Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title) [Archive] - Page 2

Firn

06-05-2013, 09:18 PM

Video of Domino's experimental Pizza Delivery Drone....What is that famous expression........May you live in interesting times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDXuGQRpvs4

I'm actually a bit surprised by the range and altitude obtained by those first-person view (FPV) drones.

V Bixler to 3019m! Amazing view! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vN5fc2iceo)

Quadcopter freestyle (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsrzBwylodU) is also worth a watch IMHO.

Drones won't go away, indeed. In general I see a couple of strong trends supporting the drone market:

1) Rapid technological progress on many levels, from miniaturisation of key components to better software devolopment. The FPV goggles are just one example of it. Like in other areas the specific development profits from bigger trends, in this case virtual reality visors for gaming.

2) Increasingly better understanding and integration from the demand side, all the various costumers. The last ten years have certainly greatly enhanced the overall drone knowledge and organisations have and will find new and smarter ways to use them. This feeds like point 1 into point 3.

3) The industrial base is far stronger and wider then ever before and the markets have become increasingly competitive. The amount of know-how and the pace of development have certainly increased vastly.

Other important points have already been raised in the thread. I would just end this short comment with a nod to the satellites in space. While there will always be tasks that only humans right up there can do, increasingly smaller satellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniaturized_satellites) can do other jobs much more efficiently.

Firn

06-05-2013, 09:33 PM

Just a short comment about the EuroHawk...

That bit is just pure gold, if true.

The contracts with the Americans were filled with oddities. For instance, Northrop Grumman was not required to disclose all blueprints for the drone, even though this is necessary to obtain flight certification from German aviation authorities.

In addition, German drone pilots were not given the right to fly the Euro Hawk. Instead, the German Defense Ministry had to ask Northrop Grumman for permission to fly the drone. Only when a pilot sat down at the computer in California could the drone take off in Germany. This is still the case today and, as a result, the German pilots trained specifically to fly the Euro Hawk sit around doing nothing. To keep their pilot's licenses from expiring, they fly training flights on Lufthansa training jets -- at the government's expense.

I'm surprised that anybody would accept such contracts. Northrop likely had a lot of internal red flags but was rightly quite happy that other side rather foolishly accepted. Still it is overall not good news for them, as their reputations as a reliable and trustworthy partner in the drone business was certainly not enhanced.

From a German point of view it surprises me a bit that after relative small drones they went very high-end, which makes point 2 not quite relevant. More internal knowhow would have certainly helped them. Bloody expensive stuff in either case, if the numbers are true:

In 2011, South Korea's Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA) expressed interest in acquiring at least four RQ-4B and support equipment to increase intelligence capabilities following the exchange of the Wartime Operational Control from the U.S. to the Republic of Korea. Government officials debated on the topic of the Global Hawks and its own domestic UAV programs.[78] In September 2011, the US and South Korea discussed aircraft deployments near its border with North Korea to view North Korea and the North Korea–China border.[79] In January 2012, DAPA announced that it would not proceed with a purchase due to a price rise from US$442M to US$899M, and that other platforms such as the Global Observer or the Phantom Eye were being investigated.[80] However, in December 2012, South Korea notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale of 4 RQ-4 Block 30 (I) Global Hawk UAVs with the Enhanced Integrated Sensor Suite (EISS) at an estimated cost of $1.2 billion.[81]

(From Wikipedia)

davidbfpo

07-01-2013, 09:22 PM

Added here, with a slightly different explanation on the current Yemen thread.

The link is to a previously unheard of Swiss / Yemeni NGO report for the UN Rapporteur on Human Rights & CT - on drones in the Yemen. It is unusual in gathering eyewitness testimony and providing local contexts, worth reading IMHO:http://en.alkarama.org/documents/ALK_USA-Yemen_Drones_SRCTwHR_4June2013_Final_EN.pdf

davidbfpo

07-11-2013, 02:58 PM

A long, partly read review of 'The CIA, a Secret Army and a War at the Ends of the Earth' by Mark Mazzetti, in the London Review of Books, by an American lawyer, Stephen Holmes:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n14/stephen-holmes/whats-in-it-for-obama

He ends with:
Once Obama concluded that this war will never end, he presumably drew the sensible inference that traditional law-of-war detention is wholly inapplicable to the unconventional conflict in which the US is now engaged. That is when he made his fateful choice: the moment when he turned to the only form of incapacitation appropriate to a war without end. In so doing, he has bequeathed to us not a war that will be easier to contain, but one that is borderless and self-sustaining and that shows not a single discernible sign of burning itself out.

Link to Amazon, which has 113 reviews:http://www.amazon.com/Way-Knife-Secret-Army-Earth/dp/1594204802/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373552390&sr=1-1&keywords=mark+mazzetti

davidbfpo

07-26-2013, 06:44 PM

A spectacular info graphic on the drone attacks on Pakistan. Not too sure how the breakdown of 3149 casualties works (since 2004): children, civilian, other combatants and targets (just 48 HVT). Found today, but it was released in March 2013 and reviewed here:http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/03/charting-drone-strikes

Link to graphic:http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

jmm99

07-27-2013, 05:32 AM

See this post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=147945&postcount=165) for much more on the "validity" of persons killed divided into categories, such as "civilians".

My conclusion is that the "civilian" category is determined by the politics and policies desired by the definer.

Regards

Mike

davidbfpo

08-16-2013, 05:30 PM

A lengthy article by Mark Bowden in The Atlantic magazine:http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/09/the-killing-machines-how-to-think-about-drones/309434/?single_page=true

For followers of this thread probably not much new, nevertheless well-written.

SWJ Blog

08-21-2013, 10:41 PM

Drones: Actually the Most Humane Form of Warfare Ever (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/drones-actually-the-most-humane-form-of-warfare-ever)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/drones-actually-the-most-humane-form-of-warfare-ever) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

slapout9

09-24-2013, 08:15 PM

Fuchs

09-24-2013, 09:09 PM

Link to Foreign Policy magazine article iwhere a US Air Force General says in future conventional wars drones will be worthless due to their susceptibility to Anti Aircraft Missiles.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/19/predator_drones_useless_in_most_wars_top_air_force _general_says

We didn't need a general to know this, right?
Predator A is basically a motorglider on autopilot.

The USAF required long ago that a successor shall be survivable in less permissive environments. I forgot the exact words, but I remember the tender said something about medium threats.

On the other hand, the U.S. military developed plenty drones which were not of the motorglider pattern; plenty low observability designs with turbofans, for example.
The drones which seemed to have primetime before 2003 were drones meant for a European battlefield (KZO Brevel, Cl 289, Caracelle etc.); such as the ones used over Kosovo '99. This kind of drones is very compact with a small wing span, has relatively robust and typically encrypted radio links, and was meant for minutes or few hours of endurance.

Other drones are too small to justify the expense of a missile, and some are so very small even a Shilka would be a poor weapon against it, calling rather for shotguns.

The motorglider category of drones is really specialised on wars of occupation, assassinations and peacetime spying over borders. We knew this, right?

AdamG

10-15-2013, 03:44 PM

Dual post.

A U.S. command and control center in Yemen, used to direct drone strikes against al Qaeda havens in the country, was the target of a massive terrorist attack in the country late last month.

The Sept. 30 attempted assault on the military base in Mukalla on the country's southeastern coast was initially seen as an attempt by al Qaeda's Yemen faction to establish new strongholds in the country.

But the terrorist group, known as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), now claims the attack was an attempt to take out the U.S. command node in Mukalla and hamper American drone strikes in the country.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/328449-report-us-drone-base-in-yemen-targeted-in-al-qaeda-attack-#ixzz2hnq0xqry

carl

10-15-2013, 09:28 PM

Dual post.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/328449-report-us-drone-base-in-yemen-targeted-in-al-qaeda-attack-#ixzz2hnq0xqry

Going after the pilots or the ground radio links, good move. This should complicate things.

Entropy

10-16-2013, 01:19 AM

The USAF required long ago that a successor shall be survivable in less permissive environments. I forgot the exact words, but I remember the tender said something about medium threats.

That's true, but it's not just about air defense. The C2 link is the critical node in any remote controlled system.

jmm99

10-18-2013, 05:38 PM

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism (http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Emmerson-Report.pdf) (by Ben Emmerson, 18 Sep 2013):

The present report is the third annual report submitted to the General Assembly by the current Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism.

The key activities undertaken by the Special Rapporteur between 10 January and 8 August 2013 are listed in section II. Section III is an interim report to the General Assembly on the use of remotely piloted aircraft in counter-terrorism operations. The Special Rapporteur intends to submit a final report on this subject to the Human Rights Council in 2014.

The salient conclusion of the report is simply this:

77. If used in strict compliance with the principles of international humanitarian law, remotely piloted aircraft are capable of reducing the risk of civilian casualties in armed conflict by significantly improving the situational awareness of military commanders.

The devil is always in the details; and the question here is what does Mr Emmerson (who is a practitioner and not a foggy academic) mean by the term "in strict compliance" with international humanitarian law (aka Laws of Armed Conflict; aka Laws of War).

He delineates "strict compliance" in two earlier paragraphs. The first reads (in pertinent part):

23. Section B provides an overview of the capabilities and deployment of weaponized remotely piloted aircraft and the levels of reported civilian casualties.[4]

4 Differences of view about the forms of activity that amount to direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law will almost inevitably result in different assessments of civilian casualty levels. The Special Rapporteur adopts herein the interpretative guidance on direct participation in hostilities promulgated by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in Nils Melzer:http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/icrc-002-0990.pdf (Geneva, ICRC, 2009); see paras. 69-72.

Thus, Mr Emmerson has adopted the most restrictive test for "combatants" (and, conversely, the most expansive test for "civilians"). The 2009 ICRC's "Interpretive Guidance" was and still is controversial; e.g., as per these snips from pp. 65, 67:

Measures preparatory to the execution of a specific act of direct participation in hostilities, as well as the deployment to and the return from the location of its execution, constitute an integral part of that act.
...
A deployment amounting to direct participation in hostilities begins only once the deploying individual undertakes a physical displacement with a view to carrying out a specific operation. The return from the execution of a specific hostile act ends once the individual in question has physically separated from the operation, for example by laying down, storing or hiding the weapons or other equipment used and resuming activities distinct from that operation.

