4 ms·

In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. I think you're confused. The relevant pa

by Dove 14y ago

In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment. The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%. Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been rising over the life of the drone program. The number of militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush. I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare. The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it? There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at least two credible news sources. While this represents a significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related fatalities. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?

deadbea7 14y ago
Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
- Dove 14y ago
  All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
  - n3rdy 14y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
    - Dove 14y ago
      This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you. In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians. I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.

by Dove 14y ago

deadbea7 14y ago

Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

Dove 14y ago
All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
- n3rdy 14y ago
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
  - Dove 14y ago
    This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you. In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians. I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.