No argument.

Then the attacks in Pakistan are warcrimes. And in Yemen.

I have.

You have demonstrated proof that we are.

al-Awlaki did not qualify as a combatant under the Geneva and Hague conventions. The great majority of the "militants" being targeted in Pakistan and Yemen don't qualify as combatants. They just believe something that someone else doesn't like.

My understanding of the drone strkes is that they are very different from the block by block mass firebombing of Dresden, or the carpet-bombing of Viet Nam.  I guess you have a different understanding.  I do think the attacks in Pakistan and Yemen are acts of war.  As someone said above, there is not always a clear, bright line between acts of war and war crimes.  I'd want clear and convincing evidence before I'd charge the US with war crimes over its drone strikes.

Having said that, we ought to be winding all this down asap.  I think we're doing that, at least as far as US boots on the ground.  And I hope we're winding down the drone strikes.

Yes, we have targeted some individuals who are not, or may not be, combatants.  But I don't think this is as clearcut as in the case of traditional wars between nations.  I notice that neither Pakistan, nor Afghanistan, nor Yemen, nor Al Qaeda has hauled us up before the UN or the International Criminal Court, nor any other body, and charged us with war crimes.

"I don't like it" is not enough detailed rebuttal for me. But thank you.

I understand your opinion, as stated previously and again now.

Couldn't be because every nation on Earth is quite aware that the ICC and World Court have absolutely no power when it comes to dealing with the bully that is the USA?

Great idea. Like taking a mafia don into small claims court and hoping he won't get pissed off and kill you and all your family.

That is what the USA is to a large part of the world today.

As recently as summer 2012 I was watching Predator, Reaper, Dragon Lady, and Global Hawk operations (I have a fondness for the Dragon Lady, the design is older then I am), I have been on a contract break since mid-Sept 2012. Don't see them daily, but average bi-monthly access for what I was doing. Frequently saw support operations.

Edit: and the support was not always for US troops, we have some allies still.

I fixed it right after I noticed the error, I cut too much out of the quote section and messed it up. Fixed, my apologizes for the error.

Then it's left to each country, entity and individual to decide for himself what is and is not a war crime.  America's drone strikes, not against Afghanistan, Pakistan or Yemen, but within Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, against terrorist 3rd parties, don't amount to war crimes, imo.  Maybe when those countries grow some balls and publicly refuse to allow US overflights, and the US ignores them and contnues its drone war in those countries, it would look more like war crimes.  But the "victim" nations have to speak up.

I don't see any hypocrisy.  Yes, you can disagree with Obama's position on gun violence and his position on drone usage.  But they're not hypocritical.

1.  We happen to be in a war here.  It's not a conventional war, it's an asymetrical war.  The enemy doesn't wear uniforms.  And it's not confined to one country.  But it's still a war.  That's one reason it's different.  The use of drones isn't the same as gun control.

Do you think it's hypocritcal for the police to use deadly force against criminals who are killing people (such as a SWAT team sniper taking down someone who is killing hostages)?  Well, in a war (assuming it's a just war), we end up killing people either to prevent further bloodshed or to achieve national aims of some sort.

2.  There's actually tremendous alignment.  Here's is what would be hypocrisy:  if the administration allowed domestic ownership and use of armed drones but were to ban or severely restrict all form of hand guns and long guns.  That would be hypocrisy.  Just like I think it's hypocrisy to allow assault weapons but ban RPGs, LAWs, plastique and heavy weaponry.  If the rationale is we need to be prepared to overthrow a fascist government or an attack by a heavily armed drug gang, than how does one justify prohibiting the purchase of anti-tank weapons or claymores mortars with white phosphorus?

3.  I think Pakistani lives matter.  But the reality is that any nation (not just the US) focuses more on their own people (or at least they should).   Other than possibly Syria and North Korea, I defy you to find a nation on the planet where their leadership cares more about the people in another country then they do their own.  And almost every country on the planet focuses more on their own needs than they do of surrounding countries.  That's not hypocrisy.

4.  And actually, the drones reduce collateral damage.  Quite simply, for a wide range of reasons, drones reduce the number of innocents and civilians who are killed or wounded.  I won't even get into the concept of a righteous war....and compare the numbers of innocents killed by jihadi suicide bombers or car bombs.

Now again, I think there are lots of areas to criticize Obama on guns.  Or on drones.  But to argue that the drone policy is hypocritical compared to the gun violence stands seems a real stretch to me.