The 2009 ICRC "guidance" wholeheartedly endorses the concept of the "transitory guerrilla" (aka "freedom fighter"), which has morphed the Laws of War since the 1977 APs to the GCs.

The second major point made by Mr Emmerson is this:

24. The Special Rapporteur does not use the expression “targeted killing” herein because its meaning and significance differ according to the legal regime applicable in specific factual circumstances. In a situation qualifying as an armed conflict, the adoption of a pre-identified list of individual military targets is not unlawful; if based upon reliable intelligence it is a paradigm application of the principle of distinction. Conversely, outside situations of armed conflict, international human rights law prohibits almost any counter-terrorism operation that has the infliction of deadly force as its sole or main purpose (A/HRC/14/24/Add.6 (http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/HRC/14/24/Add.6), paras. 28 and 32-33). The threshold question therefore is not whether a killing is targeted, but whether it takes place within or outside a situation of armed conflict (see paras. 62-68 below).

Again, drawing "a line" between what is and what is not an "armed conflict" (aka "war") has its restrictive proponents and its expansive proponents. The logic tends to be a priori - which some admit, and others do not.

Specific legal points made by Mr Emmerson (in parts C & D) belong to the thread, The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13239).

Regards

Mike

SWJ Blog

10-19-2013, 04:53 AM

The Future of Counterterrorism: Fewer Drones, More Partnerships (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-future-of-counterterrorism-fewer-drones-more-partnerships)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-future-of-counterterrorism-fewer-drones-more-partnerships) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

jmm99

10-23-2013, 03:44 AM

with Ben Emmerson's UN report; though in a more strident manner.

Amnesty International, “Will I Be Next?” - US Drone Strikes in Pakistan (http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/asa330132013en.pdf); investigates nine drone strikes in North Waziristan between January 2012 and August 2013.

Human Rights Watch, “Between a Drone and Al Qaeda” - The Civilian Cost of US Targeted Killings in Yemen (http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/yemen1013_ForUpload.pdf); examines six drone strikes in Yemen, one from 2009 and the remaining five from 2012 and 2013.

Both reports employ restrictive definitions of "combatants", and expansive definitions of "civilians", in those limited situations where the Laws of War (Laws of Armed Conflict; International Humanitarian Law) are believed by the two NGOs to be possibly applicable. In general, they prefer International Human Rights Law (i.e., the absence of an armed conflict). In any event, both reports apply standards which would be very restrictive of drone usage.

By now, this thread's readers should be more than capable of deciding between the various policy-military-legal paradigms, without need for lengthy sermons by this writer.

Regards

Mike

PS: I disagree with Ben's legal positions, which I think are ill-chosen (see prior post); but, if one chooses those positions, one would have to follow Ben's logic . The two NGO reports are "special pleadings"; in short, agitprop.

SWJ Blog

11-11-2013, 12:28 PM

World of Drones to Get Wilder and Wider (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/world-of-drones-to-get-wilder-and-wider)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/world-of-drones-to-get-wilder-and-wider) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

12-21-2013, 04:20 PM

Predators: The CIA’s Drone War on al Qaeda (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/predators-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drone-war-on-al-qaeda)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/predators-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drone-war-on-al-qaeda) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

12-24-2013, 07:11 PM

There is a double bargain today on SWJ Blog, a review of Dr. Brian Glyn William book 'Predators: The CIA’s Drone War on al Qaeda':http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/predators-the-cia%E2%80%99s-drone-war-on-al-qaeda

The first comment by a RAF officer, Keith Dear, points to an article in the journal Defence Stuies he wrote 'Beheading the Hydra? Does Killing Terrorist or Insurgent Leaders work', which is currently fully available for free: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14702436.2013.845383#.UrnPJfsXluh

Yet more to read one day.

SWJ Blog

01-18-2014, 02:42 AM

Drones and Apaches Are the Army’s New Aerial Scouts (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/drones-and-apaches-are-the-army%E2%80%99s-new-aerial-scouts)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/drones-and-apaches-are-the-army%E2%80%99s-new-aerial-scouts) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

01-25-2014, 02:33 PM

SecDef Should Crack Whip On Cyber, Drones, & Training Foreigners (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/secdef-should-crack-whip-on-cyber-drones-training-foreigners)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/secdef-should-crack-whip-on-cyber-drones-training-foreigners) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

02-05-2014, 07:11 PM

Do Drones Present New Military Opportunities (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/do-drones-present-new-military-opportunities)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/do-drones-present-new-military-opportunities) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

02-10-2014, 02:19 PM

I have merged several SWJ Blog posts to this thread. Several threads exist on specific topics related to drones, including targeting, use in rain forest Africa and more.

davidbfpo

02-10-2014, 02:24 PM

A curious article on how targeting works, in particular the role of the NSA and from authors with an agenda. The title is: The NSA’s Secret Role in the U.S. Assassination Program:https://firstlook.org/theintercept/article/2014/02/10/the-nsas-secret-role/

Already one author, the BBC's Mark Urban, have questioned the claim to be a revelation as he had written on this theme in 2010 (via Twitter).

ODB

02-11-2014, 05:46 AM

NY Times article Feb 10, 2014: "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is debating whether to authorize a lethal strike against an American citizen living in Pakistan who some believe is actively plotting terrorist attacks, according to current and former government officials.

It is the first time American officials have actively discussed killing an American citizen overseas since President Obama imposed new restrictions on drone operations last May." Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/asia/us-debates-drone-strike-on-american-terror-suspect-in-pakistan.html?_r=0

A subject which in my opinion does not draw enough attention considering the targeting of one's own citizens.

JMA

02-11-2014, 08:29 AM

What's the legal position?

NY Times article Feb 10, 2014: "WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is debating whether to authorize a lethal strike against an American citizen living in Pakistan who some believe is actively plotting terrorist attacks, according to current and former government officials.

It is the first time American officials have actively discussed killing an American citizen overseas since President Obama imposed new restrictions on drone operations last May." Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/asia/us-debates-drone-strike-on-american-terror-suspect-in-pakistan.html?_r=0

A subject which in my opinion does not draw enough attention considering the targeting of one's own citizens.

jmm99

02-11-2014, 05:29 PM

But first, ODB, good to see the Buddha Belly back posting.

The Short Legal Position starts with the 2001 AUMF, S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/107/sjres23/text), which boils down to one sub-paragraph (JMM emphasis added):

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

During the Bush II Administration, the 2001 AUMF was viewed flexibly with respect to the President's authorization to determine whether a nation, organization or person was within its scope for "future acts of international terrorism". The question (say, as to organizations and persons) was whether the organization or person was closely enough tied to AQ or the Taliban (which harbored AQ) to be considered part of either organization either directly or as an "affiliate", "associate", "franchisee", and all the rest of the buzz words that developed. That question (decided in hundreds of detainee cases that haven't had the publicity of the direct actions and drone strikes, in the Federal courts - I'd include SCOTUS), is primarily a political question - the President's decision will usually be final.

In traditional military terms, the first question is defining the "enemy" (a nation, organization or person subject to the AUMF), which is a Presidential determination. Let's say he's done that and the "AQ Expatriates of Upper Michigan", now in country "X", are within the AUMF (in broad terms, the "enemy") - and let's say that its members are all US citizens.

The next question is whether a given member of the "AQ Expatriates of Upper Michigan", now in country "X", is a combatant or not . Combatant vs non-combatant matrices are developed employing co-operation under Title 10 (the US Code title governing the military) and Title 50 (the US Code title governing the civilian intelligence agencies). That T10-T50 co-operation could extend into the direct action or drone strike itself - killing UBL being a case in point.

If the member is purely a political supporter, he will likely fall into a non-combatant matrix. If his role is more active in military "stuff", he will likely fall into a combatant matrix. Another practical question is "fall into a matrix" by what standard: "more likely than not"; "clear and convincing proof"; "beyond a reasonable doubt", etc. (including such grammatical incoherences as "to a reasonable certainty").

In short, the process reduces to the traditional PID of a combatant member of an enemy force, who can be killed in any place and at any time, armed or unarmed.

Does US citizenship make a difference ? The answer is negative, if one looks to the traditional test for the "privileges and immunities" of US citizens (or, for that matter, to the expanded version of Clarence Thomas (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/08-1521/concur2.pdf), to which I personally adhere as a Second Amendment proponent). A US citizen has no "privilege" or "immunity" to become a combatant member of an enemy force; and can be killed the same as any non-US citizen member of that force. E.g., those German-Americans who joined German forces in WWII; or, for that matter, the Confederate soldiers of the Civil War under the Lieber Code, and the Union soldiers under the Confederate Articles of War that actually preceded the Lieber Code.

That is my legal position.

Having said all that, there are many opponents of the AUMF in general; of direct actions and drone strikes in particular; and of using direct actions and drone strikes to kill American citizens in foreign countries, even when they are combatant members of an enemy force. The Obama administration itself has many such opponents; and the President himself seems "intellectually divided" in this and related areas. My dad taught me to salute (respect) the office, not the man.

Let's call the position of the opponents of my position, the Long Legal Position - actually a collection of multiple, long legal positions. I don't have time to do that now; but have exemplified and explained my opponents' positions in other threads.

Regards

Mike

jmm99

02-12-2014, 12:02 AM

AP broke this story on Monday, when Lawfare's Jack Goldsmith filed a very short comment, U.S. Citizen Possibly Targeted for Drone Attack (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/02/u-s-citizen-possibly-targeted-for-drone-attack/), with a short snip from the AP story:

Kimberly Dozier AP (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-suspect-possibly-targeted-drone-attack-22438384?singlePage=true) reports this morning that “[a]n American citizen who is a member of al-Qaida is actively planning attacks against Americans overseas, . . . and the Obama administration is wrestling with whether to kill him with a drone strike and how to do so legally under its new stricter targeting policy issued last year.” Dozier makes it seem like the Obama administration’s drone policy is tying it in knots ...

from Dozier AP

The CIA drones watching him cannot strike because he’s a U.S. citizen and the Justice Department must build a case against him, a task it hasn’t completed.

Four U.S. officials said the American suspected terrorist is in a country that refuses U.S. military action on its soil and that has proved unable to go after him. And President Barack Obama’s new policy says American suspected terrorists overseas can only be killed by the military, not the CIA, creating a policy conundrum for the White House.

Two of the officials described the man as an al-Qaida facilitator who has been directly responsible for deadly attacks against U.S. citizens overseas and who continues to plan attacks against them that would use improvised explosive devices.

But one U.S. official said the Defense Department was divided over whether the man is dangerous enough to merit the potential domestic fallout of killing an American without charging him with a crime or trying him, and the potential international fallout of such an operation in a country that has been resistant to U.S. action.

Another of the U.S. officials said the Pentagon did ultimately decide to recommend lethal action.

The Dozier story is longer, Obama Officials Weigh Drone Attack on US Suspect (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/us-suspect-possibly-targeted-drone-attack-22438384?singlePage=true), with multiple reader comments.

The NYT (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/world/asia/us-debates-drone-strike-on-american-terror-suspect-in-pakistan.html?hp&_r=0) and WSJ (http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304104504579375443531873238?KEYWOR DS=drone&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB1000 1424052702304104504579375443531873238.html%3FKEYWO RDS%3Ddrone) (pay wall) chimed in this morning, which caused Jack to author, Reactions to Stories on Possible New U.S. Citizen Strike (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/02/reactions-to-stories-on-possible-new-u-s-citizen-strike/), with some caustic comments:

The NYT says that President Obama’s announcement last May of an intention “to gradually shift drone operations from the C.I.A. to the Pentagon” was designed in part “to make them more transparent.” The theory, I think, was that CIA strikes are covert and cannot be confirmed, while DOD strikes need not be covert and in theory can be subject to open government discussion and greater scrutiny. There have always been problems with this theory.

One is that DOD is no more transparent than CIA concerning its drone strike practices; if anything, measured by official openness and proneness to leak, it is less transparent. A shift to DOD means a (possible) shift away from the cloak of covert action and thus makes it possible for more American openness about drone strikes, but it does not guarantee more openness – as the lack of transparency about DOD strikes since last May makes plain.

Another problem with the ostensible transfer to DOD is that, for reasons I do not appreciate, DOD seems to make many more targeting errors than CIA. Mazzetti made this point in his book (http://www.amazon.com/The-Way-Knife-Secret-Earth/dp/1594204802) (as summarized here (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112964/obamas-secrecy-destroying-american-support-counterterrorism); JMM: book review by Jack), and as recently as last December, an errant drone strike “carried out by the Defense Department’s Joint Special Operations Command, not the CIA (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-investigating-deadly-drone-strike)” mistakenly killed a dozen people in Yemen. (Consistent with the first point, DOD has had no public comment on this errant strike.)

The NYT says that the President’s classified drone strike policy, which lays down a preference for DOD over CIA strikes, “allow exceptions if necessary.” We should not be too cynical about this – presumptions can have bite even if they can be overcome. (That said, there is something odd about a debate on the front pages of the leading newspapers, all based on leaks, about classified drone policies that aim for but do not achieve more transparency.)

The WSJ says that because the targeting “suspect is an American, agency officials were required under the new drone policy to submit the name for review.” It is not clear why or how this policy is new. By all accounts, the only other intentional strike of an American citizen, against Anwar Al-Awlaki, was preceded by extensive DOJ legal review.

The WSJ also says: “Some officials believe that while a military strike has a stronger legal basis, a CIA strike would be easier to carry out in a country that won’t accede to a U.S. strike.” We have discussed this point before and I still don’t get it. Assuming that the same targeting rules apply, including the same jus in bello scrutiny, I do not see why a DOD strike would have a stronger legal basis under domestic or international law.

Perhaps a hint lies in this statement in the WSJ: “The military can only conduct strikes in countries where the government assents.” That statement is clearly false – Iraq did not assent in 2003, nor did Yugoslavia in 1999; and moreover, Special Operations forces operate in many countries, and DOD sometimes operates covertly.

But perhaps the statement is getting at this difference between CIA and DOD strikes: DOD will not act in ways that it believes violate the UN Charter, while the CIA will do so. Does that mean that concerns about the differential legality of a DOD as opposed to a CIA strike in Pakistan implies that the USG lacks Pakistan consent or an adequate self-defense argument under the UN Charter, and thus thinks it would be violating international law (the Charter) in carrying out such a strike?

Resources on targeted killing (direct actions and drone strikes), both as to its national and international political and legal aspects, including something of an over-emphasis on US citizens (4 have been killed; 3 as collateral deaths), are easy enough to find.

Thus, at Lawfare, The Lawfare Wiki Document Library - Targeted Killing (http://www.lawfareblog.com/wiki/the-lawfare-wiki-document-library/targeted-killing/#.UvqnRZ0o6Rs), which leads to more linked documents than most readers probably want.

At SWC, we have besides this thread (more on the political aspects), the thread The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=13239) (more on the rules of engagement, including US citizens; the discussion is less formalized than Lawfare).

Regards

Mike

PS: I note my ambiguity in my prior post in this pair of sentences:

Having said all that, there are many opponents of the AUMF in general; of direct actions and drone strikes in particular; and of using direct actions and drone strikes to kill American citizens in foreign countries, even when they are combatant members of an enemy force. The Obama administration itself has many such opponents; and the President himself seems "intellectually divided" in this and related areas.

The last sentence would be clearer written as: The Obama administration itself includes many such opponents; and the President himself seems "intellectually divided" in this and related areas.

ODB

02-12-2014, 04:05 AM

JMM thank you for the welcome back, been spending more time away then home and although not posting have continued to sneak in some reading.

I have kept myself abreast of the targeting of US citizens since the Al-Awlaki strike in 2011. In all honesty, I remain torn on the issue as executed today, simply due to my personal beliefs as a US citizen. I understand the need to counter and eliminate targets, which threaten the nation and/or the nation's interests. I also understand the abuses of power throughout history and thus my dilemma regarding the current processes. Hopefully, some of the legal professionals here within the SWC can correct the errors in my ways.

I see the issue regarding the targeting of US citizens as a simple solution handled through the judicial system with a change in trials in absentia. As I understand the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to The United States Constitution guarantee the right of a criminal defendant to be present at his own trial. In 1993, The Supreme Court ruled that a defendant cannot be tried in absentia if he is not present at the beginning of the trial. While the constitutionality of this legal practice is open to debate, trial in absentia is permitted under certain circumstances. The defendant has the right to waive his right to be present at his own trial and a defendant can be ejected from the courtroom for continuing to participate in disruptive behavior. A defendant can give his written consent for a trial involving a misdemeanor to continue in his absence.

Understanding the limitations concerning trials in absentia and the following causes for loss of US citizenship.

U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
7. Conviction for an act of treason.

In my simplistic view of the issue, the simple solution is to allow the US citizen the ability to defend themselves in court. If the individual does not appear for the trial, hold the trial in absentia to determine if the individual should be stripped of their US citizenship. If the court finds sufficient evidence to remove the individual's citizenship status, then the individual can be lethally targeted. Who knows, maybe the behind closed doors justification resemble something akin to this thought process. This might just be this "Merican's way of justifying the targeting.

I cannot help but notice how terrorism has become the new McCarthyism, might have to start a thread on the resemblance when I have time to do my due research.

jmm99

02-12-2014, 05:42 AM

ODB: What follows is my opinion.

1. Targeted killings (whether of US citizens or non-US citizens) can only be justified under the Laws of War (aka Law of Armed Conflict or International Humanitarian Law), to include the Laws of Neutrality as a subset of the Laws of War (which require a 'war" or "armed conflict"). If the civilian legal regimes (#2 below) are only applicable and the Laws of War are excluded, targeted killings are murder, pure and simple. NB: they cannot be "war crimes" or "war atrocities" if there is no "war" ("armed conflict"). The reason for juxtaposing "war" ("armed conflict") is that Hague uses "war" and Geneva "armed conflict".

2. If civilian law applies (which could be International Human Rights Law, or the constitutional and criminal laws of the foreign country, or US constitutional and criminal laws applied in the foreign country - which might be problematic for good reasons), those who pursue "terrorists" (aka transnational violent non-state actors) must act as law enforcement officers with limited rights to defend themselves and others. The "terr" can only be arrested and tried - perhaps only in the foreign country, unless extradition is allowed.

3. Back to the Laws of War and the JCS Standing Rules of Engagement, which explicitly permit an armed force to be declared hostile by the President or his delegated representative; and, once that declaration is made, the combatant members of the hostile force can be killed because of their status - any time, any place, armed or unarmed, threatening or not. The 2001 AUMF is Congressional authorization to the same effect; but also allowing civilian law enforcement as an alternative path.

I rely on #1 and #3 to justify my conclusion that targeted killings are justified within the bounds of the "hunting licenses" granted. I see the problems coming not from the legal framework defining the parameters, but from the wisdom of the people who are running that process. A similar type of problem shows up even more clearly in NSA metadata collection - the "powers that are" accepted full bore the statutory "maximization process" (how much data you can initially collect), but ignored the statutory "minimization process" (how much data you can retain).

Your choice to employ only #2, the civilian law enforcement process, is really a political choice - hence, it can't be "right" or "wrong" based on legal opinions. It would be the only choice if there were no "war" ("armed conflict") going on.

I happen to believe a "war" ("armed conflict") is going on; and that, even if we choose #2 civilian law enforcement as the solution in a large percentage of situations, some situations will involve "war" ("armed conflict"). Thus, #1 and #3 will come into play.

A couple of notes: Loss of American citizenship is a red herring; and I believe trials in absentia are a terrible idea. However, there is little point in discussing those issues. If the Laws of War cannot fit into your equation, the gap between where you are and I am is simply too wide to bridge. The position of many (most, all ?) of our Euro allies is to reject the Laws of War and Targeted Killings; as do a number of Americans. So, you are far from being alone in what seems your position. The gap is not legal (everyone in the debate knows what the choices in laws are), it is political; just as the so-called "McCarthy Era" was political, very political.

Regards

Mike

Firn

02-12-2014, 10:40 AM

I won't step into the legal realm itself but looking from the outside I just can't shake off the impression that the whole US law sphere regarding conflict has a lot in common with the old joke about the accountant. Asked what two plus two equals he answers, after closing the door, "What do you want it to equal?"

To correctly guess the outcome of the official internal US legal opinion regarding the torture, espionage and the killing of citiziens the famous dictum of the Melian dialogue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue) seems to be often a better guide then the legal framework itself. In short "the strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must" tends to be a pretty good heuristic.

So if a certain outcome has been seen as expedient for issues right at hand it was highly probable that the legal aspects were at the least strechted very much to meet the political intent and in other cases likely outright broken.

Now this is nothing new under the sun, perhaps apart from the fact just how far the US has gone trying to cover herself with the garb of law. Sadly, with a cloth as thinly streched and partly torn she* looks pretty naked...

*her intent fits generally better. The beauty of the mental picture of a partly naked US depends on her beauty, and although there is plenty of it some areas have rather little.

JMA

02-12-2014, 02:44 PM

slapout9

02-12-2014, 08:30 PM

The "Spirit" of the law was being intentionally violated bye the so called American citizen when he left the country. Flight to avoid prosecution by Law Enforcement on purpose....a form of legal sabotage and for this reason he has forfeited his rights of citizenship protection and is nothing but a roaming enemy that should be hunted down and shot by any means necessary.

As I have said before this is a very important concept, especially when dealing with international commando type terrorist. We need to follow the Spirit of the law and not be mesmerized by the "Letter" of the law.

jmm99

02-12-2014, 08:32 PM

Is your message really intent on conflating "torture, espionage and the killing of citizens" into a legal opinion (singular):

... the official internal US legal opinion regarding the torture, espionage and the killing of citizens ...

and, by necessary implication, that a proponent of the "killing of citizens" (as I certainly am re: targeted killing) is also a proponent of "espionage" (of citizens ?; does "of citizens" also modify "espionage" and "torture") and a proponent of "torture" (of citizens ?) ?

If so, I'd suggest your message is simplistically attacking a strawman; and doesn't respond to anything I've written about either politics/policies or the legal structures that have developed from politics/policies. To make it very clear, politics/policies drive the resultant law - not the other way around.

This assertion:

... it was highly probable that the legal aspects were at the least stretched very much to meet the political intent and in other cases likely outright broken ...

would have to be proved with specific examples - which your message obviously does not do.

As a counter-example, I'd cite John Yoo's memos (both international and domestic). His memos on "enhanced interrogation" are but one area addressed by his Unitary Executive theory, which was fully developed and totally coherent long before he wrote memos to the White House after 9/11. I've mentioned John Yoo in some 24 posts - the last re: the only US citizen (Awlaki) to be targeted and killed, (Here's a "Pair of Aces" for you .... (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=126789&postcount=105); Yoo being one and Andy Worthington the other; I was being a bit sarcastic) [Yoo's link (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/279613/administrations-strange-reasoning-al-awlaki-john-yoo) in my post still works after 3 years; Andy's doesn't because it's been archived here (http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/death-afar-unaccountable-killing-anwar-alawlaqi/)].

It so happened that the politics of the Bush administration leaned to development of something akin to a "unitary executive" theory - i.e., a very strong president with unitary powers (free of congressional constraints) across a wide range of international and domestic concerns. That developing political theory (eventually driving policies) was espoused most strongly by V.P. Cheney and David Addington of his office. Since John Yoo's legal theories were already well developed, it was a simple matter to bring them in as "the laws" for those policies.

Obviously, there is no singular "the law" - unless one believes in and preaches the message of the One Omnipresent God of Laws in the Sky. My perception is that the "Omnipresence in the Sky" is far less an American thing than it is a European thing. It does allow Europeans a certain pomposity in lecturing Americans on what "the law" is, and how the Americans are breaking it.

So, nothing was "stretched" or "broken" in the Yoo cases, unless it be the politics that led to the policies, that drove adoption of an existing body of legal theory. But, politics is indeed Thucydidean - "the strong do as they can and the weak suffer what they must." In politics, you either win ("the strong") or lose ("the weak"); thereby avoiding the tedious arguments based on opinions (some coherent; some not) which swirl in circles until they flush down the drain - because a win-lose process does not exist to resolve them.

Moving back to my conversation with ODB, I see at least four different political situations that generate yes, no and "duh" answers, as exemplified in the Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx) and Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2013/03/04/fox-news-poll-majority-supports-use-drones/) polls of March 2013 (the Fox poll was by two independent pollsters and was not of Fox viewers - the Gallup & Fox methodologies were the same; but, Gallup came after Rand Paul's filibuster on drones, which I believe changed the politics in Rand's favor):

Do you approve or disapprove of the United States using unmanned aircraft called drones ...

To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country?

Yes - 74 Fox; 65 Gal
No - 22 Fox; 28 Gal
Duh - 4 Fox; 8 Gal

To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a U.S. citizen?

Yes - 60 Fox; 41 Gal
No - 36 Fox; 52 Gal
Duh - 5 Fox; 7 Gal

To kill a suspected foreign terrorist on U.S. soil?

Yes - 56 Fox; 25 Gal
No - 40 Fox; 66 Gal
Duh - 4 Fox; 9 Gal

To kill a suspected terrorist who is a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil?

Yes - 45 Fox; 13 Gal
No - 50 Fox; 79 Gal
Duh - 5 Fox; 7 Gal

It would not be a problem to find, for each of these 12 political viewpoints (including the "Duhs"), already written legal theories which would carry out the politics and policies polled.

On the political issue that divides ODB and me ("To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a U.S. citizen?"), the year-ago polls are tight; and I'd say too close to call absent a real vote.

I don't know where ODB stands on the first issue ("To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country?"; i.e., if not a US citizen). I'm an obvious "Yes".

There may well be newer polls on these "political questions" - which is exactly what the courts have called them.

Regards

Mike

jmm99

02-12-2014, 08:47 PM

Then what are they discussing?

Not being a fly on that wall, I dunno.

I'd suspect that some of the Obama appointees, besides wringing their hands, are advancing the same political arguments (reinforced by more current legal theories already in print) that the "international community" advanced in the 1970s for not attacking "terrs" in Zambia and Mozambique.

I'd suspect another group is making the political argument that allowing sanctuaries will cost us the "war" - to which, the first group will say "what war".

Finally, a third group will be looking at the poll numbers (e.g., Gallup and Fox); and saying "Duh".

Regards

Mike

Firn

02-12-2014, 10:13 PM

@Jmm99: I'm certainly not attacking you or a strawmen of yours. It would be a rather foolish fight to pick and does not bring any good return. Indeed I have a high and healthy respect of legal tradition of the USA even if was not fully founded on the most obviously superior continental heritage. ;)

In general I tried to make rather forcefully the case that political considerations are often driving the legal ones. The relation does of course also work in the other direction, and both flows, if well-structured and sensible, are integral for the long term stability of modern democracy.

I think there is a good case US agencies did indeed break US laws with some of it's intelligence gatherings of US citziens and that perceived political necessities and skewed incentives did result in legal opinions which reflected the political will. In this vast campaign the strong, the US government did indeed do what it could, and the weak, the US citizien, suffered what it had to.

I will rest the rest for now and hope that the interesting discussion will go on.

jmm99

02-12-2014, 11:56 PM

OK.

My view is that politics > policies always govern selection of laws, which usually exist when selected, if not in the final product then as outlines of the final product. That is particularly so in the international law area where the major theories have been kicking back and forth for the last century. However, it also applies where particular legal codification efforts have near-final drafts presented to the legislatures.

E.g., the Model State Insurance Code and Uniform Commercial Code, both from the 1950s-1960s, where each one had a Michigan Law professor as its principal draftsman. The arguments before the legislatures had very little to do with how great the language of these laws was; but rather what were the policies underlying the laws that would make the legislative constituents happy and help the legislators' re-elections. Or, so I was told.

The influence of academics on laws is probably greater in the European Code Law states than in the US, where academic legal works are far down the totem pole as precedents before the courts. Congress traditionally calls legal academics to testify, but their legal opinions are usually well known ahead of time and each of them is usually called by a legislator who has a compatible political view.

Assessing Damage, Urging Action - Report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/specialmeetings/2011/docs/icj/icj-2009-ejp-report.pdf) (2009; An initiative of the International Commission of Jurists), seems to me a good example of an academic work that appears to have had impact in Europe, but virtually none here (nor, do I believe that it should have been received positively here).

To see the arguments by the "eminent jurists" (political and legal) against the US, go to Chapter Three - The legality and consequences of a “war on terror”:

1. Introduction

The previous chapter discussed the many parallels between current and past counter-terrorist efforts. The contemporary era of counter-terrorism does, however, differ from all past experiences in at least one way: that is, the legal characterization of this phase as a “war on terror”. If this characterisation were merely rhetorical – akin to the “war on drugs”, “war on crime”, “war on poverty” – there would be little point in the Panel devoting much attention to it.

This is not however the case. The outgoing US administration uses the war analogy in its formal legal sense, and having proclaimed a “war” on terror, argues that international humanitarian law (the laws of war) be applied. The Panel takes the view that the “war paradigm” is misconceived, and has been applied in ways that have violated core principles of international humanitarian and human rights law.

It is hoped that the incoming US administration will immediately, and publicly, renounce this characterisation. Whilst the outgoing US administration was understandably aggrieved at the horrendous attack of 9/11, it is possible to see, especially with hindsight, that many of its responses to the terrible tragedy were ill-advised. Accordingly, the Panel decided that it was important to set out its view as to why the conflation of acts of terrorism with acts of war was legally and conceptually flawed.

The war paradigm has done immense damage in the last seven years to a previously shared international consensus on the legal framework underlying both human rights and humanitarian law. This consensus needs to be re-created and reasserted. Moreover, the use of the war paradigm has given a spurious justification to a range of serious human rights and humanitarian law violations, and remedies and reparation should follow.

