What is your favorite rationalization for the U.S. drone killings of civilian non-combatants?

[coalition_unwilling]

This is the first time I've posted a poll on DU and I'm clearly trying for an ironic effect.

Inspiration for this came from reading Greenwald's latest piece on "The Authoritarian Mind" and remembering Milgram's Stanford experiments back in the late 50s.

20 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Time expired
	"Our airstrikes in World War II killed a lot more civilians"
	2 (10%)
	"They shouldn't have been hanging out with terrorists"
	4 (20%)
	"At least we're not torturing anyone in captivity now"
	0 (0%)
	"Only third-party wackos could possibly criticize drone strikes"
	0 (0%)
	"You can't prove that any civilians were killed"
	0 (0%)
	"Kill them all and let God sort them out!"
	0 (0%)
	"USA! USA! USA!"
	1 (5%)
	"Shut up or we'll sic the drones on you"
	1 (5%)
	"What are drones?"
	1 (5%)
	Other (please explain)
	11 (55%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Zalatix]

1. Please change the title to something related to "summary executions"

because otherwise you'll get overwhelmed with chatter about the value of soldiers risking their lives to do summary executions vs the use of drones.

[coalition_unwilling]

3. The wording of the title is admittedly klunky. Just can't seem to find an

elegant way to phrase it.

Drones are killing civilian non-combantants
Rationalizations are being used for said killings.

So am asking DUers which rationalization they prefer.

[Prometheus Bound]

2. "The technology has increased our ability to decrease civilian casualties."

Always followed up with:

“We want to reduce if not eliminate collateral damage”.

But the innocent deaths continue to pile up weekly and even daily.

[Egalitarian Thug]

4. Tough to choose only one, but at least I now understand the

"Fuck Ron Paul" reply I got out of the blue yesterday.

[Zalatix]

5. You got it? I sure as hell didn't get it when I got that response.

To me it's still just a copout.

[Egalitarian Thug]

34. Well, I get it insofar as now I understand the posters intent.

(s)he was trying to insult/accuse me. It's absurd on it's face, but at the time I'm sure I looked like my dog staring at a laser pointer. Ron Paul? Really?

[sudopod]

48. At least he didn't call you a Trotskyist running-dog.

The right in this country is just out-and-out loony. Beyond reason, unless you're blood kin or have otherwise close connections bordering on kinship, and it's difficult to get through to them even then.

If the internet left is at all indicative of the real US opposition to those clowns, then we're in trouble. Based on what I read here daily we don't seem to be a whole lot more rational on average. I suppose being irrational in a better direction is slightly better, but... *shrug*

[MrScorpio]

6. Wars have always killed the innocent

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

It's always been terrible.

Just because it's the modern age, it won't prevent it from happening again.

America is the largest purveyor of warfare on the planet. There's a lot of reasons for that, mostly to do with money.

And our political and economic system practically guarantees that any leader who inhabits the White House will engage the military might of the United States somewhere in the world at any particular time.

So, it's pretty much a moot point that civilian non-combatants are dying at hands. They've ALWAYS died at our hands.

The greater issue is warfare itself; our ability to wage it, spend so much money on it, as all as our propensity for it.

Until we figure out a way to have the will to stop waging war itself, I think that it's pretty fucking ridiculous to psychoanalyze this thing.

What it really comes down to the basic reason of Money.

Money corrupts the political system. It's behind the insidious propaganda that militarizes our society and is the source behind the creating of the cultural identity. It creates its own vast economy for war-making. If strips away the power of the media to question our role was a war-maker.

All you have to do is follow the money.

I spent my time in the Pentagon and I know how this thing works. To blame the people for allowing this to happen is ludicrous. The American people are victims of the war-marchine, programmed and conditioned to respond. That book is nothing more that an effort at victim blaming.

But where is the focus on the war MAKERS themselves, those respectable Captains of Industry, the noble houses of the War promoters?

