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?Originally Posted by davidbfpo
Levi: Keep posting. We need new guys around here. I for one am bored with me.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
let's cool down
First of all, Yemen is not as white as it looks like:
http://waronterrornews.typepad.com/h...errorists.htmlYemen 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.
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)
Then back to the topic: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.
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).
Well then
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.
Hey Marc & Levi
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:
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.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. ....
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):
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).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 ?
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).
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.2. How do we define and distinguish the members of the "armed force" of a group of TVNSAs ?
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.
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.3. What was Al-Awlaki ?
Naji, in his Management of Savagery (pp.57-59), explains AQ "officer selection" and their role in "targeting":
Naji says much more than this brief taste.[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.
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
Last edited by jmm99; 10-05-2011 at 05:11 PM.
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,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
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?
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
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?
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).
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.
Last edited by motorfirebox; 10-06-2011 at 02:57 AM.
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.
Last edited by carl; 10-06-2011 at 04:02 AM.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
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.
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.
“[S]omething in his tone now reminded her of his explanations of asymmetric warfare, a topic in which he had a keen and abiding interest. She remembered him telling her how terrorism was almost exclusively about branding, but only slightly less so about the psychology of lotteries…” - Zero History, William Gibson
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks