"Drones Make al Qaeda" or "Drone Kill al Qaeda"
Thanks for your excellent comments.
I've posted a question on the efficacy of drones, related to this post, if anyone is interested. Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5JGSVMC
Do "Drones Kill al Qaeda" or do "Drones Make al Qaeda"?
http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=977
Using drones: 450 UK drones lost in Iraq & Afgh
To lose a weapons system is expected, this many is startling:
Quote:
Almost 450 drones operated by the British military have crashed, broken down or been lost in action during operations in Afghanistan and Iraq over the last five years, figures reveal.
The Ministry of Defence has disclosed for the first time the five Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems used in the conflicts and the number that have perished due to pilot error, technical faults or the undesirability of retrieving them from hostile areas.
Link:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/fe...ry-drones-lost
An interesting contrast to CWOT's latest threads on using (American) drones.
There is a long running main thread on drones, into which this will be merged one day: 'Using drones: principles, tactics and results':http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=7385
Drone Pilots Are Shown to Have Stress Disorders
A NYT article Drone Pilots Are Shown to Have Stress Disorders, which refers to a new DoD report:
Quote:
In the first study of its kind, researchers with the Defense Department have found that pilots of drone aircraft experience mental health problems like depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress at the same rate as pilots of manned aircraft who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan. The study affirms a growing body of research finding health hazards even for those piloting machines from bases far from actual combat zones.
Note the DoD report is not readily found, that maybe because it is due to presented at a conference this week.
Link to NYT article:http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/23/us...it_th_20130223
Drones, Covert Action, and Counterterrorism: Why UAV Strikes should be Exclusively Mi
Are Drone Strikes Strategically Counterproductive in Yemen?
The link is to a short article by a US law professor, on a blog I've heard of, but do not visit:http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/03/a...5nDLls.twitter
Quote:
Greg Johnsen, author of 'The Last Refuge: Yemen, Al-Queda, and America’s War in Arabia'...often read as arguing that American drone strikes in Yemen do more harm than good, because they spawn increased membership in the jihadi forces there....Based on his experience, he believes that a more refined drone program remains necessary — not that the US should end its drone program altogether. In particular, he believes that targeted killing in Yemen of high-level figures in AQ and associated forces does not tend to generate greater support and membership for these forces. Most Yemenis do not support these figures, are not outraged when they are killed, and do get mobilized against the US or the Yemeni government as a result.
The key point is, using Yemen as an example, that drones strikes should be concentrate on high-level figures.
Ex-USG lawyer ponders credibility of a drone court
Via FP a report of a speech by the Pentagon's former top lawyer, Jeh Johnson:
Quote:
Our government finds itself in a lose-lose proposition: it fails to officially confirm many of its counterterrorism successes, and fails to officially confirm, deny or clarify unsubstantiated reports of civilian casualties. Our government's good efforts for the safety of the people risks an erosion of support by the people. It is in this atmosphere that the idea of a national security court as a solution to the problem -- an idea that for a long time existed only on the margins of the debate about U.S. counterterrorism policy but is now entertained by more mainstream thinkers such as Senator Diane Feinstein and a man I respect greatly, my former client Robert Gates - has gained momentum... But, we must be realistic about the degree of added credibility such a court can provide."
Fuller remarks and the speech are on:http://e-ring.foreignpolicy.com/post...ft_to_military
Before and After - Rand Paul's Filibuster
We start with Fox News Poll: Majority supports use of drones (by Dana Blanton, March 04, 2013) (interviews conducted 25-27 Feb 2013, before Rand Paul's filibuster) (poll internals):
Quote:
Do you approve or disapprove of the United States using unmanned aircraft called drones:
To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country?
Approve 74%
Disapprove 22
(Don’t know) 4
To kill a suspected terrorist in a foreign country if the suspect is a U.S. citizen?
Approve 60%
Disapprove 36
(Don’t know) 5
To kill a suspected foreign terrorist on U.S. soil?
Approve 56%
Disapprove 40
(Don’t know) 4
To kill a suspected terrorist who is a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil?
Approve 45%
Disapprove 50
(Don’t know) 5
However, three weeks later, we have Gallup with In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad - Less than half of Americans are closely following news on drones (by Alyssa Brown and Frank Newport, March 25, 2013) (after Rand Paul filibuster) (poll internals):
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/...sp_j_cwdtg.gif
(much more in article).
Two factors are probably at play here: (1) The legislative hearings re: drones, including the Rand Paul filibuster; and (2) The methodological variation in the two polls - Gallup ran two separate polls.
Regards
Mike
Every drone strike is an execution?
Steve Coll comments on drone policy via reviewing two books:
Quote:
The return of Presidentially sanctioned assassinations is described in two new books of investigative journalism, “The Way of the Knife” (Penguin), by Mark Mazzetti, a Times reporter; and “Dirty Wars” (Nation), by Jeremy Scahill, of The Nation.
He concludes, referring to issues we have discussed here a CIA official:
Quote:
America’s drone campaign is also creating an ominous global precedent. Ten years or less from now, China will likely be able to field armed drones. How might its Politburo apply Obama’s doctrines to Tibetan activists holding meetings in Nepal?
Mazzetti closes his narrative with an interview with Richard Blee, a retired C.I.A. operations officer who worked aggressively against Al Qaeda at the Counterterrorist Center before and after September 11th, and who, like the Shin Bet directors in “The Gatekeepers,” has since developed doubts about tactics he once embraced. “In the early days, for our consciences we wanted to know who we were killing before anyone pulled the trigger,” Blee told the author. He continued:
Now, we’re lighting these people up all over the place. Every drone strike is an execution. And if we are going to hand down death sentences, there ought to be some public accountability and some public discussion about the whole thing. . . . And it should be a debate that Americans can understand.
Drones Are [Are Not] Ethical And Effective
Oxford Union Debate
The Proposition: This House Believes Drone Warfare is Ethical and Effective.
Speaking for the proposition were Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution; Kenneth Anderson, law professor at the American University, and journalist and author David Aaronovitch. Opposing the motion were Chris Cole of Drone Wars UK; Naureen Shah of the Columbia Law School Human Rights Institute, and Jeremy Waldron, legal and political theorist of Oxford and NYU.
The YouTube presentation will take you about an hour.
Regards
Mike