6 ms·

We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East

79 points by nkurz 11y ago

eevilspock 11y ago
“Imagine If This Was Happening to Us”
- noir_lord 11y ago
  If a foreign power blew up my wedding with a drone strike because they thought someone there was on their watch list (correctly or not) I'd be likely to take up arms against them. I don't understand how anyone can think this isn't going to happen, wouldn't matter that I'm an atheist not religious or anything else either. Shit is all fucked up, We should never have gone into Iraq the second time and the case for Afghanistan while stronger was still debatable. It's fucking absurd to the point of tragedy.
- joering2 11y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if they are foreign drones flying over US soil. Probably not weaponized but I'm sure there are plenty EU/Asia/ME fugitives that are hiding in USA, so that reconnaissance drones would be fine. Its not like government of ME countries is fine with drones taking out their citizens, whether terrorist or not.. they get paid money and for sure more than just that.
user10001 11y ago
Islamic militants coming from Russia are terrorizing the Middle East. On the one hand, Putin is pretending to fight ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, he is shaking hands with ISIS sympathizer Kadyrov.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  Maybe you were trying to discuss other geo-politikal issues but I don't see this as relating to the USA's drone warware at hand.
  - user10001 11y ago
    Apparently even this site is populated with Putin's little henchmen.
Blackthorn 11y ago
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.
- jeremyt 11y ago
  You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
  - the-dude 11y ago
    I do not see why intention matters.
    - strictnein 11y ago
      Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?
      - the-dude 11y ago
        Is that so? I am not sure. Also this leads to 'I hit you because I love you' excuses. And that is all they are, excuses.
        delecti 11y ago
        Motive matters, but it isn't the final word.
    - jeremyt 11y ago
      A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people. Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?
mineshaftgap 11y ago
ISIS just needs a hug, then they'll join modernity.
md224 11y ago
Ah, a political thread. Who wants to place bets on how fast this gets flagged off the front page? :P EDIT: And there it goes.
- hellbanner 11y ago
  By whom, the USA's department of war?
- jdubs 11y ago
  This add nothings to HN.
clavalle 11y ago
I have a really hard time feeling bad for people that join the military that get upset that they have to kill people.
- noir_lord 11y ago
  There is a great deal of difference between joining the military because you want a career and to defend your country (for example joining the Japanese Defence Force) and joining other militaries. It is perhaps naive to join the US or UK military and not expect to deployed to fight in often pointless wars with no clear strategic goals beyond "something must be done, this is something ergo we must do it". That said the entire PR effort of both militaries is around serving your country and been the "good guy", it's not until you are inside the factory you see how the sausage is made, remember most of us aren't 18-19 year old kids often from a poor background. Lots of people do things I think are strange (going to a cold stone building to worship a being who most likely doesn't exist, blowing yourself up because a man who claims a better of understanding of being who probably doesn't exist than you says so etc etc).
- Blackthorn 11y ago
  The military is the only way out of really bad living situations for some, including a number of friends I've made in life. I'd say that that means there should be other ways of doing public service and escaping your roots for it, but there's nothing like the military for that in the USA.
throwaway4728 11y ago
Dumb political topic, inflammatory headline, link to Salon. (Though I suppose the third implies the first two.) I know the right answer is "flag and move on", which I mostly do with these types of articles, but jeez. This has been happening a lot recently. The HN front page has seriously gotten a lot worse just over the past few months.
ourmandave 11y ago
I'd read that ISIS beheading videos we're for recruiting (besides proving that they'll kill if you don't pay the ransom). But I wondered why anyone would want to join an organization that does that. I guess having your wedding hellfire-missiled might be a motivator.
Joeri 11y ago
To be fair, this is an international war. It's not the U.S. that's fighting ISIL, it's NATO. I doubt the drone strikes help things, but when you look at what ISIL does it would be equally wrong to stand by and let it happen. There are no easy answers on what should be done in conflicts like these. I'm pretty sure drones are the wrong answer, but I don't know what a better one would be. Maybe as a species we just haven't developed the right ethical code to avoid getting into these horrible messes, because in one form or another they keep returning. It's always war somewhere.
jkraker 11y ago
I don't think anyone would argue that at least some of these individuals who are targeted are really bad people who are trying to do orders of magnitude more damage other populations. So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? The US has settled on killing them with drones as the "best" solution and its leaders I think truly believe that this minimizes collateral damage. Is there a better course of action besides just letting these people work toward their horrific goals? I think that history has proven that you can't just leave people like this alone and expect them to chill out, so what do you do?
- Blackthorn 11y ago
  > So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants? It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).
  - jkraker 11y ago
    I feel like it's more war than assassination. I may be looking at it incorrectly though.
  - bainsfather 11y ago
    Yitzhak Rabin's - his assassin succeeded in halting the peace process Rabin was leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin
    - dogma1138 11y ago
      No it didn't, the peace process continued even under the "right wing" government which was elected after wards. It crumbled for many reasons but the assassination wasn't one of them.
  - omonra 11y ago
valvar 11y ago
I find that pieces like this one skewer the debate. The debate should be about war and the use of force, not drones. What's the alternative to drones? It's either boots on the ground, or not waging war. I think a lot of people, including myself, would prefer the latter. But if we're choosing between boots on the grounds, and drones, we should look at the facts. I don't have them at hand, but I have a strong suspicion that drones are the better option if you care for the people, both American and native. If you abolish the drones but continue the war, that's not a particularly desirable result. So let's focus on the negatives of war in general, not the negatives of a particularly effective technology that it can be waged with. I think the aspect of operators' mental health which the article brought up was very important, though. These people are soliders, but are they treated as such? Why are they not given more support? Why are they not selected more carefully and given better psychological training beforehand? It's a budget question, of course, but it still desperately needs to be addressed.