When are they going to pay instead of profit?

[coalition_unwilling]

30. Nice post and I largely concur. I think what bothers me as much as, or even more than,

the deaths of civilians in these anonymous drone strikes, are the justifications ('rationalizations') used to justify them.

In reading Greenwald's latest piece on the Authoritarian Mind, I was reminded of those experiments Stanley Milgram conducted in the 1950s at Stanford where subjects who thought they were acting in the name of 'science' were only too willing to administer what they thought were near-lethal and, in a couple cases, lethal bursts of electric shock to innocent people, provided the white-coated 'scientists' designated those innocents as needing the shocks.

Milgram's point is that almost anyone can be convinced to condone and even commit torture or murder, provided they think they are doing so on behalf of a legitimate authority (science, government, corporations, etc.).

[cbrer]

43. ++

The title IS misleading. rationality does NOT enter into the equation.

[sudopod]

51. We cannot absolve ourselves of guilt or the need to speak out.

To take an example from the past, the Italian people were victims of their own Fascism as much as we are victims of our own corrupted system, but like us, they also stood by and let it accumulate power, and often gladly participated in that seizure. As a whole, can any such people be held blameless?

[FogerRox]

87. Invention of the Browning machine gun

caused many of the same arguments heard today. I'm not saying I approve of the use of armed drones, but it makes killing easier when you dont have to close to sword distance.......

[boppers]

90. Arrows came before the machine gun.

So did the trebuchet.

[FogerRox]

91. Yes, exactly.

[Kolesar]

7. The missile attacks are to create a distraction from the Whitewater investigation

Haven't you heard?

[redgreenandblue]

8. Mine is: "Trooolllll, NADER, PAUL, Obama hater, burnnn teh witch!!!!11111"

[AnotherMcIntosh]

23. x2

[harmonicon]

9. Why do you hate America? (nt)

[coalition_unwilling]

31. Yeah, my option #7 is a variation on that theme (the affirmative

variation, if you will)

[rucky]

10. Now we don't have to put our troops in harm's way...

when we accidentally kill children.

[Angry Dragon]

11. There is none

[Capt. Obvious]

12. Most of the choices

are quotes from one person

Well played.

[Enrique]

13. "automatic unrec for Glenn Greenwald" n/t

[Odin2005]

17. + Infinity.

[randome]

14. We don't really know how many civilians have been killed.

Granted, one is too many but there have been only a handful of cases where we KNOW civilians were killed.

Every time a drone strike takes place, we hear a 'counter-strike' that civilians were, in fact, killed. Yes, I know, war is stupid and immoral and I agree with that. But claims of civilian casualties EVERY SINGLE TIME a drone strikes takes place? I find it hard to believe we're such lousy shots given our common video game upbringings.

[sabrina 1]

89. We do know. Records have been kept, names, dates, and when it's been impossible to deny,

we even have admissions from the Military, followed by apologies, and then offers of insulting amounts of money.

I posted a link yesterday with some numbers. There is one man in Pakistan who has been going to the sited of drone attacks, eg, and documenting the deaths.

And I'm not sure why you think a drone attack could just kill one or two people and be accurate. They are probably the most inaccurate weapons for several reasons. Eg, in order to identify a person they want to kill, they have to rely on information, often from people who live in the area. Sometimes those people will misdirect the military, sometimes on purpose, sometimes because they are careless.

Just because the US military isn't keeping records doesn't mean records are not being kept. People in other countries value their loved ones as much as Americans do and will try to document any deaths in order to give them respect.

[SidDithers]

15. Fuck Ron Paul...nt

Sid

[GeorgeGist]

22. Brilliant ...

as always.

[coalition_unwilling]

32. Hunh? How does Ron Paul enter this discussion, other

that through your drive-by post?

Obama is Commander in Chief.

Does any criticism of current war strategy and tactics authomatically equate to support for Ron Paul in your mind? If so, that's really sad.

[Zalatix]

38. I believe SidDithers' post was intended as a parody of this...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=760875

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=760874

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=760878

[coalition_unwilling]

41. Ah yes. I've got that particular individual referenced in your links on "Ignore,"

so I missed the parody, if such indeed it were.

Thanks!

[woo me with science]

16. I trust our President to kill only people who deserve it.

[treestar]

62. Did that include FDR?

And General Eisenhower?

LBJ and the Generals in Vietnam?

If you're going to be snarky, just what do you propose? That Al Qaeda just stop right now! Tell them to stop it.

Maybe it would have worked on the Germans or Japanese or the Viet Cong.

You don't have to agree that a war is justified to admit that in reality, it is actually happening.

[woo me with science]

80. Ah, a combination of numbers one, two, and possibly seven.

That was actually a pretty good list.

[coalition_unwilling]

76. That one is so darkly satiric that it leaves me speechless in awe. - Jonathan

Swift would be jealous.

[smokey nj]

18. Other: "We're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here."

[slackmaster]

19. Other - If they run, they're terrorists....

...If they don't run, they're well-disciplined terrorists.

[coalition_unwilling]

28. Ooh, I had a strong feeling of deja vu (or maybe deja entendu): is that

a riff on Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket?

[slackmaster]

29. Yes. It's based on lines spoken by Door Gunner.

"If they run, they're VC. If they stand still, they're disciplined VC."

Followed closely by his answer to Joker's query "How can you shoot women and children?"

DG - "It's easy. You just don't lead 'em as much!"

[coalition_unwilling]

33. Oh, man, the image in the penultimate scene of that movie (of the

female Vietnamese sniper being put out of her misery) is one I will never, ever forget as long as I live.

[treestar]

20. My favorite is the first one

War is war. I don't think we needed to be in the war, but it's better than carpet bombing Afghanistan, which we would have done before, as we did in Vietnam.

This whole thing misses the point. If you're against a war, you can be against it. Have a reason why that war in not necessary.

Wars kill people. That's the way war is. If you're against it on that ground only, I sympathize, but then you'll have to convince the other side on the war, too.

The Japanese did not stop because someone said hey, you're killing people! That's bad! And we could not have avoided bombs and guns and dropping nuclear bombs, or we would just let them roll over us.

[Zalatix]

40. Yeah and that rule somehow only applies to pesky brown people outside the country.

Let those rules be applied to terrorism suspects here and hell will get raised.

Hmmm... actually, maybe not. We might have gotten to the point of "if you're not a terrorist you don't have anything to worry about" by the time the drones start bombing suspects here.

[treestar]

61. Well we are supposedly fighting Afghanistan

Or the Taliban, for a reason, and though I never agreed with it, I can come up with a reason we shouldn't be there other than "it kills people." That's always been the case. We would not be there at all if Al Qaeda stopped doing what they were doing because it killed people. War is hell. I'm all for stopping it. But while it is going on, it's redundant to make it all about how horrible it is.

[Zanzoobar]

21. Other: There are no civilian non-combatants in the area.

[Zalatix]

39. Correction: There are no MALE civilian non-combatants in the area.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=3&pagewanted=3

It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

[Zanzoobar]

49. I accept the correction.

How could I have been such a fool!

[Zalatix]

57. That's okay, that correction won't be valid for long.

In due time EVERYONE of military age will be viable targets. And military age will expand to include dangerously brown-skinned foreigner infants. Unofficially, of course.

[ProSense]

24. Another:

FDR was a muderer: http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=758520

[SidDithers]

47. FDR is the father of nuclear weapons...

after all, as President he created the Manhattan project.

Right, Libertarians?

Sid

[Arctic Dave]

25. What was the one I saw yesterday,

How dare I criticize air strikes while sit in my comfy place yadda yadda.

[sudopod]

53. Is it that dangerous to commute to an air-conditioned shack in Nevada? nt

[JVS]

26. "Those people are just lucky it's not Mitt Romney deciding who to attack!"

