The Rules - Engaging HVTs & OBL

[davidbfpo]

Levi,

Don't worry about posting on SWC, we all have opinions and information, IMHO only a few have "a chair at the table" on selected threads, like JMM here on this and a couple of other threads.

I have tried to keep up with this thread, but have some recurring doubts over the legality, legitimacy and effectiveness of killing high value targets (HVT). Whilst a foreign nation may not today pursue HVT in the USA, there are examples where other nations have seen targeting: Eichmann in Argentina and Litvinenko in the UK. Where will the USA stand if it happens within the USA?

In a separate thread on the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, which touches upon the reaction, not the rules:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=14261

[Levi]

The U.S. signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations which forbids going just anywhere and killing people because that's an aggression.

What's more; the U.S. signed and ratified the North Atlantic Treaty which expressly requires its members to follow the principles of the United Nations.


Veto right or not - the idea that the U.S. could legitimately kill people in foreign countries (instead of going the diplomatic route and asking UN to sanction that safe haven) is incompatible with too much to list here.

Seriously, it's a disrespectful and very arrogant idea. Don't be surprised if even formal allies turn sometime against you if you disrespect treaty obligations like this.

I honestly hadn't considered the UN charter or the North Atlantic Treaty. I do not know what they say. I will TRY to read them, I hope they are not too dry. I was only thinking from the perspective of, well, selfishness and self preservation, if not disrespect and arrogance. As a citizen, when a terrorist act takes place, it's against me. Most likely. But I have no say in any response, and no way to affect an outcome or create "a desired end state" that is beneficial for me, i.e. not getting killed at a football game, and being able to travel abroad without fear. I can vote. That changes very little, in my experience.

If a foreign government comes and kills someone IN MY BACKYARD, LITERALLY, then I hope they do it quietly, and I am not caught in the crossfire. Or my rabbits. If this HVT did something to kill and injure a bunch of people who just wanted to go on about their lives, and the foreign gov gets him here, the unit members can expect beer from me. My only question is, why was the US GOV so slow that someone else had to do the job? Governments are one thing, real life is another.

I do see the reality of what you are saying, Fuchs. I know we can't just go around killing willy-nilly. So what do we do? Interpol? Do they operate in yemen and northern pakistan?

I don't like to be arrogant or disrespectful. I just don't see letting a treaty with the UN get in the way of protecting American interests and lives.

[Fuchs]

Well, other people in other countries have rights, too.

How would you react if Cuba did assassinate some exile Cubans in Florida with their marines for being terrorists?

Would you want the Russian air force to bomb a motel in Kansas because an exile Chechen leader sleeps there?

How about an accidental bombing of a wedding party in Arizona because the Mexicans suspected a drug crime lord / terrorist there?


You see, there's a thing called sovereignty, and claiming this for the own country while ignoring the sovereignty of other countries with violent actions on their home turf is disrespectful and arrogant.

[jmm99]

I really did not understand what situation you were positing. From this,

from Levi
US citizens and citizens of foreign nations who are actively involved in terrorism against the US or allies, or aiding and abetting terrorism, and the proof is there, should be considered valid targets, for police action if possible, and military action if necessary, wherever on the planet they may be.

you were thinking of al-Awlaki situations - where there are US constraints and also US restraints (even if Mr. Brown Bear confidently asserts there are not).

The Iraqi case I mentioned involved the same basic idea (Positive Identification - PID) of person or persons defined as members of a hostile enemy force under US military law and ROEs. The women and children introduced a wildcard. The bad guys there decided it was a bad day to die, given the possibility of a revolving door under Iraq's criminal justice system. Under different circumstances, that "LEO approach" could have led to disaster for our troops.

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

I am well aware of what the US has signed and not signed; I am well aware of what the EU-NATO states have signed and not signed; and I am well aware of the ICRC and what it has recommended - and what of that has been accepted or rejected by various states.

I have also frankly stated (and linked to) the US legal academics who dispute the basic rules adopted by the Bush Administration and expanded in the targeted killing area by the Obama Administration - and where the Legistative and Judicial branches have endorsed those rules.

Mere citation of the UN Charter and North Atlantic Treaty are inadequate to shake my boots. I know and have frankly admitted the divide between the USG position and the dominant EU-NATO position - in this and in other jus ad bellum and jus in bello issues. That divide cannot be bridged without one side or the other substantially changing material beliefs.