79 points by nkurz 11y ago

eevilspock 11y ago

“Imagine If This Was Happening to Us”

noir_lord 11y ago
If a foreign power blew up my wedding with a drone strike because they thought someone there was on their watch list (correctly or not) I'd be likely to take up arms against them. I don't understand how anyone can think this isn't going to happen, wouldn't matter that I'm an atheist not religious or anything else either. Shit is all fucked up, We should never have gone into Iraq the second time and the case for Afghanistan while stronger was still debatable. It's fucking absurd to the point of tragedy.
joering2 11y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if they are foreign drones flying over US soil. Probably not weaponized but I'm sure there are plenty EU/Asia/ME fugitives that are hiding in USA, so that reconnaissance drones would be fine. Its not like government of ME countries is fine with drones taking out their citizens, whether terrorist or not.. they get paid money and for sure more than just that.

user10001 11y ago

Islamic militants coming from Russia are terrorizing the Middle East. On the one hand, Putin is pretending to fight ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, he is shaking hands with ISIS sympathizer Kadyrov.

hellbanner 11y ago
Maybe you were trying to discuss other geo-politikal issues but I don't see this as relating to the USA's drone warware at hand.
- user10001 11y ago
  Apparently even this site is populated with Putin's little henchmen.

Blackthorn 11y ago

I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.

jeremyt 11y ago
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate and unavoidable collateral damage?
- the-dude 11y ago
  I do not see why intention matters.
  - strictnein 11y ago
    Motive is important in how we judge almost everything in life. Why would this be any different?
    - the-dude 11y ago
      Is that so? I am not sure. Also this leads to 'I hit you because I love you' excuses. And that is all they are, excuses.
      - delecti 11y ago
        Motive matters, but it isn't the final word.
  - jeremyt 11y ago
    A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths. Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000 people. Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same punishment?

mineshaftgap 11y ago

ISIS just needs a hug, then they'll join modernity.

md224 11y ago

Ah, a political thread. Who wants to place bets on how fast this gets flagged off the front page? :P EDIT: And there it goes.

