Problems with Drone Warfare

[Baruch]

If one wants a perfect system where conflict between countries is handled without anyone getting killed ... it is already available, it is called diplomacy.  Unfortunately the seven deadly sins get in the way.

[Mike Cl]

You are ignoring history. The bombing in WW2 was not done indiscriminately, it was done on purpose. In Germany, because the German people never accepted that they had lost in WW1, so the Allies deliberately bombed German cities so that the Germans would never forget they were to lose this one. In Japan, they wanted to send a similar message knowing that the Japanese were too proud to surrender and only a total defeat would bring them to a surrender. But unlike in Germany, the US had the nukes and had estimated that a similar invasion of Japan that was done in Germany would cost more than one million American lives. The decision to nuke Japan was done on this calculation.

Again you're ignoring history as you would not lump the Vietnam war with WW2, as they are totally different situations. The US inherited that war from the French who had resisted to leave its former colony, and that resistance had galvanized around a communist party. This was the Cold War, and so far the Russians had captured half of Europe and was a global threat as it was everywhere - in South America, in the Middle East trying to destabilize those governments to turn them into a communist regime. The calculations then in Vietnam was that the communists would unfurl throughout South-East Asia unimpeded. Regardless that the US lost that war, the communists were in no shape to pursue any other war of expansion in South-East Asia. Nevertheless, the USSR attempted one final conquest in Afghanistan in the 1980's but failed, again due to the US role in defeating the Soviets. It had further consequences later on as the US was aiding the Muhajeens who became later on known as Al Qaeda, the same terrorist group who declared war on the US.


The facts says otherwise but your knowledge of history is quite lacking.



Which part of "... it was Al Qaeda who declared war on the US, and not the other way around" don't you understand???

It's irrelevant to your claim that the US kills indiscriminately. 


First you rail on the US for going into Iraq and Afghanistan, now you rail against the US for NOT going into Pakistan. You're not very consistent in your position.

Sure, but it's not only the US which has no solution in the ME, no one else does. The US is stuck between a hard place and a rock. There was a movement to change regime in the ME as it happened during the Arab Spring of 2011, but that devolved quickly into Islamist regimes: Egypt voted for the Brotherhood, an Islamist party; Libya is a failed states as it is swarmed with Islamist factions and terrorist groups, while Syria is on the verge of collapse with dozens of factions fighting it out and ISIS capturing a good part of Syria and Iraq  - and you have 3 million Syrian refugees. Iraq is not doing better even though it had a lot of assistance from the US, but what did it do? It elected a Shiite government which has alienated the Sunny minority, pushing them towards ISIS. The rest of the ME is in disarray over Yemen, as it has become the country where Saudis and Iranians are fighting through proxy armies. The Obama administration has kept its involvement in the ME to a minimum so far: in Libya, it provided some assistance to the French; in Syria, it applied pressure to disarm Assad of his WMD's, in Iraq it regularly bombs ISIS position in the hope that the Iraqi army get enough mojo to defeat ISIS. The only bright spot is the deal with Iran, lifting the sanctions in the hope Iran abandons it nuclear weapon ambition - we really don't know how this will turn out. But no one has any real solution to a very complex situation. No one, not even Putin...

Look, Joseph, I'm not really trying to get into a pissing contest with you--just an exchange of ideas.

Ignoring history?  Really?  History is not a cut and dried subject--not when tackled in a realistic way.  Bombing neighborhoods on purpose is not indiscriminate, I guess.  But the result was the same.  There were many children and babies that had no idea what WWI was about.  And the problem was not that the German people did not know they were defeated, but that they knew too well they were.  The Versailles Treaty was very, very harsh toward Germany; that caused deep resentment.  As for the Japanese nation, I told you that I am in favor of the atomic bomb drops.  But a case can be made that a 'warning' drop could have been made other than on a city.  I agree with you that we could not afford to invade it as we did Europe.  The history of the US is repleat with instances of indiscriminate killing.  I started prior to the beginning of our country.  The American Indian was always regarded as vermin fit only for extermination. The history of our nation is a bloody one.  We have been lied into more wars than any other way of entering war.  The Spanish American War, the Mexican War, Vietnam  all used lies to get us into them.    You use the term 'communists' as a monolithic term.  Each so called communist country was a different form of govt.  Vietnam was a civil war more than any other kind.  Notice that the North did not become vassals of either the Soviet Union or the Chinese after that war.  They were fighting a civil war and when it was over, they sought to bring the south into the mold of the north. 

