finish it. I'd rather win this one than lose it.
29
Yes, we know war is bad. But as humans, peace is oftentimes not possible.
1
Sounds great to me, each terrorist cratered is dozens of lives saved. All we need to do is find and eliminate the few thousands left, and there will be no al qaeda.
Oh sure, there will be other copycat groups for awhile, like when we managed to get rid of Menudo we wound up with New Kids On The Block and then One Direction. But luckily, they all fester in areas due to be wiped clean of human life by dehydration resulting from climate change and waste of resources. So we just keep mowing the grass until it can't grow back, won't take that much longer.
Oh sure, there will be other copycat groups for awhile, like when we managed to get rid of Menudo we wound up with New Kids On The Block and then One Direction. But luckily, they all fester in areas due to be wiped clean of human life by dehydration resulting from climate change and waste of resources. So we just keep mowing the grass until it can't grow back, won't take that much longer.
12
Keep fantasizing. That way, the war on terror will never end.
7
So Vinit, what's your answer to end the war on terror? None, am I right? Then your criticism is useless.
3
You just answered your own question: End the war on terror. The "terrorists" and the states fighting the terrorists in reality feed each other and feed an endless war. Stop foreign interventions in the Middle East. Stop selling arms and providing military assistance to the current favourite side. Let the factions in those countries sort out the mess, often one left behind by occupiers.
12
God bless our flying robot assassins.
32
sounds like something a terrorist might say, in my judgment.
lucky for you, I'm not President.
lucky for you, I'm not President.
1
George Orwell once said that you know that a society's corrupt when no one dare call anything by its real name. "Drone" sounds so clean; but "flying robot assassin" is what it is, or at least its job description.
I leave you with a question: in a world where no one dares call anything by its real name, what is the real name of what we call "terrorism?"
I leave you with a question: in a world where no one dares call anything by its real name, what is the real name of what we call "terrorism?"
6
This is a relief. Because I was thinking putting everybody in Pakistan at risk for sudden death from the sky might be counter-productive to US policy goals.
10
So we get an anonymously sourced, administration planted story to blunt the fact that hundreds if innocent people have been killed by these strikes. Way to take the bait.
17
Hence, the question then becomes - if we can't stop killing each other, is there any way we can limit it? In the short term, drone killings likely save American lives - usually. If you're an American, then, of course, you probably think this is wonderful.
In the longer term, drones may not be as effective as capturing your enemy's leaders and putting them on trial. Drone killings of wedding parties, for example, will likely lead to decades to come of hatred for the USA. Nevertheless, since American politicians, and the American voter, only ever thinks in the short term, this is unlikely to resonate with most posting here.