6 ms·
Other new organizations hyped the fact that 90% of those killed were "unintended targets." But that's exactly what you'd expect when targeting officers in an in
by rhino369 11y ago
Other new organizations hyped the fact that 90% of those killed were "unintended targets." But that's exactly what you'd expect when targeting officers in an insurgency. They are going to be surrounded by foot-soldiers.
It's certainly possible that among that 90% are too many civilians, but the leaks didn't provide any evidence of that.
- superkuh 11y agoYou seem to be certain that the people targeted are actually "officers in an insurgency". After reading "The Drone Papers." stories I don't think we can take that as a given.
- rhino369 11y agoOr some sort of equivalent like al Qaeda leadership. What in the Drone Papers suggests otherwise.
- putlake 11y agoHow many civilian deaths are "too many"?
- rhino369 11y agoUnfortunately the laws of war aren't very helpful. The deaths just have to proportional to the military value of the target. That's a long way of saying "it depends." Killing 1 civilian might be too many to kill a foot soldier at a Taliban camp in the tribal region of Pakistan. Ten thousand might be fine if it meant saving Afghanistan from Taliban rule, as long as that as low as coalition forces could keep civilian deaths.
- shirkey 11y ago"Ten thousand might be fine if it meant saving Afghanistan from Taliban rule, as long as that as low as coalition forces could keep civilian deaths." The same thinking could then be applied to our "war or drugs" -- the killing of several thousand innocent Colombians could be easily justified in order to eradicate the cartels, albeit temporarily. Do you find that a satisfactory trade-off as well?
- gortok 11y agoI would love for you to cite where in the Drone Papers it says that the 'unintended targets' were 'foot soldiers' instead of civilians. Of course, you can't; since the military automatically classifies any "military aged males" as combatants unless it can be proved otherwise (and there's a huge conflict of interest for them both militarily and politically if they do declare they killed a non-combatant).
- rhino369 11y ago>I would love for you to cite where in the Drone Papers it says that the 'unintended targets' were 'foot soldiers' instead of civilians. I didn't imply the Drone Papers said any such thing. I said it's what you expect from a drone program. But while you are on the subject, the numbers in the Intercept piece suggest 10-20% civilians casualties in Yemn and Somalia. And it states that 70% of those occur when there is a targeting fuck up. That suggests that accurate strikes leave relatively few dead civilians.
- toyg 11y ago"When it works well, it works well". in other words: "60% of the times, it works every time".
- rhino369 11y agoHow much we screw up and hit the wrong target is a totally different question from are we killing civilians without regard for them. It's a difference between knowingly killing and accidentally killing. Legally, there is a huge difference. I'd argue morally there is too, but you can decide for yourself. That opens up a whole other debate about whether the US is reckless with the targeting. But I think it's necessary to distinguish between the two types of civilian causalities.
- cousin_it 11y agoThe accident defense is not intended to be used repeatedly...
- Zigurd 11y agoEven the intended targets are intended on the basis of tenuous guesses. An armchair guess about the nature of unintended targets is just about substance-free.
- InclinedPlane 11y agoImagine for a moment that the death toll and civilian casualty toll were exactly the same as our drone program except that instead of carrying out such killings using drones we were using remote detonated car bombs. Would that affect your judgment of the morality of the campaign?
- rhino369 11y agoNo. IED's aren't terrorism unless they are directed at civilians (or used without regard to civilian casualties). For example, most IED attacks in Iraq were not terrorism because they were aimed at US troops.
- alttab 11y agoSo what does that say about the people we are supposedly droning, relative to our own moral standard? Seemingly we are equals.
- marcosdumay 11y agoWell, fist, US media does not seem to agree that "most IED attacks in Iraq were not terrorism because they were aimed at US troops". Then, what's the difference? The fact that some people in an office at another country decided that a building has military relevance, instead of PR relevance? Ok, some targets are clearly military. But lots of them aren't. And there's a huge amount of overlap between those "military, because we said so" targets and what most groups labeled as "terrorists" target.
- aqme28 11y agoThis is begging the question. These drone strikes seem to be used without regard for civilian casualties. Are they state-sponsored terrorism?
- ionised 11y agoYes. They've been described that way numerous times.
- 11y ago
- eanzenberg 11y agoThis was my initial thought as well and why war of this nature is so difficult. Let's say you know where a known terrorist is located. Do you send a drone or risk US/coalition soldier lives? You decide to send a drone and when its in range there are 20 other people around the area of the terrorist. Are they soldiers? Officers? Technicians? Drivers? Cooks? IT/Infrastructure engineers? Innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time? If you don't take the known terrorist out, are you willing to wait another 6-12+ months for another chance? Who's responsibility is it to determine and separate the supporters from the innocent? The attacker's push is to label them enemy, while the defender would label as innocent. It's impossibly hard to do this at a distance, so therefore, are you willing to send troops on the ground and live with US casualties? Or are you willing to let the terrorist go and risk increased turmoil in the region? Let's remember this is an extremely difficult task and job, and in the current state of affairs, I don't think there is a right answer.
- Gustomaximus 11y agoWhile I completely recognise the complexities, where there is real risk of killing innocents (or clear ongoing pattern of mistakes), this likely outcome should negate the use of that method in my opinion. There's no grey area in my mind here. It's disgusting to me that people could think its OK to accept killing civilians including children as collateral damage in occasional strikes, despite surely they are doing their best to avoid/minimise this. Even if stopping these strikes increases the risk to myself and my family I feel this is risk a moral society must accept. To do otherwise makes us terrorists too.
- notjoedimaggio 11y agoI'm guessing that the targets know this, and so surround themselves with civilians in order to complicate these decisions.
- Guthur 11y agoAnd so when a military patrol is moving down a crowded street are they surrounding themselves by civilians as well? To imply that because some "target" that is a member of a community is intentionally surrounding themselves with civilians for some sort of protection is a little disingenuous in my opinion.