Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Northerner

(5,040 posts)
Thu May 31, 2012, 05:06 PM May 2012

Do Obama's Drone Strikes Imperil America?

This week opponents of President Obama's prolific use of drone strikes hit the elite-media trifecta. High profile reportage in the New York Times and the Washington Post and on PBS together amplified a question that has been asked more and more by national security experts: Is Obama sacrificing America's long-term security for short-term political gain?



The long-term security risk was captured in the lead paragraph of a Washington Post story : "Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States."

More than 20 interviews conducted in Yemen by the Post--with government officials, tribal leaders, and others--revealed "a strong shift in sentiment toward militants affiliated with the transnational network's most active wing, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula or AQAP." Since 2009, when Obama is first known to have authorized drone strikes in Yemen, the number of core AQAP members has more than doubled, growing from around 300 to at least 700. That's not the direction in which the drone strikes were supposed to move the numbers.

A Yemeni human rights worker described the dynamic at play: "The drones are killing al-Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning them into heroes."

The New York Times piece--a long, deeply reported, and somewhat unsettling article about how the Obama administration decides who to kill via drone--concurred with the Post on the value al Qaeda recruiters are getting out of drone strikes, and also answered the riddle this poses: If the strikes have such a big downside, why has President Obama accelerated their use, first in Pakistan, then in Yemen?


Read more: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/05/do-obamas-drone-strikes-imperil-america/257879/
25 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Do Obama's Drone Strikes Imperil America? (Original Post) The Northerner May 2012 OP
Yes, but how in the world Lionessa May 2012 #1
I think asking if it increases threat from terrorists is the wrong question. napoleon_in_rags May 2012 #2
The machines have human controllers malthaussen May 2012 #3
The one I'm asking is significant. napoleon_in_rags May 2012 #4
Ah, now that's a bird of a different feather malthaussen May 2012 #7
"The machines have human controllers" Zalatix Jun 2012 #23
A gun is a machine that kills humans quaker bill May 2012 #5
Excellent point.n/t monmouth May 2012 #6
Good question... tallahasseedem May 2012 #8
Because the whole idea of a machine hunting humans hits us in a very dark place.. Fumesucker May 2012 #9
See post #4, and consider this: napoleon_in_rags May 2012 #10
It is a remote controlled airplane quaker bill May 2012 #16
Yeah, very "remote". napoleon_in_rags May 2012 #18
I am concerned with all weapons quaker bill Jun 2012 #21
Yeah, what I said was a little over the top. Hard to surpass the a-bomb... napoleon_in_rags Jun 2012 #22
let's make friends by murdering women and kids using drones. works for me...not nt msongs May 2012 #13
No one is proposing to make friends this way. quaker bill May 2012 #17
The problem is not drones. It's that it's extrajudicial aka summary execution Zalatix Jun 2012 #24
Not as much as Mitt droning on and on. deaniac21 May 2012 #11
Oh goody ... a new OP on this topic. I was worried that the last 10 did not do it justice. JoePhilly May 2012 #12
You made some strange leaps to get from the OP to that response. morningfog May 2012 #14
The beatings will continue pscot May 2012 #15
My take on drone airstrikes: boxman15 May 2012 #19
We don't know that AQ would have quadrupled w/o drone strikes. Life Long Dem Jun 2012 #20
The US-supported Yemen government, not the government the people of Yemen wanted, made deals sad sally Jun 2012 #25
 

Lionessa

(3,894 posts)
1. Yes, but how in the world
Thu May 31, 2012, 05:11 PM
May 2012

would our country survive if wars actually ended so we have to sow the seeds of tomorrow's terrorists today. These drone attacks certainly fit that bill.

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
2. I think asking if it increases threat from terrorists is the wrong question.
Thu May 31, 2012, 05:46 PM
May 2012

The real question is, what is the moral threat to America. We're talking about machines here, machines which kill humans. Where are we going with these machines and where does that position us as a nation on the moral landscape?

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
3. The machines have human controllers
Thu May 31, 2012, 05:50 PM
May 2012

This is not Robby the Robot gone mad. Armies have used "machines which kill humans" since there have been armies. The only difference with drones is that the operators of these machines are not put at risk.

I think you're right that there is a moral question here, but it isn't the one you're asking.

-- Mal

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
4. The one I'm asking is significant.
Thu May 31, 2012, 05:55 PM
May 2012

I'm a bit of a tech nerd on the side... What I can promise you is this: The input and output from those human controllers is being recorded. That recorded material is valuable in that it can be used to train algorithms, which respond like the human controllers, but far faster. In a situation where it becomes drone v. drone, rather than drone v terrorist with 20th century assault rifle on ground, this lightening fast algorithmic control is what gives the defining edge in the conflict.

What I'm saying is that we are on the edge of a slippery slope with this, and we need to be thinking not just about the present tech, but about where its going in the future as well.

And you're right that this is not the only moral question here, but it is the one most significant to me. I'm not scared of tech of and in itself, but our lack of meaningful dialogue about where we're going with it and what could go wrong does alarm me.

malthaussen

(17,065 posts)
7. Ah, now that's a bird of a different feather
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:08 PM
May 2012

Now that you elaborated, I see where you are going with it.
Back in 1962, Harry Harrison wrote a collection of stories called War With the Robots. Out of print now, but it answers your question, especially the last story in the book.

You're in the same position as the physicists were before the A-bomb was developed: you know it's going to be a terrible can of worms, and you wish there would be some forethought given to it. I'm afraid you'll receive the same satisfaction as they did. One thing I have noticed about politicians: very few care what happens after they are out of office.

-- Mal

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
5. A gun is a machine that kills humans
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:00 PM
May 2012

so are tanks, and piloted aircraft. The people driving the drones aren't sitting in the cockpit, but they are still pulling the trigger.

This drone hysteria drives me nuts. Why do folks seem to think killing is better when done in person?

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)
9. Because the whole idea of a machine hunting humans hits us in a very dark place..
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:10 PM
May 2012

Yes, I know that at the present it's people doing the controlling of the machine but it will eventually come that it's machines doing the hunting, it's only a matter of time.

What then?

That's what is running through a lot of minds, we live in a science fiction world and it's going to get ever more so and do so at an increasing rate.

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
10. See post #4, and consider this:
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:40 PM
May 2012

We on the left often use the term "evolution" in a positive way, usually meaning progress and learning which are good things. But the fact of the matter is, at this point in human history with us on top of the world, evolution is the fundamental enemy of mankind, there is none higher. Our goal should be to stop it, to sustain the human race as it is, to create equilibrium. The alternative is what's been happening around here for the last 2 billion years: The 1% live, the 99% die. The 1% laugh at how they won, how their kind inherited the earth. Then 99% of them die in the next round, leaving the 1% of the 1%. Then the whole thing repeats, and it repeats until some genetically engineered, cybernetically enhanced and nano-implanted post-human death machine hybrid that always wins sits down and does the math, coming to my same conclusions, and finally finds a way to stop the game. That's when evolution's purpose is completed.

My question is, why wait? Why don't we have a glass of wine, listen to some music, and stop the game now? People are basically beautiful and life is basically good. Why play with forces that could fundamentally change it?

I'm sure that sounds like hyperbole, and the idea that little tech and augmentation systems could transform things down to the evolutionary level seems laughable, but just remember: That's what T-Rex thought about the little flowers and furry little mammals that hid in holes in the ground while he ruled the surface... Who were they to challenge his mighty jaws? History rhymes, so I think we should proceed carefully.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
16. It is a remote controlled airplane
Thu May 31, 2012, 08:07 PM
May 2012

Bigger than the ones I flew as a teenager, and with guns, but pretty much the same concept.

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
18. Yeah, very "remote".
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:38 PM
May 2012

With possibilities for the user to become more and more remote, even absent from the decision making process.

The significance of drones is that they assert the best man for the job is a machine when it comes to critical defense roles, namely flying of planes. As I said in post 4, I'm not concerned with what that means, so much as which direction this trend could go in the future.

napoleon_in_rags

(3,991 posts)
22. Yeah, what I said was a little over the top. Hard to surpass the a-bomb...
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 03:46 PM
Jun 2012

I was going to talk about concern of weapons that consolidate too much power in the hands of too few, unlike large armies with guns which could veto patently insane commands from leaders. But thinking of the a-bomb in this regard, its hard to argue a drone is worse. But still I worry about the rapid development of tech with what I see as too little dialogue about where we're going with it.

quaker bill

(8,223 posts)
17. No one is proposing to make friends this way.
Thu May 31, 2012, 08:13 PM
May 2012

I don't believe even the fans think we are going to make any friends this way. My point is simply that tanks, bombs, and bullets delivered in person don't make friends either. Drones are not as special as some people seem to think.

I would strongly prefer we just stop killing people, both in person and by remote control.

 

Zalatix

(8,994 posts)
24. The problem is not drones. It's that it's extrajudicial aka summary execution
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 03:50 PM
Jun 2012

Someone says you are a terrorist and that's all it takes for you to be killed.

JoePhilly

(27,787 posts)
12. Oh goody ... a new OP on this topic. I was worried that the last 10 did not do it justice.
Thu May 31, 2012, 06:45 PM
May 2012

Dems need to stay home.

Obama hates America and plans to kill us in our sleep.

boxman15

(1,033 posts)
19. My take on drone airstrikes:
Thu May 31, 2012, 11:56 PM
May 2012

If the choice is between taking out terrorist targets with boots on the ground/manned aircraft or drones, I'll take the drones any day of the week. The fewer people in harm's way the better. There's a risk of civilian tragedies in any type of strike or combat. We should do what we can to decimate al Qaeda, and we've done more than a good job of it over the past few years. It's time to scale everything back and come home, though, and I'm glad we're finally doing that.

My problem with President Obama's policy (or at least the policy he has pursued as of late), is that the "anybody who looks like they're in a group of military-aged men is a potential terrorist so let's bomb then" approach is just wrong on many levels. We should not be in the business of just attacking anyone who looks like they could potentially be a terrorist. So much could go wrong, and many innocent lives will be lost in the process. It's downright un-American (though apparently not un-post-9/11-American).

Unless we are absolutely confident and have total 100% proof that who we are "droning" is an al Qaeda operative, we should not drop hellfire on them from an invisible plane.

 

Life Long Dem

(8,582 posts)
20. We don't know that AQ would have quadrupled w/o drone strikes.
Fri Jun 1, 2012, 12:21 AM
Jun 2012

And where were these questions before Bush invaded two countries?

sad sally

(2,627 posts)
25. The US-supported Yemen government, not the government the people of Yemen wanted, made deals
Sat Jun 2, 2012, 05:51 PM
Jun 2012

with the administration to allow this proliferation of indiscriminate drone strikes. It's almost as if the goal is to keep multiplying those who hate us so drone wars can be waged all over the world.

Yemen was on the brink of a civil war and many people wanted to overthrow Saleh and hold elections, but the deal put together by the US, and signed in Saudia Arabia, allowed Saleh to keep his title of President and installed his deputy to rule the country. He also was granted immunity from any future criminal charges and flown to New York for medical treatment.

In February, elections were held, with a single candidate - US-backed dictator Major General Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Our President publically endorsed Hadi and said this would be "a model for how peaceful transition in the Middle East can occur.

In reality, the entire Saleh regime remains in place, and the election appears to have been rigged, and the US drone base and stikes keep the chaos going.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Do Obama's Drone Strikes ...