Results 1 to 20 of 360

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    75

    Default Americans: If You Don’t Want To Get Killed By A Drone, Avoid These 4 Things!

    SWC members: I made a post at my blog today reference the debate over the use of drones, which has reached its zenith this week. I've cross-posted some of the points here from the entire post and would enjoy the intelligence discussion of all those wise folks here at Small Wars. Here's the introduction and the policy recommendations are at this link: http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=965

    "The much anticipated Department of Justice memo authorizing the use of drones to target Americans....scratch that. A white paper from the Department of Justice outlined what might be the U.S. government's position with regards to the killing of Americans via the use of unmanned drones.

    Twitter erupted with claims that this memo provided the President unprecedented powers to kill any American, anywhere, for any reason. Well, I read the memo, and I'm fairly certain that is not what it said. (I think @blakehounshell was the first to point this out.) However, in reading this memo, which may or may not exactly detail U.S. policy, I did identify four important points for Americans if they want to avoid getting a warhead to the forehead.

    Americans, if you are trying to avoid being transformed into a red mist;

    --Don't join al Qaeda outside the United States- Who knew that if you are an American and you decide to join al Qaeda that you might get smacked in the face with a Hellfire missile. Unbelievable, the nerve of the American government to hold a grudge for so long. Can you believe the Executive Branch would be willing to kill members of the terrorist organization, including American members, that committed the largest terrorist attack in history on American soil? Absolutely absurd! However, simply being a member of al Qaeda won't necessarily get a drone sortie on your hut.

    --Don't become a Senior Leader of al Qaeda overseas - Even more shocking, if you are an American citizen and you join al Qaeda, and then later, you become one of the senior leaders of that organization, you might just wake up to a mouthful of hell's fire! Unbelievable! To think that you could join a terrorist group and openly advocate for the killing of your fellow citizens, and then be so good at promoting terrorism against your homeland that you would be honored by al Qaeda with a promotion....to think you could then be killed for that promotion. I can't imagine. Who are these barbarians?

    --Don't actively plan to kill or actually attempt to kill Americans - It turns out that if you are an American and you join al Qaeda overseas and then you plan to kill or actually try to kill Americans, you could get shot in the face with a missile. Ridiculous. What right do U.S. citizens have to try and prevent terrorists from attacking them? Surely if you join al Qaeda, recruit a guy off the Internet, and then help wrap his junk with explosives before setting him off to take down an airplane over Detroit on Christmas day, you should be allowed to hide out overseas and enjoy another opportunity to try a better, more sophisticated attack against the U.S., right?

    -- Don't make it difficult to be arrested - This is where the white paper gets completely ludicrous. It seems that if the U.S. government cannot figure out a way to arrest you since you've joined al Qaeda, been promoted, tried to attack the U.S. and have been hiding in a failed state with no functioning law enforcement, they will then maybe send a drone after you. How insulting! How is this possibly fair to American terrorists that join al Qaeda?

    Unlike the folks I witnessed on Twitter suggesting this document provides the President unbounded power to kill Americans, I see the inverse - a legal opinion particularly crafted to pursue one Anwar al-Awlaki. As has been seen in other public domains, Awlaki, an American, served as the head of external operations for AQAP in Yemen (a senior leader position), was being considered for promotion to head of AQAP (a more senior position) and was actively participating in plots to attack the U.S. (See Underwear Bomber). This uniquely qualifies him for targeting according to this white paper. The question should now be: what other Americans could be legally targeted by the U.S.? Adam Gadahn maybe? The list seems to be fairly short and not expansive in the way suggested by drone conspiracy theorists.

    Drone critics - what do you want? - see policy recommendations here: http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=965

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Matrices

    My take (strictly hypothetical), from here.

    Strikes (whether drone or other air, or boots on the ground direct actions) can be divided into two catagories, depending on what is known and unknown re: the target.

    A "personality strike" is one targeting an individual whose identity and past and current activities are known. When the strike is conducted, those making the decision to engage are primarily concerned with (1) the degree of confidence that the particular individual is present; and (2) the extent of collateral damage that can be tolerated. UBL and al-Awlaki, for example.

    A "signature strike" is one targeting an individual (or individuals) whose precise identity is (precise identities are) unknown or uncertain. Instead, the individual or individuals must match a pre-identified “signature” (a behavior set) that the targeter links to terrorist activity or association.