I'm serious too. If what you call "even formal allies" truly believe what you apparently believe about the US, then they would have a moral and ethical duty to terminate the alliances - and, also legal obligations to do that under both the UN Charter and North Atlantic Treaty (if they interpret them as you do). If some of them elect to do that, I would not blink.

Whether you want to charge some or many USAians with War Crimes is up to you. If you believe that, you should say so. Put the meat on the table.

As to sovereignty, you allege:

You see, there's a thing called sovereignty, and claiming this for the own country while ignoring the sovereignty of other countries with violent actions on their home turf is disrespectful and arrogant.

and I know that's not directed at me - unless you've disregarded everything I've written here and elsewhere.

When State A relies on a neutrality law argument to justify an attack against an enemy group X within the bounds of State B, State A runs the risk that State B will respond with something other than silence, a diplomatic protest or a claim for money. That is the answer to your questions:

How would you react if Cuba did assassinate some exile Cubans in Florida with their marines for being terrorists?

Would you want the Russian air force to bomb a motel in Kansas because an exile Chechen leader sleeps there?

How about an accidental bombing of a wedding party in Arizona because the Mexicans suspected a drug crime lord / terrorist there?

If our Homeland Security would react as it should, we would kill the Cubans, Russians and Mexicans. The Chinese and Russians would do the same thing.

What would the EU-NATO states do in the same three situations - make the US the attacker and change the locations to UK, France and Germany ?

[carl]

I have tried to keep up with this thread, but have some recurring doubts over the legality, legitimacy and effectiveness of killing high value targets (HVT). Whilst a foreign nation may not today pursue HVT in the USA, there are examples where other nations have seen targeting: Eichmann in Argentina and Litvinenko in the UK. Where will the USA stand if it happens within the USA?

In the bad old days before the IRA saw the light, weren't there some accusations that the SAS or related types did just that in the US or killed US citizens abroad?

Levi: Keep posting. We need new guys around here. I for one am bored with me.

[M-A Lagrange]

First of all, Yemen is not as white as it looks like:

Yemen Signs US Military Cooperation Agreement as It Fights Iranian Backed TerroristsYemen's official news agency says the country has signed a military cooperation deal with the United States, as Yemen battles a growing Shi'ite rebellion in the north.

Saba news agency reports the military and security cooperation agreement was signed Tuesday in the capital, Sanaa, after two days of talks.

U.S. officials did not immediately confirm that report.

http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/h...errorists.html

But this was denied by US. This said, I know Yemenis soldiers who went to US for training, which does not proof anything except there is an “as usual” bilateral cooperation between US and Yemen government.

This in that particular case does not make legal the use of force in Yemen by the US. Eventually, if any agreement between US and Yemen exist, for military cooperation, this shows that there might be some bases (secret agreement or at least non publicly disclosed agreement) between Yemen and US for military cooperation which may eventually allow US To use force in Yemen territory.

Secondly, about neutrality: (for Bill and others, not for you Mike, as I know you know all of this even better than me)

Definition of neutrality: (US legal definition dictionary, http://definitions.uslegal.com/n/neutrality/)
Neutrality refers to the legal status of a state that adopts a stand of impartiality towards two other states that are at war with each other. An impartial state accords recognition of the state of belligerency between the two warring parties. Neutrality creates rights and duties that fall upon all concerned.
In a United Nations enforcement action, the rules of neutrality apply to impartial members of the United Nations except so far as they are excluded by the obligation of such members under the United Nations Charter.
Armed neutrality: (US legal definition dictionary, http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/armed-neutrality/)
Armed neutrality is a term used in international politics, which is the attitude of a state or group of states which makes no alliance with either side in a war. It is the condition of a neutral power, at war, which holds itself ready to resist by force any aggression of either belligerent. Such states assert that they will defend themselves against resulting incursions from all parties.

Then back to the topic:

The use of drone in irregular war, from my personal point of view, could be seen as an attempt by the US to establish a similar power dominance in the field of non conventional wars as the A bomb gave them in the field of conventional war.
There are a lot of similarities between the theories of power and impact of A Bomb in diplomacy developed by theoricians as Raymond Aron in the 60 and the rhetoric used to justify the use of drones based on the military/power advantage they give to the US. All based on the need of homeland security and right to self defense. (Fuch reaction is one of them. Even if I do agree at some point with him. Just as Mike “upset” response. )

My only objection to the unlimited/no boundaries battle field is that, as with A bomb, it forced violent actors to develop alternative ways of war. The equilibrium of terror established through A bomb pushed States and non state actors to develop irregular warfare and terrorism.
If drones can establish this kind of overwhelming power for a handful of nations (US being the leader), then NSVA will develop other ways of war or use of force.
In that perspective, drones forces us to consider Jus ad bellum and not only Jus in Bello. Otherwise, crimes of aggression will become the norm. (And I know that US did not sign Rome Treaty).

[Levi]

we are adapting by using drones. I hear words like "changing face of war" and "non state violent actors" and see here and elsewhere alot of talk about how conventional war is a thing of the past because of our off-kilter (compared to the rest of the world) defense spending, so that every conflict will be by necessity on the part of the enemy, whoever they may be under the current administration, a non-conventional war. So we should push to re write treaties, and push to legalize drones and target interdiction wherever possible across the globe, bearing in mind that any non-signitory countries will probably harbor, willingly or not, "the enemy". I would hope the US is already well on its way to doing that.

[bourbon]

In the bad old days before the IRA saw the light, weren't there some accusations that the SAS or related types did just that in the US or killed US citizens abroad?

Yes, accusations and conspiracy theories – which may or may not be true; but in the one incident that I am familiar with - the murder of John McIntyre in 1984 – it wasn't true. The theory which was popularized by the book Valhalla's Wake, was that MI6 killed McIntyre to protect a source they were running inside the IRA; but the McIntyre murder it turned out was tied to Whitey Bulger.

[jmm99]

To MAL, a little public thanks for sending on the legal materials so that, at some point, we can continue our conversation. I think I need a French-African computer - what you got

Briefly, the 2009 VOA Yemen link:

Yemen Signs US Military Cooperation Agreement as It Fights Iranian Backed Terrorists

Yemen, US Sign Military Cooperation Deal
By VOA News 11 November 2009

Yemen's official news agency says the country has signed a military cooperation deal with the United States, as Yemen battles a growing Shi'ite rebellion in the north.

Saba news agency reports the military and security cooperation agreement was signed Tuesday in the capital, Sanaa, after two days of talks.

U.S. officials did not immediately confirm that report. ....

WTF: Is this a "non-confirmation confirmation" (which is how I took it) or a "non-denial denial" (which is how you took it) ? In the area of public communications, both the Bush and Obama Administrations were and are as hard to love as Johnson-McNamara and Nixon-Kissinger.

In any event, a Yemen-US alliance against a Shi'ite rebellion (whether Iranian supported or not) does not extend to the AQ in Yemen who are extremist Sunni. Of course, there may be any number of other Yemen-US "executive agreements" in play. Let's leave all of that on the shelf for this post (Marc: you and I do tend to get down into the weeds - the nature of our beast).

Now, what follows is an attempt by me to phrase the key issues in very basic terms (questions put in quote boxes solely for separation):

1. Can a group of Transnational Violent Non-State Actors (TVNSAs) have an "armed force" in terms of International Humanitarian Policy (note I did not use the term "Law"); or are groups of TVNSAs subject only to International Human Rights Policy ?

My BLUF: TVNSAs can have an "armed force" subject to International Humanitarian Policy (underlying "Law of Armed Conflict", "Laws of War", ROEs etc.). In addition, like Mike Hayden, the target of TVNSAs should also be able to avail itself of remedies less than "armed conflict" (law enforcement, etc.; those remedies are subject to International Human Rights Policy).

Another BLUF: If one believes the alternative (only International Human Rights Policy), then one need go no further. My BLUF is indeed "illegal, immoral and dangerous"; and, frankly, Hayden and I would be propagandists for war crimes (cf., Julius Streicher).

2. How do we define and distinguish the members of the "armed force" of a group of TVNSAs ?

My BLUF: We don't do it by applying the rules set by International Humanitarian Policy for defining and distinguishing the members of regular armed forces of a state engaged in conventional warfare. The best we can do is to analogize, taking into account the functional roles played by the particular person vice the same or similar roles played in conventional forces.

Other BLUFs: Even if one believes generally that a TVNSA group can have an armed force, defining and distinguishing the members of that force can often take us into discussions where reasonable persons can differ. What should "direct participation in hostilities" mean, as only one example. So, there are many other possible BLUFs - and gray areas.

3. What was Al-Awlaki ?

My BLUF: Awlaki was an officer in AQ, whose primary function was PsyOps + some Military Intelligence and Direct Actions Recruitment & Planning (as in the example from the emails). As such, he was as fair game as any of our members here who have been engaged in the same or similar functions as members of a conventional military force.

Naji, in his Management of Savagery (pp.57-59), explains AQ "officer selection" and their role in "targeting":

[25]
Section Two

Who Leads, Who Manages, and Who Authorizes the Fundamental Administrative Decisions?

There is a dependable rule in Islamic activism which is, "Not every leader is a manager and not every manager is a leader".

If we were to abide by what we mentioned in the previous point, we should change (this phrase) into "Every leader is a manager but not every manager is a leader".

The manager or executive is any individual within the movement or the group — who has mastered the art of administration — who can be appointed to manage a financial or nutritional sector or the like without him knowing, to the extent possible, the secrets which would harm the work. And as for the leader, he must be the object of complete reliance within the movement, and entrusted with its actions and its secrets. The leaders no doubt know many of the secrets of the movement to the same extent. Some of the leaders issue fundamental and secondary administrative decisions, while others issue decisions that include Sharia dimensions. Therefore, in our plan we open the door of management wide to those who have mastered its art. As for the door of leadership, it is only open to those who are reliable, even though there is a security apparatus which keeps watch over the two doors, monitoring the professionalism of the actions of the leaders and the managers in order to prevent infiltration.

An important aspect of the higher administrative and political decisions:

In accordance with the preceding, an important point becomes apparent to us, which is:

What is the most important thing, from a Sharia and realistic standpoint, that should be abundantly found in leaders who issue higher administrative decisions which include the targeting of some classes of people and not others?

Even if the High Command, the field commanders directing the work, or those who are usually distinguished by experience and political shrewdness generally issue higher administrative and political decisions, one should pay particular attention to the administrative decisions concerning the targeting of certain classes of people and not others. Naturally, these fundamentally require setting a guideline and issuing a precise or secret sharia judgment which must be passed by those firmly-rooted in knowledge in the main jihad movement before it is issued, or, if it is impossible to refer to the ulama of the main jihad movement, a scholar firmly-rooted in knowledge must be convinced of it in accordance with the correct Sharia criterions.

Of course there are classes of people who the mujahid-salafi movements, by means of their firmly-rooted ulama, have deemed to be permissible and necessary targets. I believe that this is sufficient at our current stage and the decision (to target others) at this time should be left to the High Command and the political leadership, who can determine the benefit of targeting them now or delaying that. This is to be done through consultation with the mid-level, learned cadres, at the very least. However, our words and our warning here concern what will come from (later) stages and what will be found among classes of people in the future or in the coming stages. The decision to target them or refrain from that is not only left to the learned cadres, but also to those firmly-rooted in knowledge from the beginning, just as we said.

Naji says much more than this brief taste.

Another BLUF: If one believes that Awlaki was killed solely because of his political speech (and that he could not be defined and distinguished as a military officer), consistency with that belief seems to require assertion of war crimes charges - unless one grants a pass for gray areas.

NB: "Policy" (as used in International Humanitarian Policy and International Human Rights Policy above) is not a simple monolith - and, there are many possible "Policies".

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

Then back to the topic:

The use of drone in irregular war, from my personal point of view, could be seen as an attempt by the US to establish a similar power dominance in the field of non conventional wars as the A bomb gave them in the field of conventional war.
There are a lot of similarities between the theories of power and impact of A Bomb in diplomacy developed by theoricians as Raymond Aron in the 60 and the rhetoric used to justify the use of drones based on the military/power advantage they give to the US. All based on the need of homeland security and right to self defense. (Fuch reaction is one of them. Even if I do agree at some point with him. Just as Mike “upset” response. )

My only objection to the unlimited/no boundaries battle field is that, as with A bomb, it forced violent actors to develop alternative ways of war. The equilibrium of terror established through A bomb pushed States and non state actors to develop irregular warfare and terrorism.
If drones can establish this kind of overwhelming power for a handful of nations (US being the leader), then NSVA will develop other ways of war or use of force.
In that perspective, drones forces us to consider Jus ad bellum and not only Jus in Bello. Otherwise, crimes of aggression will become the norm. (And I know that US did not sign Rome Treaty).

Very good analysis IMO....sooner or later a cheap and effective counter-measure will be found. That is why I say Droning somebody is a Tactic at best (very effective but a tactic none the less) it is not a Strategy,

[motorfirebox]

Very good analysis IMO....sooner or later a cheap and effective counter-measure will be found. That is why I say Droning somebody is a Tactic at best (very effective but a tactic none the less) it is not a Strategy,

We should hope very much that an effective countermeasure will be found, and soon. The problem with drone technology is that it is not like a-bomb technology--it doesn't take vast amounts of money and top-end university-trained minds to marshal. It takes a couple hundred bucks, literacy, and an Internet connection, tops, to develop. To produce, once developed, it takes motor parts and someone to assemble them.

On the plus side, also unlike a-bomb technology, it's not a one-shot game-ender. But it's really only a matter of time until our FOBs start taking hits from drones, and/or we see a droneborne attack here at home. I mean, somebody tell me--how effective would a drone equipped with some kind of spray and a bottle of anthrax be? Fly it over a football game or something?

[slapout9]

On the plus side, also unlike a-bomb technology, it's not a one-shot game-ender. But it's really only a matter of time until our FOBs start taking hits from drones, and/or we see a droneborne attack here at home. I mean, somebody tell me--how effective would a drone equipped with some kind of spray and a bottle of anthrax be? Fly it over a football game or something?

Yep, and there are a lot of other things they could do to. Conventional military minds don't seem to be able to grasp this either

[Fuchs]

Very good analysis IMO....sooner or later a cheap and effective counter-measure will be found. That is why I say Droning somebody is a Tactic at best (very effective but a tactic none the less) it is not a Strategy,

It's assassination basics for people with too much funds.
I fail to see the major difference between AQ blowing up Massoud and CIA blowing up some Awlaki.

Slight difference in tactic and equipment, as well as nature of costs, but in the end it's simply observation followed by assassination.

[Levi]

I mean, somebody tell me--how effective would a drone equipped with some kind of spray and a bottle of anthrax be? Fly it over a football game or something?

Not very. Also not very easy to weaponize (as I understand it). I tend to think more along the lines of the OKC bombing as the next attack. Smaller, but more frequent attacks. Also much easier to make fertilizer bombs than mess with anthrax.

Fuchs:

I am curious as to what you believe the proper course of action for the US would be, on an individual case basis, and an overall strategy, whether that would be a complete withdrawal of all troops, globally or whatever. How does the US counter violence against its citizenry without killing anyone? Who decides who can be tried? The international courts?

[carl]

But it's really only a matter of time until our FOBs start taking hits from drones, and/or we see a droneborne attack here at home.

I don't believe there is much to worry about. Drones are great big radio controlled airplanes and from what I read, we are very very good at commanding radio waves. They may make one, and they may launch it, but except for maybe the first time, they won't be able to control it.

What does worry me is that our powers that be seem to think we will be able to control our drones reliably if we ever face a sophisticated enemy.

[motorfirebox]

Not very. Also not very easy to weaponize (as I understand it). I tend to think more along the lines of the OKC bombing as the next attack. Smaller, but more frequent attacks. Also much easier to make fertilizer bombs than mess with anthrax.

Well, fertilizer bombs are heavy, though. I was thinking of something more portable. If anthrax doesn't fit the bill, I'm sure there's something that can be whipped up. Hell--fill it with kool-aid. A failed, but well-publicized, terrorist attack can have a pretty big impact on society (cough airport scanners cough).

I don't believe there is much to worry about. Drones are great big radio controlled airplanes and from what I read, we are very very good at commanding radio waves. They may make one, and they may launch it, but except for maybe the first time, they won't be able to control it.

You can't really control radio waves. You can jam them, and with the right equipment and preparation you can triangulate them. But it's not particularly hard to set up encryption--including frequency hopping--that will be hard enough to defeat that someone can fly a drone to wherever they want to before they're discovered and cut off and/or located. And it's also pretty hard to differentiate the signal sending data to a drone from all the other radio waves bouncing around.

Basically, if somebody spots a drone, and the equipment is set up, the cops can jam a significant portion of the radio spectrum. You wouldn't want to do that all the time, though, because our society kinda uses a lot of radio technology to communicate with itself. And even jamming isn't foolproof. You have to know what band the drone signal is using. Hell, maybe they're using an infrared signal, and your radio jammer will be useless.

It will be a lot easier out in places like Afghanistan, because signal density is so much lower. But, say, Houston? Good luck.

Plus, I can't imagine it'd be too hard to simply preprogram a flight path. No signal to jam.

[carl]

I know just enough about electronic warfare to know that when you get out there on the leading edge, its' like magic, like Merlin and Harry Potter are both on your side casting spells. And I know that we are on the leading edge.

Those drones are radio controlled and the radio signal gets in through an antenna. That is an open pathway that must exist. This is where Merlin and Harry come in. You may very well be right and if the they make drones, we won't be able to stop them, but I got faith in our Merlins and Harrys.

Wouldn't an infrared signal be line of sight, short range line of sight? I imagine you could just shoot the controller then. No need for Merlin and Harry.