The following chapter will in turn examine: when and why the term “war on terror” came into common usage; the conflation of two legal regimes; why the war paradigm lacks a credible legal basis; and the adverse human rights consequences that have arisen in applying the war paradigm – both for the law and the persons affected.

This report, among a number of other major American disconnects with Europe, convinced me that the gap between the US and Europe was and is wide and widening; and that we are wasting our time trying to smooth over the differences. The "eminent jurists" did such a good hand wringing job about "the horrendous attack of 9/11" and that "terrible tragedy". It's a pity that they could not understand that the American people saw 9/11 as an Act of War against the US, comparable to Pearl Harbor.

A prosecutor in 2009, intent on prosecuting, could have drafted charges against many people in the prior administration. Fortunately, greater wisdom prevailed and this country was not ripped apart - as it surely would have been if those charges had been brought. Again, I saw many in Europe shouting that charges should be brought; and from that, I concluded that many Europeans actually wanted the result that those charges would have brought - demise of the US.

Instead, with control of the White House, the Senate and the House, the Obama administration passed more of the Democratic program in 8 months than the Clinton administration did in 8 years. While I didn't agree politically with much of what was passed in those 8 months, the American citizens who voted for the Democrats in 2008 got what they voted for. It was a Thucydidean result, just as the prior elections were - the "strong" are the US citizens who win the election; the "weak" are the US citizens who lose the election. The next election may well change the "weak" into the "strong".

Regards

Mike

ODB

02-14-2014, 04:52 AM

First, thank you to JMM for educating me on the laws and legal aspect of the debate as I am not well versed in the legalities. My stance on killing a foreign terrorist in a foreign country is multifaceted:

1. What is the intelligence value gained by conducting a kill/capture operation versus intelligence lost by conducting a drone strike versus a clandestine/covert operation versus continuing to gather intelligence if left alone (this has to be debated extensively based upon potential of future lives lost)?

2. What is the risk versus gain in conducting an operation versus a drone strike? Is the gain worth losing lives over?

3. What are the political sensitivities to conducting an operation versus a drone strike versus other clandestine/covert means?

4. What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects associated with the aforementioned operations?

Post education regarding the drone strikes I have learned my viewpoint is more towards the policies and decisions associated with the drone strikes of US citizens not the legalities surrounding the drone strikes. I take issue when the decision is made to kill a US citizen in a foreign country with a drone strike. In turn, another decision is made to conduct an operation to capture a non US citizen (Nazih Abdul-Hamed Nabih al-Ruqai'I) in a foreign country (Libya) in order to bring the individual to the US for trial.

Taking into account the political workings among countries as to what kind of operations are "authorized", this latest operation in Libya has Libya's Prime Minister Ali Zeidan calling al Libi's capture a "kidnapping" and demanding that U.S. authorities "provide an explanation" for the raid.

I do not intend nor want this thread to be hijacked with what will follow, just want to express why I have the issue I do with the policies and/or decisions regarding drone strikes against US citizens. The willingness to risk American lives to capture a foreign terrorist to bring him to America in order to afford him the same legal rights in a court of law in America as an American citizen is not afforded to an alleged terrorist who is US citizen in a foreign county. (I understand the trial process remains in a messy debate, hence not wanting to hijack the thread.)

jmm99

02-14-2014, 07:29 AM

folks like you, ODB, have furthered my education in ways you may or may not imagine. That's my backhanded way of saying, thank you.

On to the task at hand; it may or may not surprise you, but what you say here:

My stance on killing a foreign terrorist in a foreign country is multifaceted:

1. What is the intelligence value gained by conducting a kill/capture operation versus intelligence lost by conducting a drone strike versus a clandestine/covert operation versus continuing to gather intelligence if left alone (this has to be debated extensively based upon potential of future lives lost)?

2. What is the risk versus gain in conducting an operation versus a drone strike? Is the gain worth losing lives over?

3. What are the political sensitivities to conducting an operation versus a drone strike versus other clandestine/covert means?

4. What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects associated with the aforementioned operations?

are also my concerns with, what I'd term, the "wisdom" of the operations (direct actions) or drone strikes.

In formulating my legal position (as opposed to my "wisdom" position) on these and any other military operations (to include T10-T50 joint operations), I have intentionally built in as much leeway as possible into the rules of engagement. My purpose there is a simple one: to keep legal harassment off of our people who are sent (by me and by every other US citizen) to bad places, and then into worse situations. So, my legal framework always has, as its primary purpose, the protection of our people who are sent into harm's way.

I realize that granting a broad hunting license can be used badly in the wrong hands. From my analysis of the past, the wrong hands have usually been with civilian leadership or with military types that don't have to execute the missions. The solution is to get rid of those "dereliction of duty" types, and not restrict the rules of engagement.

I do understand your two points based on the absurdity and hypocrisy of capturing a non-US citizen for purposes of trying him here (with all the rights given US citizens), especially given the vagueries of those trials -

Failed Somali pirate prosecution fuels terror trial fears (http://www.politico.com/story/2014/02/somali-pirate-prosecution-103328.html)

The failed prosecution of an alleged Somali pirate — and the fact that that failure could leave him living freely, and permanently, inside U.S. borders — is highlighting anew the risks of trying terror suspects in American courts.

Just a few weeks ago, Ali Mohamed Ali was facing the possibility of a mandatory life sentence in a 2008 shipjacking off the coast of Yemen — an incident much like the one dramatized in the film “Captain Phillips.” Now, the Somali native is in immigration detention in Virginia and seeking permanent asylum in the United States.

Ali, who was accused of piracy for acting as a translator and negotiator for a crew of pirates, was partially acquitted by a jury in November after a trial in Washington. Prosecutors initially vowed a retrial but decided last month to drop the rest of the case against him.
...
In 2009, Obama ordered Ahmed Ghailani — a suspected plotter in the deadly attacks on U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998 — flown from Guantánamo Bay to New York to stand trial in federal court. In November 2010, a jury there convicted him on a single charge of conspiracy to destroy U.S. property and buildings, while acquitting him of the 284 other charges he faced. He ultimately received a life sentence. ...

and, on the other hand, deciding on a targeted killing of a US citizen in the same country (some speculate that Libya is also the geographic target in the present case).

But, the reason for the USG right hand doing one thing, and the USG left hand another, is that the two hands are not connected to the same brain.

Here's the way I'd look at the two "Yemen" cases - positing that a US citizen and a non-US citizen are involved in an "AQ" group as combatants. We have a host of Gitmo habeas cases, some up to SCOTUS, that define "enemy combatants". Is that enough to order "shoot" ? It is, if one looks solely at my legal position (the broad hunting license); but, I never said that the scope of inquiry should end there. We have to travel from what is legally permissible to what is practically wise as the targeted killing process winds to a decision - shoot or don't shoot.

There we get into your "wisdom" factors:

1. What is the intelligence value gained by conducting a kill/capture operation versus intelligence lost by conducting a drone strike versus a clandestine/covert operation versus continuing to gather intelligence if left alone (this has to be debated extensively based upon potential of future lives lost)?

2. What is the risk versus gain in conducting an operation versus a drone strike? Is the gain worth losing lives over?

3. What are the political sensitivities to conducting an operation versus a drone strike versus other clandestine/covert means?

4. What are the 2nd and 3rd order effects associated with the aforementioned operations?

Those factors would have to be assessed for each case. Reasonable people could disagree on the final decision, without either of them being a war criminal; although one of them might be a stupid SOB for the result reached.

I wouldn't distinguish as such between the US citizen and the non-US citizen in this process (although I'd probably be harsher with the US citizen as a turncoat vs the non-US citizen who is not).

IF all of the facts are same with these two fellows (i.e., all your questions are answered the same for both), why should the US citizen get a reprieve from being targeted for killing, while the non-US citizen does not ? I'm not asking for legal reasoning, just common sense. Two answers seem coherent to me: (1) Both should be subject to the targeted killing process (though either or both may be reprieved by individual factors during that process); or (2) Neither should be subject to the targeted killing process.

What am I missing about a reprieve for the American, but not for the Yemani, who are in exactly the same boat ?

Regards

Mike

Tukhachevskii

02-15-2014, 06:57 PM

PhD thesis from the University of Arizona by Ian Shaw, "The Spatial Politics of Drone Warfare (http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/145131/1/azu_etd_11524_sip1_m.pdf)".

jmm99

02-28-2014, 07:45 PM

the U.S. may be targeting overseas (HT to Lawfare's Ben Wittes (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2014/02/who-is-the-american-the-u-s-may-be-targeting-overseas/) for the NYT link); NYT, U.S. Militant, Hidden, Spurs Drone Debate (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/28/world/asia/us-militant-hidden-spurs-drone-debate.html?hp&_r=1) (by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, FEB. 28, 2014):

WASHINGTON — He is known as Abdullah al-Shami, an Arabic name meaning Abdullah the Syrian. But his nom de guerre masks a reality: He was born in the United States, and the United States is now deciding whether to kill him.

Mr. Shami, a militant who American officials say is living in the barren mountains of northwestern Pakistan, is at the center of a debate inside the government over whether President Obama should once again take the extraordinary step of authorizing the killing of an American citizen overseas.

It is a debate that encapsulates some of the thorniest questions raised by the targeted killing program that Mr. Obama has embraced as president: under what circumstances the government may kill American citizens without a trial, whether the battered leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan still poses an imminent threat to Americans, and whether the C.I.A. or the Pentagon ought to be the dominant agency running America’s secret wars.

Interviews with American officials and outside terrorism experts sketch only the most impressionistic portraits of Mr. Shami.

Born in the United States, possibly in Texas, he moved with his family to the Middle East when he was a toddler. ... (more in the article)

This "toddler-citizen" brings me back to my basic, non-legalistic question: why should this "American citizen" (by technicality) get a pass, whereas his Pakistani brother in arms (both growing up in same village and culture, and following the same AQ path) gets a hit ?

IMO: Either both are targetable, or neither are targetable.

Regards

Mike

davidbfpo

03-29-2014, 12:39 AM

The British House of Commons Select Committee on Defence published on the 25th March 2014, a report on drones, sorry they refer to 'Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems - current and future UK use'. I have not read it.

Link:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/772/77202.htm

Professor Paul Rogers has a very short commentary, to say the least he is not impressed:
A key role of a parliamentary committee is to hold an executive and its ministries up to independent scrutiny on behalf of parliament. In relation to armed-drones (or to use the correct language, “remotely piloted air systems”) in Afghanistan, the defence committee has a long way to go.

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/drone-evasion?

The only comment by a reader is succinct too:
So Paul, what SHOULD the UK have done? Should we have replaced drone coverage with thousands of soldiers?

JMA

03-29-2014, 10:37 AM

David here is the key finding:

Conclusions

21. We consider that it is of vital importance that a clear distinction be drawn between the actions of UK Armed Forces operating remotely piloted air systems in Afghanistan and those of other States elsewhere. On the basis of the evidence we have received we are satisfied that UK remotely piloted air system operations comply fully with international law.

The British House of Commons Select Committee on Defence published on the 25th March 2014, a report on drones, sorry they refer to 'Remote Control: Remotely Piloted Air Systems - current and future UK use'. I have not read it.

Link:http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/772/77202.htm

Professor Paul Rogers has a very short commentary, to say the least he is not impressed:

Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/drone-evasion?

The only comment by a reader is succinct too:

SWJ Blog

04-11-2014, 04:41 PM

Landpower Update: Strategies – Drones, Visionaries, and Political Development (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/landpower-update-strategies-%E2%80%93-drones-visionaries-and-political-development)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/landpower-update-strategies-%E2%80%93-drones-visionaries-and-political-development) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

04-22-2014, 02:50 PM

The Drone War in Yemen (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-drone-war-in-yemen)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-drone-war-in-yemen) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

05-22-2014, 02:46 PM

Hat tip to WoTR. A rare commentary on a regional user of drones, with Chines, German and Israeli help:http://warontherocks.com/2014/05/the-trouble-with-turkeys-drones/

davidbfpo

11-17-2014, 09:01 PM

Steve Coll has a long article in the New Yorker on drones, using only Pakistan as the setting; with some new insights and brings the US aspects up to date IMHO:http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/unblinking-stare

There is a longstanding main thread Using drones: principles, tactics and results (with 60k views), into which this will be merged one day:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7385

davidbfpo

11-20-2014, 11:37 AM

The life of a drone operator has been documented before, this story is unique I think, the full title is 'Israeli drone commander: 'The life and death decisions I took in Gaza':http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11234240/Israeli-drone-commander-The-life-and-death-decisions-I-took-in-Gaza.html

The report ends with:
Today, 65 per cent of Israel's military air operations are conducted by drones. Major Yair represents the future of warfare - and the dilemmas he faces will be those of coming generations of warriors.

davidbfpo

01-13-2015, 12:03 PM

A new U.S. government audit is questioning the value of using drones to conduct surveillance along the Canadian and Mexican borders.The report from the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Defense found that the drones were not only costly, but were grounded much of the time.
“We see no evidence that the drones contribute to a more secure border, and there is no reason to invest addition taxpayer funds at this time,” Inspector General John Roth said in a statement this week.
The inspector general found “little or no evidence” that the fleet of Predator drones was effective in conducting surveillance.
Link:http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10716402

I don't suppose the enthusiasm of the *drones can walk on water" school and salesmen will abate one drop:rolleyes:

davidbfpo

06-20-2015, 08:18 PM

An Opn Democracy article, which has useful pointers to two research reports (both British) and ends with:
The case of Pakistan, after a decade long drone war, shows how the appeal of drones as a “cost free” form of warfare is misguided, failing to take into consideration their long term implications. In Pakistan, drones have not only been an ineffective counter-terrorism strategy but they have also had far reaching, negative repercussions on wider society. It is these long term consequences – in many cases still largely unknown – that will prove to be the most damaging for any long-term, sustainable resolution to conflict.
Link:https://www.opendemocracy.net/esther-kersley/learning-lessons-11-years-of-drones-in-pakistan

The second blog article on a UK military-leaning blogsite is hardly critical and is a useful summary:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/06/a-history-of-targeted-killing-and-capture-in-the-secret-war-on-terror/

davidbfpo

07-02-2015, 09:26 PM

At a recent conference in Boston, I got the extraordinary opportunity to talk with Lt. General David Deptula USAF (Ret.), the man who led the air campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the decisive opening months of Operation Enduring Freedom and subsequently served as the first Chief of the Air Force Headquarters’ Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance mission. Deptula has a unique insider’s perspective on the drone campaign as he was in charge of much of it since this new remote sensor-shooter technology made its debut above the battlefields under his command.
Link to interview (in a PDF):http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/428/849

davidbfpo

08-09-2015, 10:54 AM

A short Canadian article 'One year on, drone attacks against ISIS increasing; But how effective are they against Islamic State?', which assembles a number of acadamic authors to comment:http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/one-year-on-drone-attacks-against-isis-increasing-1.3182002?

SWJ Blog

08-25-2015, 07:20 PM

Nanotechnology, Drones, and 3D Printing: The Future of Soldier Efficiencies in 2025 (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/nanotechnology-drones-and-3d-printing-the-future-of-soldier-efficiencies-in-2025)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/nanotechnology-drones-and-3d-printing-the-future-of-soldier-efficiencies-in-2025) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

09-02-2015, 07:00 PM

Drones and Airpower: A Lack of Deterrence in Unconventional Warfare? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/drones-and-airpower-a-lack-of-deterrence-in-unconventional-warfare)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/drones-and-airpower-a-lack-of-deterrence-in-unconventional-warfare) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

09-14-2015, 03:26 PM

The report on a day conference in the UK:
The Institute for Conflict, Cooperation and Security @ Birmingham University) has published a report of a conference held at the Royal Aeronautical Society on 12 June 2015, which brought together experts from academia, policy, and industry, to discuss the interim findings of a research project on 'The Political Effects of UAVs on Conflict and Cooperation within and between States.'

The project involves ongoing comparative research in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen to explore how the use and perception of drones shape the propensities for conflict and cooperation within and between states, with a particular focus on the complexities of drone use in politically highly unstable environments.

The research challenges the dominant narrative on UAVs and will contribute to understanding the impact of drone use abroad. The aim of the event was to engage with stakeholders in order to develop and refine the conclusions of the research and highlight key areas for further examination.
Link to (unread) report download:http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/activity/conflict-cooperation-security/news/2015/09/the-political-effects-of-uavs.aspx

SWJ Blog

09-21-2015, 01:24 PM

Coming to Grips with Thinking about Drones (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/coming-to-grips-with-thinking-about-drones)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/coming-to-grips-with-thinking-about-drones) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

10-15-2015, 04:15 AM

Drones versus their Critics: A Victory for President Obama’s War Powers Legacy? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/drones-versus-their-critics-a-victory-for-president-obama%E2%80%99s-war-powers-legacy)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/drones-versus-their-critics-a-victory-for-president-obama%E2%80%99s-war-powers-legacy) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

11-06-2015, 10:50 PM

The Details of Drones, From a Pilot Who Flew Them (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-details-of-drones-from-a-pilot-who-flew-them)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-details-of-drones-from-a-pilot-who-flew-them) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

11-11-2015, 10:31 PM

An Australian viewpoint from the Lowy Instititute this week:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/11/10/Armed-drones-are-spreading-fast-and-our-ethics-are-not-keeping-up.aspx?

It contains a video:
...by science fiction author Daniel Suarez (embedded above) transverses some of the issues that lethal autonomy creates.

Last week:http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015/11/05/US-opens-up-international-market-for-armed-drones-Consequences-unknown.aspx

davidbfpo

01-11-2016, 08:23 AM

Commercially available drones have the potential to be converted into flying bombs capable of hitting targets such as nuclear power stations or the prime minister’s car, a report by a security thinktank has warned.
The report, The Hostile Use of Drones by Non-State Actors Against British Targets, highlights concerns that “drones will be used as simple, affordable and effective airborne improvised explosive devices”.

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/11/drones-terrorist-attacks-security-thinktank

To website, where oddly report has yet to appear:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/ssp/remote_control_project#background

OUTLAW 09

01-20-2016, 06:19 AM

RussianEmbassyBrunei ✔ @RusEmbBrunei

#Russian and #Malaysian companies signed agreement on #drone production in #Miri, Malaysia
http://www.bt.com.bn/news-asia/2016/01/20/miri-be-hub-development-drone-technology …
pic.twitter.com/Xt0wWUq0DN

SWJ Blog

01-26-2016, 03:18 AM

Targeting American Terrorists with Drones: Efficient, But Legal? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/targeting-american-terrorists-with-drones-efficient-but-legal)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/targeting-american-terrorists-with-drones-efficient-but-legal) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

02-22-2016, 10:50 PM

A Fast-Growing Club: Countries that Use Drones for Killing (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-fast-growing-club-countries-that-use-drones-for-killing)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-fast-growing-club-countries-that-use-drones-for-killing) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

03-24-2016, 02:24 PM

An article in 'AirSpacemag' from the Smithsonian Foundation and the full title and sub-title is:
The Drone that Stalked Bin Laden; The RQ-170 provided a secret, and vital, piece of the intel puzzle.
Link:http://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/drone-staked-out-bin-ladens-neighborhood-180958482/#C7UsOtLdyYUeKPkd.99

It is quite interesting and almost nothing is written about Bin Laden!

SWJ Blog

04-01-2016, 08:11 AM

The ‘Palestinian Idol’ that Hacked Into Israel’s Drones (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-%E2%80%98palestinian-idol%E2%80%99-that-hacked-into-israel%E2%80%99s-drones)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-%E2%80%98palestinian-idol%E2%80%99-that-hacked-into-israel%E2%80%99s-drones) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

04-30-2016, 09:26 PM

A new film on drones, 'Eye in the Sky' is about to be released here and WoTR's reviewer, Professor MLR Smith writes:
.....we have the first concentrated cinematic dissection of the acute moral and political dilemmas that drone warfare generates. Part of the film’s novelty is that the action takes place over the course of a few hours in a day....(later)...perhaps the most powerful and intelligent of films of the post-9/11 epoch.Link:http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/game-of-drones-reviewing-eye-in-the-sky/

The director, Gavin Hood, has been interviewed by the Drone Center @ Bard College (NY State):
The film, which stars Helen Mirren, Alan Richman, Aaron Paul, and Barkhad Abdi, centers on the decision-making process known as the “kill chain” in a counterterrorism operation, and raises questions about the consequences of drone strikes, as well as the the moral, ethical and strategic dimensions of the targeted killing program. We spoke with Gavin about what he sought to achieve with the film.Link:http://dronecenter.bard.edu/interview-gavin-hood/

SWJ Blog

05-14-2016, 05:21 PM

Military Drones Flood War Skies Over Syria, Iraq (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/military-drones-flood-war-skies-over-syria-iraq)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/military-drones-flood-war-skies-over-syria-iraq) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

05-31-2016, 04:33 PM

Two recent contributions to the debate here, responding to the recent Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR), entitled 'The Government’s policy on the use of drones for targeted killings'.

First from a post-doctoral researcher @ Birmingham University:http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/drones-and-targeted-killing.aspx

A more detailed, still short Policy Exchange article (labelled by some as neo-con), by a lawyer and a MP with military experience:http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/critically-assessing-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-report-on-drone-warfare-2? (http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/critically-assessing-the-joint-committee-on-human-rights-report-on-drone-warfare-2?utm_source=zzzzzz+Custom+Send+List&utm_campaign=0241ac1a8c-DG_Mailout_18_05_16_Director5_18_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e618551b13-0241ac1a8c-359168033)

SWJ Blog

07-01-2016, 05:20 PM

Game of Drones: Center for a New American Security Wargame Report (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/game-of-drones-center-for-a-new-american-security-wargame-report)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/game-of-drones-center-for-a-new-american-security-wargame-report) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

10-13-2016, 03:30 PM

Prompted by the deaths in Kurdistan from an ISIS booby-trapped drone two reviews of where the world is with flying IEDs.

First the BBC:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37638982 and then WoTR, which notes:
..almost 10 percent of U.S. defense research and development funds goes into such systems which range from jamming rifles to lasers to other drones.Link:http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/flying-ieds-the-next-big-threat/

davidbfpo

10-18-2016, 02:38 PM

A must read on WoTR:http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/the-democratization-of-airpower-the-insurgent-and-the-drone/

The author T.X. Hammes ends with:
As they become pervasive, we can expect to see insurgents and terrorists use them very creatively. It is essential we make use of the very short time available to develop defenses against these systems.

A contrary view (the next day):http://warontherocks.com/2016/10/why-the-flying-ied-threat-has-barely-started/

SWJ Blog

10-20-2016, 01:54 PM

Saving Lives in Rwanda, With US-made Drones (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/saving-lives-in-rwanda-with-us-made-drones)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/saving-lives-in-rwanda-with-us-made-drones) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

11-01-2016, 07:28 PM

Post 320 refers to the new film on drones, 'Eye in the Sky'and I watched it recently on Netflix. It was excellent in illustrating the dilemmas the operators and commanders face. One SME did comment that the small "fly" drone was not possible, citing the constraints of battery size. Given the focus on hi-tech tools and weapons the role of HUMINT was crucial.

davidbfpo

11-01-2016, 07:34 PM

A short report on drones over Africa:https://sustainablesecurity.org/2016/10/19/swarms-over-the-savannas-how-drones-are-gaining-more-traction-in-africa/

Despite the shamble state of African drones, it is only a matter of time before they do become widespread and used effectively by African governments.

SWJ Blog

12-22-2016, 02:53 AM

US-Supplied Drones Disappoint Ukraine On Front Lines (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-supplied-drones-disappoint-ukraine-on-front-lines)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/us-supplied-drones-disappoint-ukraine-on-front-lines) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

AdamG

01-20-2017, 02:47 PM

Initially, it's believed that the Sharp Sword will be used for reconnaissance in areas with dense air defense networks, as well as tailing foreign warships. As the Chinese develops a familiarity with the Sharp Sword, it could be used for combat operations as a "first through the door" weapon against highly defended, high-value targets, as well as an aerial tanker for other drones and carrier aircraft (akin to plans for the U.S. MQ-25). There is even the possibility of carrier version for China's planned next generation of catapult equipped aircraft carriers.

http://www.popsci.com/china-sharp-sword-lijian-stealth-drone?src=SOC&dom=fb

SWJ Blog

02-16-2017, 01:03 AM

ISIL & Drones: Understand the Network to Defeat the Network (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/isil-drones-understand-the-network-to-defeat-the-network)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/isil-drones-understand-the-network-to-defeat-the-network) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

SWJ Blog

07-03-2017, 06:05 PM

The Evolution of Punishment: Drones, High-Value Targeting, and the Neurobiology of Mechanical Justice (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-evolution-of-punishment-drones-high-value-targeting-and-the-neurobiology-of-mechanical-)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-evolution-of-punishment-drones-high-value-targeting-and-the-neurobiology-of-mechanical-) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

07-10-2017, 09:16 PM

Thanks to a WoTR article which looks at the tactical use of drones for the USMC I don't recall a discussion on this theme. Within Opsec rules.

The WoTR article opens with:
The mass production of inexpensive commercial drones has revolutionized the entertainment industry, but the true innovators of this field are found within the ranks of the Islamic State. Weaponized quadcopters, fixed-wing drones that drop explosives, and unmanned systems that serve as aerial scouts or spotters are a real and present threat to U.S. forces.

(Later) The conclusions are that distributed infantry units should each have dedicated and near-constant overhead coverage that can meet a wide range of intelligence, communications, and fire support needs — something only the Reaper can currently accomplish.Link:https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/lady-gagas-air-force-and-the-grunt-angel-for-marines-an-infantry-officers-unlikely-exploration/

From my armchair and not wishing to treat this as a USMC-only issue my question is: Can Western armies fight 'small wars' without capable drones?

JHR

07-10-2017, 10:30 PM

There might be a clue to the USA response to drone defense in some previous posts: http://hacking4defense.stanford.edu/

Condor

07-11-2017, 02:30 PM

I think the real issues we should be looking at are the massive societal, cultural, and religious changes happening across the globe at an accelerated pace due to variables such as the internet and mass immigration.

Just as the printing press had a massive impact on medieval Europe, resulting in centuries of bloody wars, both interstate, revolutionary, and civil until leading to the relative peace of the last 7 decades in Europe, so too our we now witnessing similar issues play out on a more global scale.

With the mass proliferation of commercially available technologies such as 'drones', additive manufacturing, and access to knowledge through mediums such as YouTube, we will continue to chase our proverbial tails if we focus on the technologies will ignoring the stuff that makes us human.

Long story short, I think we are in for a couple of really bloody centuries until there is a massive change such as the 'Enlightenment' period of Europe.

Bill Moore

07-11-2017, 05:40 PM

There is a thread on drones: http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7385 . Thanks to a WoTR article which looks at the tactical use of drones for the USMC I don't recall a discussion on this theme. Within Opsec rules.

The WoTR article opens with:Link:https://warontherocks.com/2017/07/lady-gagas-air-force-and-the-grunt-angel-for-marines-an-infantry-officers-unlikely-exploration/

From my armchair and not wishing to treat this as a USMC-only issue my question is: Can Western armies fight 'small wars' without capable drones?

The West has a long history of fighting small wars without drones. Just to be provocative, I propose that the West could perhaps fight small wars more effectively without drones, because it would force us to develop a strategic approach beyond our excessive focus (and in some cases sole focus)on targeting individuals. Of course in reality, targeting is a key element in any war, and I don't suggest we throw the baby out with the bathwater, but we need to subordinate targeting to the larger strategy. In some cases, targeting will be a main effort, and drones will appropriately play a key role, but I think we tend to default to targeting before we really think through the problem and what we want to accomplish.

SWJ Blog

07-24-2017, 12:26 AM

Trump’s Special Ops Pick Says Terror Drones Might Soon Reach the US from Africa. How Worried Should We Be? (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/trump%E2%80%99s-special-ops-pick-says-terror-drones-might-soon-reach-the-us-from-africa-how-worried-sho)

Entry Excerpt:

--------
Read the full post (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/trump%E2%80%99s-special-ops-pick-says-terror-drones-might-soon-reach-the-us-from-africa-how-worried-sho) and make any comments at the SWJ Blog (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog).
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.

davidbfpo

10-20-2017, 10:21 AM

This week marks the tenth anniversary of the RAF using drones, known as Reaper and Birmingham University's ICCS & Oxford Research Group's Remote Control Project - with a wide range of opinions present. A full transcript of the presentations will appear soon.

There is a three year old report by ICCS on drones:https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/government-society/centres/iccs/research/projects/security-impact-drones.aspx

A couple of snippets: Peter Lee, a teacher @ RAF Cranwell, was a RAF Chaplain for seven years and is writing a book on RAF Reaper operations, including sitting with the operators. The book is due out next year.

One speaker referred to the USA seeking to change the Missile Technology Control Regime agreement, to enable commercial sales. See:https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-effect-drones-exclusive/exclusive-game-of-drones-u-s-poised-to-boost-unmanned-aircraft-exports-idUSKBN1CG0F4

Thanks to a "lurker" for the pointer to this Lawfare article:https://www.lawfareblog.com/united-kingdom-and-unmanned-aerial-vehicles-summary-joint-doctrine-publication-0-302

davidbfpo

10-20-2017, 10:23 AM

Mentioned at the B'ham conference was the emergence the story that drone technology depended on a small group of individuals, especially Neal Blue who for US$2m acquired the designer's company. Short story from a critical blogsite:
The Predator drone was actually created by Israeli named Abroham Karem, who had helped design Israel's first drones for use in the Yom Kippur war. In the 1980s, Karem moved to Orange County and set up a small shop with DARPA funding to replicate and improve the technology here.His company was called Leading Systems, and had already developed a working Predator drone prototype that was cheaper and more reliable than what good ol' boy defense companies like Lockheed Martin could crank out. Karem made an elegant and efficient product it, but it wasn't getting much love in the DoD.
It needed a power-salesman and a lot of money to grease the procurement process. And that's what the Blue brothers, and their man Cassidy, brought to the table.Link:https://www.alternet.org/investigations/billionaire-brothers-behind-americas-predator-drones-and-their-very-strange-past

AdamG

01-02-2018, 08:52 PM

No precedent thread found, so stand-alone for now.

