WSJ - American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

I'm afraid this does highlight the somewhat indiscriminate nature of drone strikes. Without spotters or good local intel it's very difficult to know exactly who you missile is going to hit.

I wonder if it was mis-information and they used our drone to execute them.

Oafman said:

I'm afraid this does highlight the somewhat indiscriminate nature of drone strikes. Without spotters or good local intel it's very difficult to know exactly who you missile is going to hit.

Click to expand...

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I find it odd that this topic is always brought up in connection to drones. The German populace has developed such strong antipathies towards the word that they are staunchly supporting the development of military unmanned vehicles, instead favoring a "traditional" airforce.

I just don't understand it - is there any reason as to why drone strikes are more prone to produce collateral damage than manned bombers? Or does it have to do with the belief that drones are more eager to be employed, whereas actual manned bombing campaings would be subject to stricter risk-benefit analysis?

Senator Cheese said:

While I wholeheartedly agree with you, I find it odd that this topic is always brought up in connection to drones. The German populace has developed such strong antipathies towards the word that they are staunchly supporting the development of military unmanned vehicles, instead favoring a "traditional" airforce.

I just don't understand it - is there any reason as to why drone strikes are more prone to produce collateral damage than manned bombers? Or does it have to do with the belief that drones are more eager to be employed, whereas actual manned bombing campaings would be subject to stricter risk-benefit analysis?

Click to expand...

I don't suppose drone weaponry is any less accurate than that from manned aircraft, and I also don't suppose pilots see much more than drone operators, given how far away from the target they tend to be these days when they release their weapons.

I think your last line is right. Drones can operate anywhere, no matter how dangerous the territory, seeing as the only risk is the loss of hardware. Such places are inevitably also where you have less good intelligence, eg no SF on the ground identifying targets and pointing lasers at them etc, so it's harder to be sure that a wedding party hasn't just turned up at the house you're targeting.

I have no conceptual problem with drones. We just need to ensure we apply the same burden of proof and risk analysis as we would with any other weapon. The problem is that this hasn't been the case; the double tap strikes are a nasty idea which regularly kill civilians. And so called 'signature strikes' - when someone shows the signature of being a militant, but their identity is unknown, are just way too indiscriminate.

So what's a signature behavior? "The definition is a male between the ages of 20 and 40," former ambassador to Pakistan Cameron Munter told the Daily Beast's Tara McKelvey. "My feeling is one man's combatant is another man's -- well, a chump who went to a meeting." The New York Times quoted a senior State Department official as saying that when the CIA sees "three guys doing jumping jacks," the agency thinks it is a terrorist training camp.

Click to expand...

Oafman said:

I don't suppose drone weaponry is any less accurate than that from manned aircraft, and I also don't suppose pilots see much more than drone operators, given how far away from the target they tend to be these days when they release their weapons.

I think your last line is right. Drones can operate anywhere, no matter how dangerous the territory, seeing as the only risk is the loss of hardware. Such places are inevitably also where you have less good intelligence, eg no SF on the ground identifying targets and pointing lasers at them etc, so it's harder to be sure that a wedding party hasn't just turned up at the house you're targeting.

I have no conceptual problem with drones. We just need to ensure we apply the same burden of proof and risk analysis as we would with any other weapon. The problem is that this hasn't been the case; the double tap strikes are a nasty idea which regularly kill civilians. And so called 'signature strikes' - when someone shows the signature of being a militant, but their identity is unknown, are just way too indiscriminate.

Click to expand...

One thing I've realized is how insensitive I've become to war and operations against terror. I didn't care at all about ongoing operations by the US military because I always perceived the situation to be an "us versus them" kind of black-and-white fight. To an extent, I still share that sentiment in that I have no sympathies with terrorists at all (no matter what your cause is, the moment that you intentionally kill civillians, you've lost your right to speak).

What I never realized was the scope and magnitude of civillian casualties. I initially figured that numbers were likely to be blown out of proportion by political forces (i.e. how Hamas dominated the social media aspect of the last Gaza war by inflating numbers) and that many of the so-called "children" were likely to be juvenile supporters (again, see Hamas).
Judging by the various articles on the topic and the interviews of senior intelligence officials, something does seem to be going spectacularly awry.

It makes me wonder how professionals in the military and intelligence community can be so wrong on their decisions - it must occur to them that any civillian casualty is likely to spark uproar and further destabilize cooperations - let alone the entire aspect of promoting ethically responsible actions.

The question is what pressure leads to these "bad calls" - is it financial, in the sense that drone strikes ultimately fiscally justify further drone strikes ("need for successful eliminations")? Is it political, in the sense that "something must be done" to appease voters? Is it part of a larger strategy to intimidate the public? Or is it "simply" human error, coupled with a mentality in which civillian casualties are worth much, much less than the elimination of a foreign threat?

I don't think our military leaders are incompetent. I've met a few high ranking US military commanders and they seemed very, very, very intelligent and had a great understanding for making decisions (both were retired and worked in the private sector, but with great success).


That said, I leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4NRJoCNHIs