When Bush/Cheney entered the Afgan country for the first time after Al Quada, that was not only accepted by the world, but expected.  I was for that.  I wanted to see them caught and brought to justice.  And we could have followed them into Pakistan--that would have been accept and expected.  We could and should have then withdrawn from both areas and gone home.  But Bush called that action off and then entered Iraq.  I think he and Cheney and Co. wanted to remake the ME in the image of a Western Democracy and had plans to do so prior to going into office.  So, into Iraq, shock and awe--and murder as far as I am concerned.  We tried many a leader for less than those two did in the war crimes trials of WWII. 

Look, we are not the most evil country in the history of the world---far, far from it.  It is not totally and completely moral or ethical, either. It falls in the middle, even if it is in the high middle.  I think the true 'patriot' (I hate that word) is one who questions the leaders intent and actions 24 hrs a day, every day.  Just because nobody has a good strategy does not mean we should enter every country with arms and troops.  Those are not working--why continue the bloodshed and why not try to figure out something that has a chance of working?

[stromboli]

[spoiler]


AND LET THE GAMES BEGIN.......[/spoiler]

[Mike Cl]

[spoiler]


AND LET THE GAMES BEGIN.......[/spoiler]

Hey--I'm the one on the right--has a bigger puddle....................

[josephpalazzo]

Look, Joseph, I'm not really trying to get into a pissing contest with you--just an exchange of ideas.

Who said it was a pissing contest?

Ignoring history?  Really?  History is not a cut and dried subject--not when tackled in a realistic way.  Bombing neighborhoods on purpose is not indiscriminate, I guess.  But the result was the same. 

Not really. I think it's important to know what message we're sending. In WW2, the message was clear: we're going to make sure you know who lost the war. It had a permanent effect - no one thinks of Germany or Japan embarking today on an imperialistic quest to conquer the world. In the war on terrorism, the message is different: you won't terrorize us, and no matter where you hide, we'll find you and destroy you. It's important to understand that, otherwise the strategy won't make sense. And in your case, you see the US has killing indiscriminately, when it isn't so. Yes, in WW2, the US did kill indiscriminately on purpose because of the message. In the war on terrorism, the US isn't as that would be counter-productive.

There were many children and babies that had no idea what WWI was about.  And the problem was not that the German people did not know they were defeated, but that they knew too well they were.  The Versailles Treaty was very, very harsh toward Germany; that caused deep resentment.

Easy for you to say... Well, tell that to the people in France, Belgium, the Netherland who saw 4 years of atrocities, millions died, and their lives completely destroyed. While most German civilians suffered hardly any destruction in their own land.

The history of our nation is a bloody one.

Very few countries can boast that their history isn't bloody. Just open your history books.

Vietnam was a civil war more than any other kind.  Notice that the North did not become vassals of either the Soviet Union or the Chinese after that war.  They were fighting a civil war and when it was over, they sought to bring the south into the mold of the north. 

Well, I did mention that the US inherited that war from the French who did not want to release its colony, and the opposition to the French occupation coalesced into the communist party. You can debated forever that it was a mistake, but in spite of that, that war cost the communist block a lot of money and resources, and in the long run, helped to bring down the regime. Now if you're a communist sympathizer, you will disagree with that assessment.

When Bush/Cheney entered the Afgan country for the first time after Al Quada, that was not only accepted by the world, but expected.  I was for that.  I wanted to see them caught and brought to justice.  And we could have followed them into Pakistan--that would have been accept and expected.  We could and should have then withdrawn from both areas and gone home.  But Bush called that action off and then entered Iraq.  I think he and Cheney and Co. wanted to remake the ME in the image of a Western Democracy and had plans to do so prior to going into office.  So, into Iraq, shock and awe--and murder as far as I am concerned.  We tried many a leader for less than those two did in the war crimes trials of WWII.

I think you're doing too much Monday morning quarterbacking with "we could", "we should".

Look, we are not the most evil country in the history of the world---far, far from it.  It is not totally and completely moral or ethical, either. It falls in the middle, even if it is in the high middle.  I think the true 'patriot' (I hate that word) is one who questions the leaders intent and actions 24 hrs a day, every day.  Just because nobody has a good strategy does not mean we should enter every country with arms and troops.  Those are not working--why continue the bloodshed and why not try to figure out something that has a chance of working?

Easy to say, but in the real world, there aren't easy solutions. Who could have predicted that because the US  in 1991 stationed some troops on Saudi Arabia land, the sacred home of Islam, that a small group of terrorists called Al Qaeda was going to declare war on the US and proceed to bomb the TWC in 2001?

[Mike Cl]

Who said it was a pissing contest?