While this is a great idea for an NGO, also seems like a good way to push fresh Combat LifeSaver Bags (or ammo boxes) up without risking one of your guys getting shot.

'Uber for blood': how Rwandan delivery robots are saving lives

A Silicon Valley robotics company has teamed up with the Rwandan health ministry to hasten the delivery of vital medicines to hospitals in remote areas
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2018/jan/02/rwanda-scheme-saving-blood-drone

Figuring someone else must have had the same thought, checked. Turns out it's called the Joint Tactical Aerial Resupply Vehicle (JTARV).

Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert O. Work (center) asks questions about the Joint Tactical Aerial Resupply Vehicle, or JTARV, a rectangular-shaped quadcopter that currently carries up to 300 pounds of cargo. (Photo Credit: Jhi Scott, ARL Public Affairs)
“In a firefight, when a Soldier is running low on ammunition, resupply is critical,” said Sgt. 1st Class Daniel Guenther, an enlisted advisor at the laboratory. “I’ve had situations where speedballs were dropped off to me by helicopters.”
In the military context, a “speedball” refers to a bag of supplies, usually ammunition, dropped from a plane or helicopter to soldiers in the field.
“What are the implications of that?” asked Army researcher Tim Vong. “We’re working with users in the joint community to look at this concept.”

https://scout.com/military/warrior/Article/Army-Warzone-Drone-Delivers-Ammunition-101456371

See also https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/18/14311912/hoverbike-drone-us-army-jtarv-resupply-autonomous

How long are you Chinese guys going to wait before stealing this idea?

Firn

01-07-2018, 10:58 AM

I'm not surprised by this connection, given how 'drones' were part of a large package which was created by Israel after it was forced to think and act laterally after the bloody face it's airforce was given under Zugzwang in 1973.

----

The rather cheap and low level drones are of course a different story with different implications. They have already penetrated the civil society and are increasingly used here in the Alps by firefighters, mountain rescue teams, wildlife protection* (roe deer fawns) and many more and so forth.

The only big tech hardware problem for those applications remains the battery. Organisation, cooperation, training and laws are still a challenge in some areas. Canines have long been used by rescue services, law enforcement and hunters and arguably demand a lot more effort and training and can only work with their handler. The adoption of drones should overall be easier and cheaper.

ISIL certainly demostrated how much tech was available at a surprisingly low price and what could be done on a low budget. There is obviously still a lot of scope and room to explore.

Firn

*During haying. Can help to finance the common project.

Firn

01-07-2018, 11:32 AM

Sven has a fine blog post (http://defense-and-freedom.blogspot.co.at/2017/09/combat-resupply.html) about this topic.

Aerial drones are no doubt part of the future combat supply mix.

Firn

AdamG

01-09-2018, 12:29 PM

Meet the Counter-Measure.

As drones increase in availability, more organizations and governments are looking for ways to protect assets from nefarious drones. Fortem has developed a system called DroneHunter that, well, hunts drones. Literally. DroneHunter involves detecting and then removing drones by shooting them down or capturing them with another drone. This is dogfighting with drones.
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/fortems-dronehunter-is-now-available-to-shoot-down-rogue-drones/

I can't wait for the Counter-Counter Measure.

AdamG

01-10-2018, 01:32 PM

Russian military forces at the Hmeymim air base and the Tartus logistics center in Syria came under attack by what appears to have been a swarm of drones. Some thirteen small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) made the attack, six of which were diverted by Russian electronic warfare systems while seven additional aircraft were dispatched by Pantsir-S1 air defense batteries.
"During the hours of darkness Russian air defense facilities made clear 13 remoted unknown small-sized air targets approaching the Russian military assets,” the Russian Defense Ministry told the TASS news agency. “Ten combat UAVs were approaching Russia’s Hmeymim air base and three more - the logistics center of Tartus."
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-came-under-attack-apos-010700010.html

AdamG

01-15-2018, 03:23 AM

Russia is in possession of an underwater nuclear drone capable of carrying a 100-megaton nuclear warhead, a recently leaked draft of the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review confirmed.
The weapon, referred to in the document as an “AUV,” or autonomous underwater vehicle, is featured in a chart that lays out Russia's multiple nuclear delivery vehicles.
Pentagon officials warn in the posture review that Russia has actively diversified its nuclear capabilities, a strategic advantage it has over the United States:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-has-underwater-nuclear-drones-leaked-pentagon-documents-reveal/ar-AAuFOuP?li=AA4Zpp&ocid=spartandhp

AdamG

01-26-2018, 11:21 AM

PESHAWAR, Pakistan — A missile from a suspected U.S. drone killed an Afghan militant commander as he was taking a shower early Wednesday, according to Pakistani police and Taliban sources.

Nasir Mahmood — a member of the feared Taliban-linked Haqqani network — was in a house in Pakistan's semi-autonomous Federally Administered Tribal Areas near the border with Afghanistan when he died, according to Ameer Zaman, a senior police officer. Nasir Mahmood, whose given name was Ihsanullah, was also known as Khowarai by his fighters.
Three Taliban sources confirmed that Mahmood, who like millions of fellow Afghans left for Pakistan over the last four decades, had been killed. They shared a photo of his body as he was being being prepared for burial.

Due to their wealth and deep links to local tribes, one Western diplomat once called the Haqqanis "the Kennedys of the Taliban movement."
Fearing for their safety, Taliban members spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity. U.S. officials did not immediately comment on the news.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/suspected-u-s-drone-kills-taliban-linked-commander-he-showered-n840591?

AdamG

05-04-2018, 02:03 AM

DENVER, Colorado — Last winter, on the outskirts of a large U.S. city, an FBI hostage rescue team set up an elevated observation post to assess an unfolding situation. Soon they heard the buzz of small drones — and then the tiny aircraft were all around them, swooping past in a series of “high-speed low passes at the agents in the observation post to flush them,” the head of the agency’s operational technology law unit told attendees of the AUVSI Xponential conference here. Result: “We were then blind,” said Joe Mazel, meaning the group lost situational awareness of the target. “It definitely presented some challenges.”
The incident remains “law enforcement-sensitive,” Mazel said Wednesday, declining to say just where or when it took place. But it shows how criminal groups are using small drones for increasingly elaborate crimes.
Mazel said the suspects had backpacked the drones to the area in anticipation of the FBI’s arrival. Not only did they buzz the hostage rescue team, they also kept a continuous eye on the agents, feeding video to the group’s other members via YouTube. “They had people fly their own drones up and put the footage to YouTube so that the guys who had cellular access could go to the YouTube site and pull down the video,” he said.
Mazel said counter surveillance of law enforcement agents is the fastest-growing way that organized criminals are using drones.

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/05/criminal-gang-used-drone-swarm-obstruct-fbi-raid/147956/

See also http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/criminals-armed-drones

AdamG

05-27-2018, 01:55 AM

A start-up called Volans-i is building drones that can deliver heavy parts over long distances, even to a ship that's sailing at sea. This kind of technology could have saved the Titanic, CEO and co-founder Hannan Parvizian quipped.
*
Volans-i's drones are able to travel for up to 500 miles carrying 20 pounds of cargo at a time at a top speed of 200 miles per hour. (A delivery from Los Angeles to San Francisco would take three to four hours.) They are able to do this by employing fixed wings along with vertical-take-off-and-landing systems for flight, and both batteries and fuel for propulsion.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/26/volans-i-drones-can-haul-cargo-for-500-miles-and-land-on-a-moving-ship.html

davidbfpo

07-12-2018, 07:04 AM

From CTC @ West Point this unread paper 'The Islamic State and Drones: Supply, Scale, and Future Threats':
how the Islamic State was able to pull off its drone feats and bring its program to scale in a relatively short amount of time...... It also highlights some of the broader threat and policy implications associated with the Islamic State’s pioneering use of drones.
Link:https://ctc.usma.edu/islamic-state-drones-supply-scale-future-threats

davidbfpo

09-04-2018, 08:08 AM

A short commentary on the intense US aerial campaign against militant Islamist groups between 2009 and 2014, in Pakistan's tribal areas (FATA) and in particular North Waziristan.

It is part of an academic project into drones (UAV) at Birmingham University (UK):
we carried out more than 30 interviews and two general surveys, with more than 400 respondents, in Pakistan to assess the impact of the drones in the tribal areas. From what they told us, we learned that conflicting perceptions of the use of drones can shape not only conflict but also coexistence – and even cooperation.

It ends with a passage, which echoes much of what SWJ is about:
In a nutshell, the reason the drone campaign helped dash hopes of a settlement was the social, political, and cultural dynamics of Pakistan’s tribal region and the way the tribal system’s core elements were undermined. If you want to explain what happened to the short-lived peace process in Pakistan in 2013-14, you have to start there. And so does anyone charged with coming up with any new counter-insurgency strategy, whether it includes drone strikes or not.
Link:https://theconversation.com/interviews-with-pakistani-civilians-and-pervez-musharraf-tell-a-complicated-story-of-drone-warfare-102288? (https://theconversation.com/interviews-with-pakistani-civilians-and-pervez-musharraf-tell-a-complicated-story-of-drone-warfare-102288?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20 for%20September%204%202018%20-%20110259852&utm_content=Latest%20from%20The%20Conversation%20f or%20September%204%202018%20-%20110259852+CID_be281fdf06dbd8fd1740fc9e6e83cd63&utm_source=campaign_monitor_uk&utm_term=Interviews%20with%20Pakistani%20civilians %20and%20Pervez%20Musharraf%20tell%20a%20complicat ed%20story%20of%20drone%20warfare)