hellbanner 11y ago
By whom, the USA's department of war?
jdubs 11y ago
This add nothings to HN.

clavalle 11y ago

I have a really hard time feeling bad for people that join the military that get upset that they have to kill people.

noir_lord 11y ago
There is a great deal of difference between joining the military because you want a career and to defend your country (for example joining the Japanese Defence Force) and joining other militaries. It is perhaps naive to join the US or UK military and not expect to deployed to fight in often pointless wars with no clear strategic goals beyond "something must be done, this is something ergo we must do it". That said the entire PR effort of both militaries is around serving your country and been the "good guy", it's not until you are inside the factory you see how the sausage is made, remember most of us aren't 18-19 year old kids often from a poor background. Lots of people do things I think are strange (going to a cold stone building to worship a being who most likely doesn't exist, blowing yourself up because a man who claims a better of understanding of being who probably doesn't exist than you says so etc etc).
Blackthorn 11y ago
The military is the only way out of really bad living situations for some, including a number of friends I've made in life. I'd say that that means there should be other ways of doing public service and escaping your roots for it, but there's nothing like the military for that in the USA.

throwaway4728 11y ago

Dumb political topic, inflammatory headline, link to Salon. (Though I suppose the third implies the first two.) I know the right answer is "flag and move on", which I mostly do with these types of articles, but jeez. This has been happening a lot recently. The HN front page has seriously gotten a lot worse just over the past few months.

ourmandave 11y ago

I'd read that ISIS beheading videos we're for recruiting (besides proving that they'll kill if you don't pay the ransom). But I wondered why anyone would want to join an organization that does that. I guess having your wedding hellfire-missiled might be a motivator.

Joeri 11y ago

To be fair, this is an international war. It's not the U.S. that's fighting ISIL, it's NATO. I doubt the drone strikes help things, but when you look at what ISIL does it would be equally wrong to stand by and let it happen. There are no easy answers on what should be done in conflicts like these. I'm pretty sure drones are the wrong answer, but I don't know what a better one would be. Maybe as a species we just haven't developed the right ethical code to avoid getting into these horrible messes, because in one form or another they keep returning. It's always war somewhere.

jkraker 11y ago

I don't think anyone would argue that at least some of these individuals who are targeted are really bad people who are trying to do orders of magnitude more damage other populations. So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? The US has settled on killing them with drones as the "best" solution and its leaders I think truly believe that this minimizes collateral damage. Is there a better course of action besides just letting these people work toward their horrific goals? I think that history has proven that you can't just leave people like this alone and expect them to chill out, so what do you do?

Blackthorn 11y ago
> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that person? Honest question: has assassination ever actually been effective at effecting the political change the assassin wants? It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is, feel free to correct me on that).
- jkraker 11y ago
  I feel like it's more war than assassination. I may be looking at it incorrectly though.
- bainsfather 11y ago
  Yitzhak Rabin's - his assassin succeeded in halting the peace process Rabin was leading. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin
  - dogma1138 11y ago
    No it didn't, the peace process continued even under the "right wing" government which was elected after wards. It crumbled for many reasons but the assassination wasn't one of them.
- omonra 11y ago

valvar 11y ago

I find that pieces like this one skewer the debate. The debate should be about war and the use of force, not drones. What's the alternative to drones? It's either boots on the ground, or not waging war. I think a lot of people, including myself, would prefer the latter. But if we're choosing between boots on the grounds, and drones, we should look at the facts. I don't have them at hand, but I have a strong suspicion that drones are the better option if you care for the people, both American and native. If you abolish the drones but continue the war, that's not a particularly desirable result. So let's focus on the negatives of war in general, not the negatives of a particularly effective technology that it can be waged with. I think the aspect of operators' mental health which the article brought up was very important, though. These people are soliders, but are they treated as such? Why are they not given more support? Why are they not selected more carefully and given better psychological training beforehand? It's a budget question, of course, but it still desperately needs to be addressed.