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

[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.

[jmm99]

that we are at war with a number of groups (AQ-Taliban as a generalized tag), one finds it very difficult to justify direct action whether via a drone or a .338 Lapua Mag. Targeted killing cannot be justified under a pure law enforcement approach. It can be and is justified under Military Law.

[William F. Owen]

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.

This is like listening to an 8-year old (Ben Macintyre) discuss sex. The object in war is to kill the enemy. Is it "ethical" to kill the enemy? War is done by states, against states, or within states (of societies/groups constituted as such). War is killing for political purpose. Is that ethical?

Politics is what people believe to be ethical, so War is always ethical in the eyes of those setting forth the policy.

[jmm99]

HT to NRO's Weekend "The Corner", Friday, March 26, 2010, Harold Koh on Targeted Killing of Terrorists, by Ed Whelan, re: yesterday's speech to the American Society of International Law by Harold Koh, DoS Legal Adviser.

From the ASIL Press Release, as summed by NRO:

[I]t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:

- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and

- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum.…

[S]ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….[S]ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….[S]ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’

The full text is at The Obama Administration and International Law (Harold Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington, DC, March 25, 2010).

This speech surprised some because of Mr Koh's prior views (before entering the Obama Administration). E.g., see Kenneth Anderson, Bleg for Harold Koh’s ASIL Speech, vs. Kenneth Anderson, Predators Over Pakistan.

Both legal and practical aspects are covered more fully in this thread, HVTs/Political Assassination, and its many links.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Abu M. A report on a debate at the International Spy Museum, Washington DC and in particular Bruce Riedel's comments.

Link:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...e-strikes.html

[davidbfpo]

An odd story in the UK, from a Russian company:

Defence experts are warning of a new danger of ballistic weapons proliferation after a Russian company started marketing a cruise missile that can be launched from a shipping container.

Link, with animated video:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...e-bidders.html