Not really. I think it's important to know what message we're sending. In WW2, the message was clear: we're going to make sure you know who lost the war. It had a permanent effect - no one thinks of Germany or Japan embarking today on an imperialistic quest to conquer the world. In the war on terrorism, the message is different: you won't terrorize us, and no matter where you hide, we'll find you and destroy you. It's important to understand that, otherwise the strategy won't make sense. And in your case, you see the US has killing indiscriminately, when it isn't so. Yes, in WW2, the US did kill indiscriminately on purpose because of the message. In the war on terrorism, the US isn't as that would be counter-productive.
 

Easy for you to say... Well, tell that to the people in France, Belgium, the Netherland who saw 4 years of atrocities, millions died, and their lives completely destroyed. While most German civilians suffered hardly any destruction in their own land.
 

Very few countries can boast that their history isn't bloody. Just open your history books.


Well, I did mention that the US inherited that war from the French who did not want to release its colony, and the opposition to the French occupation coalesced into the communist party. You can debated forever that it was a mistake, but in spite of that, that war cost the communist block a lot of money and resources, and in the long run, helped to bring down the regime. Now if you're a communist sympathizer, you will disagree with that assessment.


I think you're doing too much Monday morning quarterbacking with "we could", "we should".

Easy to say, but in the real world, there aren't easy solutions. Who could have predicted that because the US  in 1991 stationed some troops on Saudi Arabia land, the sacred home of Islam, that a small group of terrorists called Al Qaeda was going to declare war on the US and proceed to bomb the TWC in 2001?

It seems you and I read history differently.  And that probably will not change.  So, basically, we will simply have to disagree and live with it.

I do like some of your phrases--'communist sympathizer'--I haven't heard that in awhile. :)))  Too many people want to look at history and take the easy way out--paint with a large brush.  For example, the communist bloc.  There really wasn't one.  Communism never really existed.  Each and every country that was labeled with that title was different.  The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and even that in it's own way.  China was the same--totalitarian--but in it's own way.  They were in an alliance because of the old saying--an enemy of my enemy is my friend.  And we are not and never have been a democracy.  I don't know of any real democratic countries.  We are a republic and always have been.  With the electoral college, we, as a country have never directly voted for our president.  And we are represented by representatives in our various congresses. That's a republic. 

In Vietnam we did not 'inherit' the problem from the French--we took it on because we wanted to.  Ike started it and it was ramped up by each succeeding president until Johnson lied us into a full blown war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  It was as valid as the sinking of the Maine as a reason to go to war; both incidents were used to go to war, and were not, in fact, valid.

As for the 'message' of WWII--the real message was survival.  It was not a given that the US would survive nor be a victor in this war.  We had our hands full just trying to do that--survive.  It was not a given that Hitler would run his side of the war so stupidly or that Japan would run out of resources as quickly as they did.  We were in real trouble and to think we entered the war to teach Germany and Japan a lesson is a bit of 'Monday quaterbacking' of your own. 

History is never one sided--or two sided--but multiple sided.  It really does need to be looked at from several viewpoints if one really wants to grasp what was really going on.  There is the victor's side, the loser's side and all the participants sides.  Then you have to evaluate that mix. 

And yes, I have opened my history books.  Human kind has a bloody history and we are a bloody animal.  No doubt.  And I have compared and contrasted with other cultures and other times.  I guess I'm too much of an idealist in that I really would like to think the US is an exceptional country and for the right reasons.  We are at times.  And we aren't at times.  I am simply tired of all of our leaders trying to put the problems of the world into sound bytes with little real meaning.  For example, there is a history to the countries of the ME and it would be a good thing if our leaders knew what it was.  The US public sure doesn't.  And I don't as much as I should. 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And kingdoms also fell because the leader led them into battle.

"This message brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department of your Natural Guard."

[josephpalazzo]

It seems you and I read history differently.  And that probably will not change.  So, basically, we will simply have to disagree and live with it.

I do like some of your phrases--'communist sympathizer'--I haven't heard that in awhile. :)))  Too many people want to look at history and take the easy way out--paint with a large brush.  For example, the communist bloc.  There really wasn't one.  Communism never really existed.  Each and every country that was labeled with that title was different.  The Soviet Union was a totalitarian state and even that in it's own way.  China was the same--totalitarian--but in it's own way.  They were in an alliance because of the old saying--an enemy of my enemy is my friend.  And we are not and never have been a democracy.  I don't know of any real democratic countries.  We are a republic and always have been.  With the electoral college, we, as a country have never directly voted for our president.  And we are represented by representatives in our various congresses. That's a republic. 

There is no such thing as a "true" democracy or a "true" communist country. It's called the "No true Scotsman fallacy".