    I expect we'll be hearing much more about "signature strikes".

    The signature strike matrix below is strictly hypothetical (presented as a quote only to set it off):

    A Signature Strike Matrix

    (1) Individual(s) Planning Attacks

    (2) Individual(s) Transporting Weapons (not incl. legal weapons ?)

    (3) Individual(s) Handling Explosives

    (4) Individual(s) in Terrorist Compound

    (5) Individual(s) in Terrorist Training Camp

    (6) Military-Age Male(s) in Known Terrorist Activity Area

    (7) Individual(s) Consorting with Known Militants

    (8) Armed Man(Men) Traveling (on foot)(in vehicles) in Terrorist-Controlled Area

    (9) Individual(s) in Suspicious Camp located in Terrorist-Controlled Area

    (10) Group(s) of Armed Men Traveling Toward Conflict Area

    (11) Individual(s) Operating a Terrorist Training Camp

    (12) Individual(s) Training to Join a Terrorist Group

    (13) Individual(s) Facilitating a Terrorist Group

    (14) Individual(s) in Terrorist Rest Facilities (Safe Houses)
    Discuss, if you wish, the plusses and minuses of the matrix as written

    - as well as

    (1) the test you would use to include a factor (e.g., "more likely than not", "reasonable certainty", "high degree of confidence", etc., etc.);

    (2) whether you would include or exclude each factor separately without considering the other factors (strict "must stand on its own" test); or would you aggregate all factors supported by some evidence, even where each such factor would not "stand on its own" ("conditional probability"); and

    (3) whether other factors should be added to the matrix.

    This doesn't require legalese.

    Regards

    Mike

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default The issue of both signature and personality strikes

    Hi Mike--

    Long time no see. I think you defined both pretty well and have a reasonable matrix for signature strikes. to me however, the issue is not one of legality but rather one of effectiveness, Both kinds of drone strikes suffer in two areas:

    Dead insurgents or terrorists who have been blown to bits cannot provide much if any intelligence. You certainly can't ask them any question so there is absoulutely no HUMINT to be gained.

    Second. there is every likelihood that these strikes - both kinds - will kill some civilian non-combatants and both combatants and non-combatants heve friends and relatives who are sure to be pissed off. so, the question then is how many more bad guys do you create with each drone strike? Do you kill more than you create? or the reverse? In other words, what are the costs v. the benefits of the program - on both issues?

    I have no moral qualms about killing bad guys with drones and even with some of what we euphemistically call collateral damage. But I do think that this tool can be and has been very over used to our detriment.

    Cheers

    JohnT

    PS The prior analysis of how not to get killed by a drone if you are an American is spot on - with the qualification in #1 that if you join AQ in the US you should not leave the country and should surrender to the FBI when they com knocking on your door. (No hellfires here but certainly a hail of bullets is most likely. )

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hey Brother Fishel,

    I've stayed in plain sight.

    from JTF

    Dead insurgents or terrorists who have been blown to bits cannot provide much if any intelligence. You certainly can't ask them any question so there is absoulutely no HUMINT to be gained.

    Second. there is every likelihood that these strikes - both kinds - will kill some civilian non-combatants and both combatants and non-combatants heve friends and relatives who are sure to be pissed off. so, the question then is how many more bad guys do you create with each drone strike? Do you kill more than you create? or the reverse? In other words, what are the costs v. the benefits of the program - on both issues?

    I have no moral qualms about killing bad guys with drones and even with some of what we euphemistically call collateral damage. But I do think that this tool can be and has been very over used to our detriment.
    Agree; except as to this: "... and has been very over used to our detriment." The "jury" is not yet in on that.

    As far as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is concerned, the first drone strike was "to our detriment" - as if that "esteemed body" gives a damn.

    Regards

    Mike

    PS to PS: "hail of bullets" - not probable, but I'll admit the possibility (e.g., Ruby Ridge). Almost all FBI arrests of terrs in US have gone off without bullets flying (several hundred cases).

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Posts
    75

    Default "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

Similar Threads

  1. War is War is Clausewitz
    By Michael C in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 421
    Last Post: 07-25-2012, 12:41 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •