5 ms·

Pakistan's deadly robots in the sky

57 points by mcantelon 16y ago

RyanMcGreal 16y ago
Title should be: "America's deadly robots in Pakistan's sky".
- drtse4 16y ago
  I don't know about upvotes, but with this title i guess that nearly 100% of HN will click...
- borism 16y ago
  Sad thing is that both governments are responsible for their operation - they fly out of Shamsi airbase and Pakistan even tried to get control over them unsuccessfully. So it's more like "America's deadly robots operated under shadow of Pakistani government against it's own people".
tokenadult 16y ago
The article does a good job of revealing the degree of superstition in that very poorly educated and isolated area. (I am referring, for example, to the claims that drones leave behind "poisonous dust," not a very likely payload at all.) If that superstition turns into hatred of America, that can't be good for United States foreign policy. Regions that are safe havens for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda include so many people who think so differently from people in the developed world that it may be very difficult to find a way to gain support for shutting down the terrorist networks. This is a bad situation all around.
- Retric 16y ago
  Being a first responder to a bomb site means you’re dealing with more than just the bomb payload. You are also breathing flecks of paint and other substances suddenly liberated into the air. IMO, they are simply describing what happens when you show up to a bombed out building and assuming the effects are from the bomb. causes a variety of ailments, from diarrhea to skin disease PS: The dust around a non explosive building demolition is also reasonably toxic.
- m0th87 16y ago
  It's not just the poor and isolated areas. Islamabad is rife with conspiracy theorists who think every mishap in Pakistan has a CIA agent involved somehow.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  This is the great issue that the US - over and over again - fails to grasp: You cannot use technology to bring a mind into agreement with your objectives. The only way to win the hearts and minds of the people in that region is to meet them face to face where they live. Talk to them, argue with them, protect them and if required kill them. They need to see you as real, your objectives as firm statements - even if they disagree - and your resolve complete. They respect the strong and the committed, they deride the weak and conflicted. This is a human war, and the only thing accomplished by flying drones around is a further separation from the people subject to their actions from the values of the people flying them. All everyone ever really wants is to have a better life for themselves and their family. Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that if you can address or improve the base of the pyramid, you can restructure the entire pyramid. You can see easily how perverse religion warps the perception by manipulating these base needs; pretending that they aren't required, or even rejecting them outright as evil. What we should be doing in Pakistan is essentially ignoring the fundamentalist nature of the region and showering them with things to address the bottom two levels of the pyramid. Yes this is a massive short term investment and yes this will cost lives. Be sure though that it is the only way for the west to win this war over the long term. Every drone bringing faceless death from the sky only prolongs it.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    This is a very popular opinion these days, but since when do we have to win the hearts and minds to win the war? What if the US just nukes every country with terrorists in it? There would hypothetically be no terrorists left, and everyone would work very hard not to be grouped in with those countires, otherwise they're going to get nuked too. It sounds crazy (and I certainly don't condone that strategy), but realize that is one of the other options. For the vast majority of history winning wars didn't rely on winning the hearts and minds of anyone, it relied on the complete destruction and subjugation of the other faction. You could say "this war is different", but it really is not. It is different than the West on West wars of the last 3 centuries, but it is no different than a lot of guerilla wars in the past. The Native Americans tried really hard to stop Americans from expanding into their land - and the US won that guerilla war by just excersizing extreme cruelty. Trying to win hearts and minds is a losing strategy against an opponent who doesn't care about that at all. The terrorists are not trying to win our hearts and minds, they are trying to kill as many Americans as possible. That makes their goals a lot easier to achieve. Can we really invade every single country that holds some people that want us dead and "meet them face to face". Hell no, that would require conquering the whole world, which is impossible even for the US. The other option is making an example of a country and dissuading every other country from allowing terrorists to exist inside their borders, lest they end up like country X or Y that was conquered by the US. Unfortunately by bungling in Iraq and forgetting about Afghanistan, the US ends up just looking weak. The reality is that the biggest obstacle to total victory is the lack of support for the level of violence required to win a war like this. The American people just won't stomach anywhere near the level of damage inflicted on the opponent in World War 1 or 2. Thus with "total domination" off of the play book, we have "ignore borders and start dropping hellfire missiles on people no matter where they are" as a the current method for dealing with people. Overall, I'd consider it far more humanitarian than the other options.
- spot 16y ago
  It's not the superstition that turns into hatred, it's the civilian casualties. This is part of a positive feedback loop: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 Even those who "think differently" understand food, medicine, education, etc. It would be quite easy to wage peace instead of war, but Obama made his choice.
  - krschultz 16y ago
    That is a false choice. If we decided tomorrow to just up and leave in a week, would you describe the aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan "peace"? Is "peace" when Americans aren't getting killed? Because the US would suffer far fewer casualities if we just bailed entirely and let the sects in Iraq duke it out amongst themselves and we let the Taliban run over Afghanistan again, but the people in those countries would suffer more. Now that we're trying to get out of these countries, further US troops are basically trading their lives for some multiple of that number in civilians lives that would be lost if we just let the countries collaspe. Take your pick, it seems to me that Obama (and Bush at the end) was choosing to lose US lives to prevent the anarchy and loss of foreign civilian lives that would result of an irresponsible exit. Arguing that we shouldn't have gone in the first place (which I think is the case) doesn't change the fact that today we are already there.
    - spot 16y ago
      Ah yes, the old "we are bombing them for their own good" argument. To answer your question directly, yes it would be more peaceful (it was more peaceful in both cases before we invaded and i expect things would settle down pretty soon after we left). More importantly, the blood would not be on our hands. And (I'll say it again) if we waged peace by providing food, medicine, education, etc we could save a lot of lives, instead of stoking the cycle of violence.
- ansible 16y ago
  When an A-10 Warthog shoots a tank with depleted uranium (DU) rounds, it definitely leaves behind poisonous dust. Sure, they're 100% wrong that the Predator weapons systems don't do that. Are we really expecting these people (who don't have Internet access and aren't War Nerd fans) to understand the differences? I'm actually a little impressed that these people even are aware of issues like that. In the old days, you'd know when the war is coming towards you. And a guy shooting someone with a gun is an easily understood event to even the most uneducated. However, in this new kind of war, you hear the buzzing of the drones, but you have no idea how far away they are (they are supposed to be hard to see). And then, occasionally (which is worse than regularly) something blows up, almost as if by magic. The Hellfire missle tops out at mach 1.3, so you're not going to hear it coming. Those people are suffering the classic stress symptoms of people living in a war zone.
Arun2009 16y ago
It's inhuman and unwise to target civilians when they are mere puppets of agents higher up in the hierarchy. It's simple, really: the US is killing Pakistanis, and when they find that their people are being culled, the likes of Faisal Shahzad will snap and go to any length to get back at the US. IMO, what we really need is a MASSIVE propaganda effort to isolate Islamist ideologues within Pakistan. Not sure how this will happen, but the parallel I have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany. If NATO along sympathetic states like India pool their resources together, I think it should be possible to buy out/instigate/support any number of revolutionaries within Pakistan who will effectively portray the Islamists as the cancer of not just Pakistan, but of mankind itself.
- pvg 16y ago
  but the parallel I have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany. That took the systematic leveling of a good chunk of Germany, just for starters. Perhaps not an optimal parallel.
  - brudgers 16y ago
    But better than Imperial Japan.
    - pvg 16y ago
      If you go by death toll, it seems by most sources, Germany fared quite a bit worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...
      - brudgers 16y ago
        My comment was regarding weapon systems deployed, as that was the subject of the article, not which pile of bodies was bigger.
  - Arun2009 16y ago
    > That took the systematic leveling of a good chunk of Germany, just for starters. The parallel was not between the specific route and methodology used, but the eventual outcome: the religious extremists must come to be viewed with the same revulsion with which the Nazis are viewed today. My point was that this can happen only through a massive propaganda campaign generously supported from outside.
alexgartrell 16y ago
We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. you're right about very beginning. The "to go to war for free" is available and applicable to both sides, and thus, after a couple of iterations would lead to cost escalation. Remember the Stinger effect on the Soviet forces 20+ years ago in Afghanistan? The same way the next couple of steps are clearly visible: 1. Pakistanis buy Stingers(or likes) 2. USA start using stealth drones (google for SkunkWorks' one already being tested in Afghanistan) 3. Pakistanis buy small [mull cart/pickup truck mountable] radar/missile automated system like Phalanx or Kashtan CIWS 4. USA improve speed/stealth of the drones, increase the range and intelligence of Hellfire ... As a result it is going to be more expensive and technologically intensive.
simplegeek 16y ago
I'm based in Pakistan and all I have to say is that this is hurting America more than anything (these guys have no idea how much hatred this is causing among Pakistanis). I mean there is this American guy who's helping people teach their kids and this American guy is a hero (and he teaches in the same dangerous zone). So I think if we need help we need it in education and etc. I've been working with Americans for last 6 years and I've found them very honest, friendly, smart & hard-working. But when I look at American foreign policy towards the region I live in I find it most disturbing. Something is seriously wrong with the current drones-policy and American's(people in charge) have no idea how wrong it is ;( But our own leaders are probably responsible for it too. Stories of current government's corruption are very common now. I mean we have a 90+ member cabinet & most of them don't know an iota about running a country. I mean I can go on and on ;( I'm currently pursuing graduate studies and most of people I meet everyday they want peace as much as you all want. We just don't know when will this terror end ;(
- zohaibr 16y ago
  The American you are talking about is Greg Mortenson?
  - simplegeek 16y ago
    Yeah, I'm sorry but I was unable to recall his name ;)
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > there is this American guy who's helping people teach their kids and this American guy is a hero And this is a far better way to wage war - to understand the enemy is not Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The enemy is ignorance, fear, superstition and religion. A dozen schools costs less to build than a drone. A hospital costs much less to operate than a military base. The friendship and understanding you earn by doing these things is much more valuable to finding terrorists than the best airborne imaging sensor. When nobody listens to them, you can also save a Hellfire or two.

57 points by mcantelon 16y ago

RyanMcGreal 16y ago

Title should be: "America's deadly robots in Pakistan's sky".

drtse4 16y ago
I don't know about upvotes, but with this title i guess that nearly 100% of HN will click...
borism 16y ago
Sad thing is that both governments are responsible for their operation - they fly out of Shamsi airbase and Pakistan even tried to get control over them unsuccessfully. So it's more like "America's deadly robots operated under shadow of Pakistani government against it's own people".

tokenadult 16y ago

The article does a good job of revealing the degree of superstition in that very poorly educated and isolated area. (I am referring, for example, to the claims that drones leave behind "poisonous dust," not a very likely payload at all.) If that superstition turns into hatred of America, that can't be good for United States foreign policy. Regions that are safe havens for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda include so many people who think so differently from people in the developed world that it may be very difficult to find a way to gain support for shutting down the terrorist networks. This is a bad situation all around.

Retric 16y ago
Being a first responder to a bomb site means you’re dealing with more than just the bomb payload. You are also breathing flecks of paint and other substances suddenly liberated into the air. IMO, they are simply describing what happens when you show up to a bombed out building and assuming the effects are from the bomb. causes a variety of ailments, from diarrhea to skin disease PS: The dust around a non explosive building demolition is also reasonably toxic.
m0th87 16y ago
It's not just the poor and isolated areas. Islamabad is rife with conspiracy theorists who think every mishap in Pakistan has a CIA agent involved somehow.
run4yourlives 16y ago
This is the great issue that the US - over and over again - fails to grasp: You cannot use technology to bring a mind into agreement with your objectives. The only way to win the hearts and minds of the people in that region is to meet them face to face where they live. Talk to them, argue with them, protect them and if required kill them. They need to see you as real, your objectives as firm statements - even if they disagree - and your resolve complete. They respect the strong and the committed, they deride the weak and conflicted. This is a human war, and the only thing accomplished by flying drones around is a further separation from the people subject to their actions from the values of the people flying them. All everyone ever really wants is to have a better life for themselves and their family. Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that if you can address or improve the base of the pyramid, you can restructure the entire pyramid. You can see easily how perverse religion warps the perception by manipulating these base needs; pretending that they aren't required, or even rejecting them outright as evil. What we should be doing in Pakistan is essentially ignoring the fundamentalist nature of the region and showering them with things to address the bottom two levels of the pyramid. Yes this is a massive short term investment and yes this will cost lives. Be sure though that it is the only way for the west to win this war over the long term. Every drone bringing faceless death from the sky only prolongs it.
- krschultz 16y ago
  This is a very popular opinion these days, but since when do we have to win the hearts and minds to win the war? What if the US just nukes every country with terrorists in it? There would hypothetically be no terrorists left, and everyone would work very hard not to be grouped in with those countires, otherwise they're going to get nuked too. It sounds crazy (and I certainly don't condone that strategy), but realize that is one of the other options. For the vast majority of history winning wars didn't rely on winning the hearts and minds of anyone, it relied on the complete destruction and subjugation of the other faction. You could say "this war is different", but it really is not. It is different than the West on West wars of the last 3 centuries, but it is no different than a lot of guerilla wars in the past. The Native Americans tried really hard to stop Americans from expanding into their land - and the US won that guerilla war by just excersizing extreme cruelty. Trying to win hearts and minds is a losing strategy against an opponent who doesn't care about that at all. The terrorists are not trying to win our hearts and minds, they are trying to kill as many Americans as possible. That makes their goals a lot easier to achieve. Can we really invade every single country that holds some people that want us dead and "meet them face to face". Hell no, that would require conquering the whole world, which is impossible even for the US. The other option is making an example of a country and dissuading every other country from allowing terrorists to exist inside their borders, lest they end up like country X or Y that was conquered by the US. Unfortunately by bungling in Iraq and forgetting about Afghanistan, the US ends up just looking weak. The reality is that the biggest obstacle to total victory is the lack of support for the level of violence required to win a war like this. The American people just won't stomach anywhere near the level of damage inflicted on the opponent in World War 1 or 2. Thus with "total domination" off of the play book, we have "ignore borders and start dropping hellfire missiles on people no matter where they are" as a the current method for dealing with people. Overall, I'd consider it far more humanitarian than the other options.
spot 16y ago
It's not the superstition that turns into hatred, it's the civilian casualties. This is part of a positive feedback loop: http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/74916 Even those who "think differently" understand food, medicine, education, etc. It would be quite easy to wage peace instead of war, but Obama made his choice.
- krschultz 16y ago
  That is a false choice. If we decided tomorrow to just up and leave in a week, would you describe the aftermath in Iraq and Afghanistan "peace"? Is "peace" when Americans aren't getting killed? Because the US would suffer far fewer casualities if we just bailed entirely and let the sects in Iraq duke it out amongst themselves and we let the Taliban run over Afghanistan again, but the people in those countries would suffer more. Now that we're trying to get out of these countries, further US troops are basically trading their lives for some multiple of that number in civilians lives that would be lost if we just let the countries collaspe. Take your pick, it seems to me that Obama (and Bush at the end) was choosing to lose US lives to prevent the anarchy and loss of foreign civilian lives that would result of an irresponsible exit. Arguing that we shouldn't have gone in the first place (which I think is the case) doesn't change the fact that today we are already there.
  - spot 16y ago
    Ah yes, the old "we are bombing them for their own good" argument. To answer your question directly, yes it would be more peaceful (it was more peaceful in both cases before we invaded and i expect things would settle down pretty soon after we left). More importantly, the blood would not be on our hands. And (I'll say it again) if we waged peace by providing food, medicine, education, etc we could save a lot of lives, instead of stoking the cycle of violence.
ansible 16y ago
When an A-10 Warthog shoots a tank with depleted uranium (DU) rounds, it definitely leaves behind poisonous dust. Sure, they're 100% wrong that the Predator weapons systems don't do that. Are we really expecting these people (who don't have Internet access and aren't War Nerd fans) to understand the differences? I'm actually a little impressed that these people even are aware of issues like that. In the old days, you'd know when the war is coming towards you. And a guy shooting someone with a gun is an easily understood event to even the most uneducated. However, in this new kind of war, you hear the buzzing of the drones, but you have no idea how far away they are (they are supposed to be hard to see). And then, occasionally (which is worse than regularly) something blows up, almost as if by magic. The Hellfire missle tops out at mach 1.3, so you're not going to hear it coming. Those people are suffering the classic stress symptoms of people living in a war zone.

Arun2009 16y ago

It's inhuman and unwise to target civilians when they are mere puppets of agents higher up in the hierarchy. It's simple, really: the US is killing Pakistanis, and when they find that their people are being culled, the likes of Faisal Shahzad will snap and go to any length to get back at the US. IMO, what we really need is a MASSIVE propaganda effort to isolate Islamist ideologues within Pakistan. Not sure how this will happen, but the parallel I have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany. If NATO along sympathetic states like India pool their resources together, I think it should be possible to buy out/instigate/support any number of revolutionaries within Pakistan who will effectively portray the Islamists as the cancer of not just Pakistan, but of mankind itself.

pvg 16y ago
but the parallel I have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany. That took the systematic leveling of a good chunk of Germany, just for starters. Perhaps not an optimal parallel.
- brudgers 16y ago
  But better than Imperial Japan.
  - pvg 16y ago
    If you go by death toll, it seems by most sources, Germany fared quite a bit worse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...
    - brudgers 16y ago
      My comment was regarding weapon systems deployed, as that was the subject of the article, not which pile of bodies was bigger.
- Arun2009 16y ago
  > That took the systematic leveling of a good chunk of Germany, just for starters. The parallel was not between the specific route and methodology used, but the eventual outcome: the religious extremists must come to be viewed with the same revulsion with which the Nazis are viewed today. My point was that this can happen only through a massive propaganda campaign generously supported from outside.

alexgartrell 16y ago

We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

VladRussian 16y ago
>We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle. you're right about very beginning. The "to go to war for free" is available and applicable to both sides, and thus, after a couple of iterations would lead to cost escalation. Remember the Stinger effect on the Soviet forces 20+ years ago in Afghanistan? The same way the next couple of steps are clearly visible: 1. Pakistanis buy Stingers(or likes) 2. USA start using stealth drones (google for SkunkWorks' one already being tested in Afghanistan) 3. Pakistanis buy small [mull cart/pickup truck mountable] radar/missile automated system like Phalanx or Kashtan CIWS 4. USA improve speed/stealth of the drones, increase the range and intelligence of Hellfire ... As a result it is going to be more expensive and technologically intensive.

simplegeek 16y ago

I'm based in Pakistan and all I have to say is that this is hurting America more than anything (these guys have no idea how much hatred this is causing among Pakistanis). I mean there is this American guy who's helping people teach their kids and this American guy is a hero (and he teaches in the same dangerous zone). So I think if we need help we need it in education and etc. I've been working with Americans for last 6 years and I've found them very honest, friendly, smart & hard-working. But when I look at American foreign policy towards the region I live in I find it most disturbing. Something is seriously wrong with the current drones-policy and American's(people in charge) have no idea how wrong it is ;( But our own leaders are probably responsible for it too. Stories of current government's corruption are very common now. I mean we have a 90+ member cabinet & most of them don't know an iota about running a country. I mean I can go on and on ;( I'm currently pursuing graduate studies and most of people I meet everyday they want peace as much as you all want. We just don't know when will this terror end ;(

zohaibr 16y ago
The American you are talking about is Greg Mortenson?
- simplegeek 16y ago
  Yeah, I'm sorry but I was unable to recall his name ;)
rbanffy 16y ago
> there is this American guy who's helping people teach their kids and this American guy is a hero And this is a far better way to wage war - to understand the enemy is not Al Qaeda or the Taliban. The enemy is ignorance, fear, superstition and religion. A dozen schools costs less to build than a drone. A hospital costs much less to operate than a military base. The friendship and understanding you earn by doing these things is much more valuable to finding terrorists than the best airborne imaging sensor. When nobody listens to them, you can also save a Hellfire or two.