[coalition_unwilling]

78. That is an instant classic and revelatory of the utter

moral bankruptcy and rot at the heart of the charnel house.

[L. Coyote]

27. Other: In times of great austerity, even killing people should cost less.

Otherwise, we would have to kill fewer people

[Lurks Often]

35. Why are people arguing over the method?

If using the military is justified then innocent people are going to die, it has always been that way and it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future.

As to the number of civilian casualties being reported, I don't believe I have seen a report by a neutral third party as to the actual numbers. Are the numbers higher then the US Government states, probably. Are they as high as the Pakistan, Afghanistan and Taliban are stating, probably not.

The AGM-114 Hellfire being carried by drones is a relatively small guided missile. Using artillery, cruise missiles or laser guided bombs, all of which have more explosive power would result in even more casualties.

As for using troops, aside from the increased risk of US casualties, there is a time factor. Using troops, they have to gear up, be briefed as to the situation, transported to the target area and deployed. It is highly probable that the target would have left the area before the troops could get there, even by helicopter. That does not take into consideration the higher political costs of US troops publicly operating in Pakistan.

If you want the drone attacks to stop, convince Congress to defund operations in Afghanistan

[coalition_unwilling]

42. Are people arguing over the method? - n/t

[Lurks Often]

56. It seems that way

people seem more intent on criticizing the use of drones and treating drones as an especially horrible way to attack targets when the alternative methods of attacking a target are either not feasible under the circumstances (such as the use of troops that I mentioned in my first post) or are even more destructive methods such as artillery, cruise missiles or air strikes.

[coalition_unwilling]

59. So I take it your favorite rationalization for the killing of civilian non-combatants would

be some iteration of Choice #1 ("Our airstrikes in World War II killed a lot more civilians&quot ?

[Lurks Often]

60. Don't change the original question

which was "What is your favorite rationalization for the U.S. drone killings of civilian non-combatants?"

If military force is justified then civilian non-combatant deaths are inevitable when the legitimate targets hide among civilians. I don't like that the civilians die, but if you have an alternative that allows the military to target hostile combatants while avoiding civilian casualties in populated areas, while accepting the brief time frames to engage those hostile combatants, we'd all like to hear it.

[coalition_unwilling]

67. I notice you're not responding to the original question either, not that

it really matters. Sorry I omitted a word or two from my restatement of the original question. Judging from your non-response response, I'd say you don't consider the choices in my polls 'rationalizations' in any sense of the term. But I mean, if you had to pick just one . . .

[Lurks Often]

71. I answered other and explained my answer

"If using the military is justified then innocent people are going to die, it has always been that way and it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable future."

and that "Using artillery, cruise missiles or laser guided bombs, all of which have more explosive power would result in even more casualties."

and why using troops isn't especially feasible "As for using troops, aside from the increased risk of US casualties, there is a time factor. Using troops, they have to gear up, be briefed as to the situation, transported to the target area and deployed. It is highly probable that the target would have left the area before the troops could get there, even by helicopter. That does not take into consideration the higher political costs of US troops publicly operating in Pakistan."

In other words, if we need to use military force, then under the circumstances, which are it not feasible to use ground forces, other methods are even more destructive, then yes, drones are a method which accomplishes the goal of using military force to achieve a military objective, while eliminating risk to US troops and MINIMIZING civilian casualties. I have already stated that innocent people always die and that I am not happy about it.

I also noticed that you didn't answer MY question, which was "Do you have an alternative that allows the military to target hostile combatants while avoiding civilian casualties in populated areas, while accepting the brief time frames to engage those hostile combatants, we'd all like to hear it."

[coalition_unwilling]

73. Well, your 'question' as you put it was actually a run-on sentence, containing

a question "Do you have . . . " and a sentence "we'd all like . . . " so I may have missed the question.