But the reality is that there was a communist bloc surrounded by an "iron curtain", a strategy that was symptomatic of the communist regime - why do you need to lock up your own citizens if it is such a great place to live in?

In Vietnam we did not 'inherit' the problem from the French--we took it on because we wanted to.  Ike started it and it was ramped up by each succeeding president until Johnson lied us into a full blown war with the Gulf of Tonkin incident.  It was as valid as the sinking of the Maine as a reason to go to war; both incidents were used to go to war, and were not, in fact, valid.

The history record distinctly show that it was the French government who asked the US to intervene in Vietnam. Sure, the US could have refused but the Ike administration saw in Vietnam another Korean situation. Now had the resistance to the French occupation not galvanized around a communist party, which was financed by North Vietnam, already a communist country, chances are the US would not have gotten involved.

As for the 'message' of WWII--the real message was survival.  It was not a given that the US would survive nor be a victor in this war.  We had our hands full just trying to do that--survive.  It was not a given that Hitler would run his side of the war so stupidly or that Japan would run out of resources as quickly as they did.  We were in real trouble and to think we entered the war to teach Germany and Japan a lesson is a bit of 'Monday quaterbacking' of your own. 

The message was formulated after the Normandy invasion had succeeded. It was by then a matter of time before Germany would be defeated.

History is never one sided--or two sided--but multiple sided.  It really does need to be looked at from several viewpoints if one really wants to grasp what was really going on.  There is the victor's side, the loser's side and all the participants sides.  Then you have to evaluate that mix. 

True, and you should apply this important principle to your claims. Right now, I see you as one who bought the terrorist propaganda line, hook and sinker, that the US is also a terrorist organization, when the reality points otherwise. If the US was killing indiscriminately, it would bomb the area merciless, and millions of civilians would be dead by now, and no other country in the world could stop the US from doing that. The fact says it hasn't happened, as the US has undertaken a policy of destroying the enemy with minimizing the collateral damage. It cannot avoid civilian casualties as the enemy hides among the civilian population.

And yes, I have opened my history books.  Human kind has a bloody history and we are a bloody animal.  No doubt.  And I have compared and contrasted with other cultures and other times.  I guess I'm too much of an idealist in that I really would like to think the US is an exceptional country and for the right reasons.  We are at times.  And we aren't at times.

Whenever you want to subject reality to an ideology, chances are that you will get it wrong. So maybe a little of realism would be the right prescription.

I am simply tired of all of our leaders trying to put the problems of the world into sound bytes with little real meaning.  For example, there is a history to the countries of the ME and it would be a good thing if our leaders knew what it was.  The US public sure doesn't.  And I don't as much as I should. 

Alas, the enemy doesn't get tired. And a democracy is vulnerable as it must seek a consensus, which is time consuming. The enemy is not going to wait for a democracy to get its act together. They will strike whenever they can. Authoritarian regimes have no problem to go fight an enemy as it is not bound to seek any consensus from its population. But politicians in a democracy are in a bind: how much consensus they should seek out, how much time should be spent in getting that consensus, and at the same time, continue a strategy to defeat the enemy. That is not a simple task.  That's the price you must pay in a democracy: some truth will be sacrificed.

[Unbeliever]

Hey--I'm the one on the right--has a bigger puddle....................

Just a couple of piddly puddles...

[Mike Cl]

Just a couple of piddly puddles...

Yeah--but that is only a start.................:)

[Cocoa Beware]

When you think about it blowing someone up from miles away is really little different than terrorism.  If a Muslim blows himself up on a military base taking soldiers with him, that's a terrorist.  But if we fire a shell from a ship parked a hundred miles off shore and kill 1 intended target and 10 civilians, that's war.  Politicians often like to denounce the "cowardice" of bombers....says the man who sits safely in his office while people carry out his orders for him from the safety of friendly territory.

There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.

To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.

Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.

[Mike Cl]

There is no such thing as a "true" democracy or a "true" communist country. It's called the "No true Scotsman fallacy".

But the reality is that there was a communist bloc surrounded by an "iron curtain", a strategy that was symptomatic of the communist regime - why do you need to lock up your own citizens if it is such a great place to live in?

The history record distinctly show that it was the French government who asked the US to intervene in Vietnam. Sure, the US could have refused but the Ike administration saw in Vietnam another Korean situation. Now had the resistance to the French occupation not galvanized around a communist party, which was financed by North Vietnam, already a communist country, chances are the US would not have gotten involved.


The message was formulated after the Normandy invasion had succeeded. It was by then a matter of time before Germany would be defeated.

True, and you should apply this important principle to your claims. Right now, I see you as one who bought the terrorist propaganda line, hook and sinker, that the US is also a terrorist organization, when the reality points otherwise. If the US was killing indiscriminately, it would bomb the area merciless, and millions of civilians would be dead by now, and no other country in the world could stop the US from doing that. The fact says it hasn't happened, as the US has undertaken a policy of destroying the enemy with minimizing the collateral damage. It cannot avoid civilian casualties as the enemy hides among the civilian population.

Whenever you want to subject reality to an ideology, chances are that you will get it wrong. So maybe a little of realism would be the right prescription.


Alas, the enemy doesn't get tired. And a democracy is vulnerable as it must seek a consensus, which is time consuming. The enemy is not going to wait for a democracy to get its act together. They will strike whenever they can. Authoritarian regimes have no problem to go fight an enemy as it is not bound to seek any consensus from its population. But politicians in a democracy are in a bind: how much consensus they should seek out, how much time should be spent in getting that consensus, and at the same time, continue a strategy to defeat the enemy. That is not a simple task.  That's the price you must pay in a democracy: some truth will be sacrificed.

No, I have not fallen for the propaganda of either the terrorists of any stripe or of our own high school version of our history.  It is all much more complicated than that. 

Anyway, we are getting close to beating a dead horse.  You have your view and I have mine.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Help me here, please. Was there ever a war where no civilians died?

[Baruch]

There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.

To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.

Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.

Different sides in conflict have different ideologies.  Consider Stalin vs Hitler.  In certain fundamental respects, if you had to have an ally ... Stalin was your best choice (Hitler broke every treaty he ever made) ... so long as he was under Hitler's thumb.  The reverse wouldn't have been true, had the allies gone with Hitler against Stalin (as Hitler hoped).  Once Stalin got nukes, he didn't use them.  Hitler wouldn't have been so shy if the situation was reversed.

So yes, there are ideological and stylistic differences between NATO vs ISIS, or HAMAS vs IDF.  I know which ones I prefer, but that doesn't mean I think this is any different than Stalin Vs Hitler.  If there had only been Stalin vs Hitler, I would have still chosen Comrade Stalin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O-sMh_DO6I

In WW I and WW II, Russia was my country's ally.  450K civilians of 500K total died at Stalingrad.  And we aren't even counting the troops.  I care for every person, every combatant ... including the Germans.  In that time and that place, if dying had to happen, it had to be Germans.  More Russians died at just Stalingrad, than all the Americans killed in WW II.

[widdershins]

There is one clear distinction I think needs to be made here; one side deliberately targets civilians, and the other does not.

To go even further, consider how groups like Hamas use their own people as human shields, and stash weapons where they live; if innocents are killed on their side it can actually work to their advantage.

Also, consider how things would be if the tables were turned; for example, a vow to destroy Israel is in Hamas' charter.

There's a whole lot more to it than "one side deliberately targets civilians, the other does not".  For one, a drone doesn't have to find a way to sneak onto a military base to target non-civilians.  It is a WHOLE LOT easier to pick your targets with technologically advanced weapons.  I'm no expert, but I would lay money down on the notion that the "other side" would take out an accessible military target over a market place every single time they had the opportunity.  I think the difference here is more like, "one side had access to military targets, the other does not".  And actually I believe most drone strikes, certainly a fair number of them, actually target leadership, not military, mostly because the enemy doesn't have much of a "military" as we would recognize it.

It's important to keep in mind that one side has fortified military bases, anti-aircraft, missiles, jets, attack choppers, drones, ships, radar, several dedicated intelligence agencies, satellites and spends as much on its military as the next 11 countries combined while the other side has "training camps", cars and RPGs.  Access plays a HUGE role in target selection.  One side has access to any target they find, the other does not.

I am not denying at all that these are bad, bad people.  They use their own as human shields.  Granted.  But I didn't grow up in the ass-crack of the world like they did.  I have to think that, to a guy who's going to strap on a bomb and go blow himself up to take out some kids engaged in that most heinous of crimes, "learning", just maybe human life wouldn't mean as much to me as it does from my comfy western point of view.

And finally, which two military bases did the US drop nuclear bombs on to end WWII?  Oh, that's right, they were CITIES!

Besides that, these aren't even the people I was necessarily talking about.  I did, in fact, actually mention attacks on military targets also being labeled as "terrorist attacks".  While all of your points are valid, they are completely irrelevant to the point I was making, that if one were to be given a small amount of data which included only the type of attack and the number of casualties, military, leadership and civilian, one would not only be hard-pressed, given only the facts, to tell "military attacks" from "terrorist attacks", but there would be some attacks labeled as "terrorist attacks" currently which would always seem to be "military attacks", again, given only the facts such as, "It was a bombing, it killed X people, all military."