Ed

The Pakistani government acts two-faced: It criticizes the US for violating its sovereignty, yet happily takes American money to line their own coffers. That kind of hypocrisy enrages the Pakistani people against the government and may well lead to an overthrow in the next few years, similar to what happened in Iran in 1979 and in Egypt two years ago. Maybe the military will take over again (best case scenario for the US), maybe theocratic forces will seize power (worst case).

In both instances (Iran, Egypt) the massive US intelligence community saw no signs of an immiment revolution whatsoever - a few weeks later the respective dictators were disposed of and replaced with Islamist leaders that were decidedly unfriendly towards the US. That's why the unstable situation in Pakistan poses a grave threat to security in the region, the country could topple quickly if things come to a head. Unfortunately this threat tied to the American drone war doesn't seem to influence US actions on Pakistani soil much.

America once again acts short-sighted, just like it did when it supported and propped the Shah in Iran, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan back in the days.

Agreed, totally.  Regarding Iran, it was pointed out sardonically that, although we had a "listening post" in Teheran, we evidently couldn't hear the footsteps of the student revolutionaries running toward the gates of our embassy.  Some listening post.

As for the countries where we are employing drones, not one of them has flat-out prohibited US drone activity.  They're evidently conflicted:  They object on principle to the intrusion into their airspace, but the don't really mind that we're decimating Al Qaeda and similar groups; and, of course, they're slurping up the foreign aid we're providing them with.  So, their "objections" have all the force of the useless arm-waving of referees in professional wrestling.

Still, it would be interesting to see what would happen if Karzai, for example, simply forbade all US drone activity in Afghan territory.  Would the Obama administration treat Afghanistan like the sovereign nation that it supposedly is, and cease all drone strikes?  Or would it continue the drone strikes, and expose the reality:  the Karzai administration is merely a sock-puppet for Washington.

The point I was making repeatedly in this thread is that being or appearing to be a sock puppet of the US in front of their own populace has been the downfall and kiss of death for many governments that were propped by the US. Iran is merely the most drastic example, because it was such a quick, radical shift from a devoutly pro-American dictator to an America-hating theocracy.

Pakistan being the only country in the world where a majority of the people would have wanted Mitt Romney to win the US Presidency should tell you just how much they hate the US - and President Obama and his drone warfare in particular. Generally Obama is considerably better liked than any Republican politicians, especially his predecessor - but that ain't so in Pakistan.

It's a shame about Iran.  Iranian anti-American animus is a case of America's chickens coming home to roost.  The Iranian people were never particularly anti-Western.  Culturally and linguistically, Iranians have more in common with the West than with the Middle East.  If the US had not long supported the hated Shah, Iranian Islam today would probably be of the moderate variety that one finds in Turkey or Indonesia, and Iran would not be the dangerous, near-nuclear enemy to the US that it is.  But thanks to US support for the Shah, America is the "Great Satan."

In the 1950s through 1970s, the US supported anyone who was, or claimed to be, anti-Communist, including some truly bloodthirsty dictators, who tortured and mass-murdered their own people.  Well, we defeated the Communists.  But now we've got people all over the world who hate us with a passion.  Those chickens always come home to roost.

Unfortunately very few American voters realize that, which is why every administration gets away with continuing those same policies that will inadvertedly cause blowback in the future.

9-11 was blowback. Instead of reflecting on a foreign policy that provided the seeds for this attack, the country went on a killing spree that further antagonized the Muslim world against the West. Bush wasted a historical opportunity in 2001, to such an extent that history for many decades to come will judge him relentlessly for it. In a time of crisis the country was led by a Buchanan when it needed a Lincoln.


As for Iran, their nuclear programme started right around the time when the Bush government declared them part of the axis of evil - and proceeded to invade and dispose of the other government in that axis that didn't have nukes. The ones that did, the North Koreans, were left alone.

Of course Iran wants nukes - they have become a matter of national security and a matter of national pride across all aisles (it's actually one of the few policies that the opposition agrees with the theocracy) - and the US has nothing but its own failed foreign policy to blame for it.

The options we have at this point are getting progressively worse.

This is misinformation and is likely the reason for your confusion.

Unfortunately, the great majority of drone strikes currently are not support operations.  State, DOD and the CIA all admit that.

Those nations have ALL told the US they are denied overflight. Have all publicly protested the strikes against their civilians. The US does ignore them and continue.

The big bully in the tea shop is the United States of America.

A little quick Wiki research shows that Pakistan, at least, has publicly protested US drone strikes, while the Pakistani military has tacitly agreed to them, even providing a base.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

I agree that the US is the bully in the tea shop, pushing nations around with our financial and political might.  But it's still up to those nations to draw a line in the sand, and to declare war on the US if that line is crossed, or at least level charges of aggressive war with an international body.  But they don't.  What's going on is that we're NOT making war against the countries, but against militant factions WITHIN those countries.  And the governments of those countries opt to close one eye to it, if not both eyes.

Did USA ever declare this, which is Americas longest War [so far]?



[ hypocracy, Hypocrisy]

So, declare war against the ONLY nation on Earth to use nuclear weapons in warfare?

Really? Are you fucking nuts?

Drop the good guy routine. The USA isn't the good guy in the world today. The USA is the mafia don that extorts, bullies, attacks and who no one can publicly oppose too vehemently without being killed.

Easy, Al.  I'm much in agreement.  But power never concedes except to a demand.  And militarily weaker forces have defeated superior forces over and over in history, by the judicious use of non-military influence.  The heads of state of countries where our drones are operating need to say "Get out!"  And force us to openly refuse.  They need to reveal to the US voters the hypocrisy of our government...you know, the government that we elected into power.  Then maybe we'll vote the war faction out, vote in Ron Paul or somebody like him, and THEN the drones will stand down.  But the countries need to make up their minds that they really want the drones out.

The hypocrisy of the US Government is open to the world to see. And US Voters. But most US Voters (just look at the absurd defenses of the USA on these boards for their actions against civilians in Pakistan and Yemen, their actions against US citizens, the defense of American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, etc.) don't want to see it.

Wasn't this the plot of one of the Snoopy and the Red Baron novelty songs?

Ah, the chivalry of warriors.

Read "Thunderbolt" by Robert Johnson, a WWII American ace. He talks about getting in a fierce fight with a very capable Focke-Wulf 190 pilot. Johnson finally shot up his opponent's plane, circled back around, and as the German pilot climbed out of the cockpit to bail, Johnson's 50-cals put him right back in, because Johnson didn't want that good of an enemy pilot to be flying again.

Or the whole WWII Pacific theater. The Japanese didn't care much for surrendering. They saw it as disgraceful. So not only did they almost never surrender, but they mistreated those who did. So it became very much a kill-or-be-killed warfare style between the Japanese troops and mostly Marines.

I was too late for Vietnam. I merely served with Vietnam vets. Not much humanity there in that conflict, according to them.

Drones are another way of bringing the battle. They lessen friendly risk, and they can improve the precision of armaments with video feed. I'd rather have a drone sending back feeds of a suspected house before dropping explosive on it than putting down a carpet from 40,000 feet.

Actually, they INCREASE friendly risk, by creating more enemies, and "lag" means that the claim of improving precision is just plain false. An Apache is significantly more accurate than any drone.

We can put a lot more drones up, and in more places, and with less risk to pilots and gunners, than Apaches.

What would be hypocritical would be if Obama claimed to be a Quaker and then authorized killing.   Now you can argue if the administration's actions against gun violence make sense (pros and cons for those arguments) and if drone strikes (as they're currently configured) make sense (again, pros and cons).  But the two don't seem contradictory to me.

1.  Absolutely the President is saying US lives are different from Afghan and Pakistani lives.  Absolutely.  And if you disagree with that position, than are you in favor of the US making Afghan and Pakistani individuals eligible for social security?  in-state tuition?  Extending the right to vote?  Provide full coverage of US laws to these foreign nationals?  Replacing the US military with police forces and requiring search warrants (or probably cause) before they enter a building to search for explosives or look for a jihadi?

It's true that a human is a human is a human is a human.  But it's also true that you start by focusing on your own country.  It's true that practically every country on this planet places a priority on it's own citizenry first (and the exceptions are really countries that simply ignore their citizenry so they don't hold anyone with any high regard or special focus).  Obama isn't trying to stop gun violence in Afghanistan and Pakistan.  In fact, in some areas of Afghanistan, we've intentionally aided gun violence by giving out arms to civilians (to set up militia or organized civilian protection).  We did the same in Iraq under the surge.

2.  I'm not going to be one who argues that the war in AfPak is "surgical" or clean.  The American public is amazingly naive about modern war, really doesn't have a freaking clue about how it's fought.  But one of the realities was that the US in Afghanistan in the early stages of the war was overly dependent upon air strikes and artillery.  This was one of the consequences of a war that had no strategic and tactical direction:  troops tended to hunker down in FOPs and called in artie when they saw targets.  When McChrystal took, he made it clear that US strategy in AfPak was changing.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing there was less killing and the war was suddenly more humane--that's not how wars are fought.  But McChrystal effectively made it much harder for the military to call in air strikes and artillery.  He made a conscious decision to turn the war into a special operations/small unit fight and raise the requirements for heavy weaponry to be called in.  B/c when you're using any kind of heavy weaponry, the chances of collateral damage are much greater.

3.  Al is right--there tend not to be a lot of unintentional casualties from drone strikes.  Sometimes the civilians are the targets (you'd need to read more information about drone targeting policy to understand what he means with that statement).  If unintended civilian casualties are your concern, then drones tend to be a more effective weapon than artillery or even smart bombs.

4.  Ultimately the drone issue is misplaced.  Drones are sexy and they get our attention.  Far more people get killed from boots on the ground.  I bet you'd find that every day in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are individuals who are killed b/c they don't slow up approaching a check point (and so the rules of engagement authorize treating them as a suicide bomber).  Not as sexy as a drone strike but just as dead.  And the vast majority of the time, they aren't jihadis, just a van full with a family and probably a distracted driver.  Or a farmer with a truck trying to get to market.  Or a taxi driver in a hurry.  Or someone on a scooter/motor bike who didn't hear the command to stop or turn away.  And it's not that Obama is saying "shoot anyone" it's that these days, when you plunk down a post or camp in hostile territory, it's pretty much essential to prevent unauthorized people from getting too close (especially in a vehicle) unless you have a chance to check them out.  So on nearly a daily basis, civilians get killed.  And that situation is true even in areas where the US is not formally at war but we have a military presence and need to protect the security of the troops (like Mali).

Ed

Al, I think what a lot of people don't get is that a substantial military presence tends to produce an increase in nationalism which effectively means "lets kick the infidels/crusaders/American running dog imperialists out of our country" even if we originally went there with good intentions.  That's not unique to drones.  Drones have less of a footprint than if we had a couple of battalions of rangers stationed in Pakistan as they jumped around the country hitting targets in Pakistan.  But ultimately it's foolish to distinguish between drones and other military means.

The US still doesn't really get how to respond to a insurgency.  We're still about very much about a big footprint and presence and setting up bases and facilities, massive programs, body counts.  We've added more of a special operations tool now and drones add an ability to loiter relatively covertly that is a huge asset.  But it all tends to push the nationalism button and make a lot of enemies.  Thus Rumsfield's comment about we're growing them faster than we can kill them.

Ed

And kill more innocents, commit more war crimes, make more enemies...

Gee, the opportunities are endless...

Friggin' Marines - only thing they understand is breaking stuff... which is why they are kept away from unconventional warfare if we are to have any chance of winning.

You can do that with any weapon. The drones are simply another weapon. Every weapon has advantages and disadvantages, risks and benefits. So do the drones. You balance that stuff in deciding which weapon(s) to use.

Sure, train a warrior force in readiness. Then when all else fails, criticize them for fighting too well.

Incidentally, the USMC was a pioneer in UAV's.

No, it's not unique to drones, but I disagree that it is foolish to distinguish between drones and other means. That Ranger sees the people he kills, he sees the bodies. It's real, not some video game on a big screen TV. He smells their fear, sees their reactions, hears their voices.

There are people in the US that get it. And have done it very, very well. Unfortunately, pretty much the only time that the Pentagon lets them do it is when Congress limits boots on the ground.

And we've been steadily degrading our special operations ability to deal with unconventional warfare by committing more and more SOF assets to direct action missions and away from "train, advise and assist".

Today, less than 20% of US Army Special Forces teams are involved in working in the field they are uniquely qualified to work in. NAVSPECWAR, MARSOC, the Rangers, the Special Operations Squadrons, the 160th SOAR - none of them do that work.

Demonstrating EXACTLY what I was noting.

Breaking shit isn't what war is actually about.

Read Sun Tzu or Clauswitz.

Or just study the differences between how MacArthur handled the Southern Pacific and the Marines handled the Central Pacific.