Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[William F. Owen]

It's excessively difficult to break the enemy's will by killing under such conditions. KIA can be replaced and the fight can go on.
I already explained why I don't believe in a sustained higher KIA rate than replacement rate in this conflict.

It is difficult, but not excessively so. I just depends how good you are at doing it. If you do not have enough troops with the right training, it may actually be impossible - so you are out of the Warfare business altogether - the reason why NATO is hand-wringing over EBO/Influence Operations is not because they are proven more effective, but they are not prepared to commit and risk the resources to do what is known to work.

The will needs to be broken by other means. The overall situation needs to become hopeless. High casualties that can be replaced are no indicator for hopelessness.

What "other means" break will? Persuasion and negotiation do not "break will" - Breaking of will means a decision forced upon you, via violence or the effects of violence. How do you make a situation hopeless without killing or threatening to kill?

A radio series of a very high-ranking and charismatic cleric who explains that god doesn't influence wars - neither in favour nor against Muslim fighters - might be more helpful than 20,000 dead TB.

OK, all good. Essentially it's their leadership telling them to desist from violence. How do you force him to say that?

By the way; the decisive factor that lead to Carthago's defeat in the 2nd Punic War was the defection of their Nubian allies. The war was won by diplomacy long before Scipio was capable of doing so by force.

...and Nubians changed sides why? Political conditions set by violence.

Seriously, what is the argument here? What in Clausewitz's basic dictum is incorrect? Diplomacy and warfare are closely related, yet utterly distinct from each other.

Killing the enemy's armed force may be very difficult and hard to do. If you lack the ability to do it well, then it's useless. If you are skilled and committed, then it is never counter-productive, given a strategic aim that can be obtained via violence, and that aim is worth the price of the resources needed.

[S-2]

"You must appreciate, we really do not like the government forces coming up into our territory; but you we do not mind, because you are here for revenge...and revenge we understand."

Yeah, vendetta runs strong in dem dar hills but, as you said, that was a while ago. Ms. Taj says the tribals feel squeezed between the army and the militants. She suggests the Pakistani army slings a lot more hardware without regard than the drones might ever do.

Of course, we wouldn't know as the ISPR has put the press damper on every op from Bajaur, SWAT/Buner, S. Waziristan and into Orakzai now. No way to tell.

Anyway, great quote.

Thanks.

[davidbfpo]

Leaving aside the timing of the story, an interesting development reported by the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8527268.stm

The Israeli Air Force has introduced a fleet of pilotless aircraft that can stay in the air for nearly a day and fly as far as the Gulf.

[davidbfpo]

Regarding my post No.31 on an opinion poll in the FATA, thanks to S-2 for fully identifying the research and I've now found that the polling appeared on another thread far earlier in 2009:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6801

That thread has more details on the polling if it helps the discussion.

[William F. Owen]

Leaving aside the timing of the story, an interesting development reported by the BBC:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/8527268.stm

IT was announced 5 years ago!! I've touched the damn thing 4 years ago and walked all around it. This is an old, old story. - You can even see it on Wikipedia 3 years ago.

[davidbfpo]

Clearly the BBC editorial team need to be asked - why publicise now this old news? Very odd given the Dubai furore at the moment.

[davidbfpo]

A short paper The Year of the Drone: An Analysis of U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan, 2004-2010 by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann, which appears on: http://counterterrorism.newamerica.n...iedemann_0.pdf

My web access defences inserted the Privoxy Force text, so readers may need to access the website as:http://counterterrorism.newamerica.ne

Within I noted:

In total, between 100 and 150 Westerners are believed to have traveled to the FATA in 2009.25 So far, however, none of these militants has been able to carry out an attack in the West.

The paper concludes:

The drone attacks in the tribal regions seem to remain the only viable option for the United States to take on the militants based there who threaten the lives of Afghans, Pakistanis, and Westerners alike.

[Pete]

Ben Macintyre of The Times of London argues that American drone strikes are a de facto policy of state-sponsored assassination. Rather than condemning the practice outright, his commentary in The Times of March 25, 2010 asks that the policy be publicly acknowledged and justified as a legitimate policy instrument.

President Obama has ordered more drone strikes on terrorist targets in his first year in office than President Bush did in two terms. Of the 99 drone attacks carried out in Pakistan since 2004, 89 occurred after January 2008; last year there were a record 50 drone strikes, up from 31 the year before.

America’s preferred euphemism is “targeted killing”; on the ground the procedure is called “find, fix and finish”. The Obama Administration prefers the term “elimination” to “assassination”, yet that is what is taking place.

The CIA’s targeted killings may be justified on legal, ethical and practical grounds: if a gun it pointed at your head, violent self-defence is a reasonable response. The problem is that the Obama Administration has not sought to justify, or even properly acknowledge, its tactics, just as Israel has neither admitted nor defended the al-Mabhouh hit.

The entire piece can be read by clicking here.