You could make a modern version of the Kettering Bug I suppose. But why go through all the trouble making it when a big mortar is available and easier to use?

MFB: I just read things again and I think I am talking past you. My comment is made with military ops in mind. Domestic use is what you are stressing and I can see your points. You wouldn't have build one special, just buy a plane and set it up for radio control. We've been doing that since WWII.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by Fuchs,

The U.S. signed and ratified the Charter of the United Nations which forbids going just anywhere and killing people because that's an aggression.

What's more; the U.S. signed and ratified the North Atlantic Treaty which expressly requires its members to follow the principles of the United Nations.


Veto right or not - the idea that the U.S. could legitimately kill people in foreign countries (instead of going the diplomatic route and asking UN to sanction that safe haven) is incompatible with too much to list here.

Seriously, it's a disrespectful and very arrogant idea. Don't be surprised if even formal allies turn sometime against you if you disrespect treaty obligations like this.

Really? Our allies are going to turn against us because we killed a terrorist? I suspect most of our allies will be cheering this action, while some of their left leaning constituents will of course chant their normal anti-U.S. rhetoric. You have to wonder if the left leaning Europeans have lost all perspective on reality, if they don't believe in the right of self defense.

Would you want the Russian air force to bomb a motel in Kansas because an exile Chechen leader sleeps there?

This road isn't even running parallel to reality in alternate universe. How the heck can you compare a jet bombing a "hotel" in Kanas to kill a Chechen leader to surgically killing three terrorists who are actively targeting the U.S.? As others have pointed out, we have had a cooperative relationship with Yemen for a few years as we do with many other nations to fight a "common" enemy. As for other options, I somehow doubt the Yemenis had the ability to call the local police to quickly run out and arrest him before he disappeared again.

There is no doubt what the reaction would be if one of Awlaki's larger inspired terrorist attacks against the U.S. was successful and the American people found out the Government failed to protect them when they had the option to do so. I suspect you would have opposed the missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan to kill UBL after the East African Embassy bombings? Neither country were designated war zones at the time. Actually in some regards I would support you on this one, it was disproportinate and it was executed because at that time we were too risk adverse to take a more decisive and surgical option.

Getting to your point, the Cubans have killed American Cubans that were targeting Cuba. Under Clinton they shot down a plane that American Cubans were dropping propaganda from, and their have been other events over the years where other nations have killed people in the U.S..; however, this really doesn't matter, it is apples and rocks, Yemen didn't oppose this. his isn't a conventional war, the rules you are hanging your hat on do not blindly apply. A nation always reserves the right for self defense. This attack was an act of self defense.

The other argument I hear is that Awlaki didn't take up arms against the U.S., so he wasn't a lawful target. O.K., I can see the merit in that argument; however, then wouldn't the same standard have to be applied against Usama Bin Laden? He didn't take up arms against the U.S., he just directed the attacks that killed thousands.

I don't think anyone made this decision lightly, and it definitely wasn't made without a substantial legal review.

[Bill Moore]

Enemies adapt over time in a number of ways if they're not rapidly and decisively defeated, so there is no doubt in my mind they will employ UAVs in the future. There is already a wide and growing market for UAVs that any individual can purchase and with a little creativity hand some field expedient weapon off of it. They don't have to overly capable to conduct strikes on dumb targets. The psychological impact of a UAV rigged with a small IED (even if it wasn't successful) would be much more significant than its physical impact.

I don't think UAVs are unconventional weapons, they're simply weapons that can applied conventionally or unconventionally (much like a rifle or mortar). The atom bomb was originally considered an unconventional weapon, it had little to do with our original concept of conventional war. Our constant attempts to put war in a particular bin usually doesn't work to well. Most conflicts are hybrid, another term we wouldn't need if we accepted that all wars were hybrid to varying degrees. However, based on our insistance that we define the character of war so we can apply the appropriate answer in doctrine solution, hybrid war is a useful term to shatter the myopic approach to war.

Some links of interest:

http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/indi.../20050919.aspx

http://www.armscontrol.ru/uav/mirsad1.htm

Like any technology it can be used for a wide range of purposes. Cars and trucks serve as transportation assets that are critical to our economy and life style, but they can also be adapted as a means to deliver a large IED to a target.

http://www.uav-applications.org/

I remember years ago we were worried about terrorists using the internet, and now as predicted it is an everyday event. Terrorists will eventually employ UAVs to support/enable their operations, and most likely they'll be crude attacks, but crude attacks can still have the desired psychological impact.