Here's my answer, though: don't use the American military to take sides in other nations' internal civil wars and don't use the military as a substitute for solid police investigative work combined with diplomacy. So my alternative is to use police work and diplomacy instead of the military.

[Lurks Often]

81. Ok

I happen to think that your method won't work, but I'm cynical that way.

While diplomacy is preferred, diplomacy requires both sides wanting to come to an agreement and Pakistan's government can't even come to an agreement among themselves.

I'll agree that within the US, tracking and apprehending is a law enforcement issue and not a military issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. 642% of Liberals love Obama

[coalition_unwilling]

37. Ha-ha. That's a good one! Thanks - n/t

[Larry Ogg]

44. There are distinct differences between the mind of Authoritarian followers,

and the mind of Authoritarian leaders.

Authoritarian followers will rationalize the use of drones…

Because their leaders lead them to believe, that might makes right, and political evil is a noble cause.

I personally believe that the real predators are the ones who are using the drones.

[JonLP24]

45. Well if war is hell and it doesn't matter what we do

Why don't we just employ white phosphorous, nukes since it really doesn't matter because war is hell and civilians get killed anyways?

[Egalitarian Thug]

55. Neutron warheads! There's not much infrastructure in that part of the world,

but we should save things like pipelines that are of "vital national interest".

[Gregorian]

46. Drones are the perfect product. One use only. It's great profit if you value money more than llife.

[Swede]

50. You do know that these drones are reused over and over.

[Gregorian]

54. Oh! I posted without thinking. Although I didn't know that.

But it's true that much of the military dollars are one way trips. Bullets, bombs. All one use. It's a constant flow from the production line. A hell of a life cycle for a product.

And just in case you have gotten this far, have something I'm listening to at the moment-

[Dragonfli]

58. Close, drones are an easily produced and replaceable delivery device for "a perfect one use product"

Each missile launched is exactly as you propose, we have better than that.

We have in current use an easily produced, (in large numbers if need be) a nearly perfect delivery system for a whole plethora of expensive one use products.

From smoke bombs to nukes, the possibilities are really only limited by the payload weight such a drone were designed for.

They are only touching the surface of what money could be had.

Even non-military money is available!

Why even locally, think of the money to be made targeting two or more dozen street locations with as many drones as needed to explode perhaps 100s or more pepper dispersion bombs simultaneously at perfectly targeted annoying demonstrators, taking out thousands at once and ending the problem. Lots of Mayors would pay big cash for that option!

[Bolo Boffin]

63. Fear Obama.

[whatchamacallit]

64. The president must know something we don't

Obviously he has a good reason for all the craven, seemingly unnecessary killing...

[coalition_unwilling]

70. Yeah, this one fits right in with Greenwald's evocation of the

"Authoritarian Mindset."

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. My favorite is not in there

Because we can.



Yup, I heard this one in the flesh.

[coalition_unwilling]

69. Oy, that one really does take the cake, doesn't it? - n/t

[BOG PERSON]

66. stuff like this --

invasions, air strikes, drone bombs, etc. used to greatly upset me, but now i just think of it as capitalist weather.

[coalition_unwilling]

68. Oh, man, that is positively brutal. But apt - n/t

[Earth_First]

72. Two for 'Fuck Ron Paul' n/t

[IDemo]

74. Other - "It's regrettable if there were civilian casualties.......BUT THE STRIKES WILL CONTINUE."

[friendly_iconoclast]

75. Oopsie, someone seems to have forgotten that we have a president and not a Dear Leader:

At Mon Jun 4, 2012, 07:14 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

What is your favorite rationalization for the U.S. drone killings of civilian non-combatants?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002762095

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Loaded with flamebait and insults directed at anybody who doesn't participate in the bashing of Obama over drones.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Jun 4, 2012, 07:22 PM, and the Jury voted 0-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Sorry but I don't think there's enough there for a hide. Kaleva
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: While I disagree with the poster, I thought it was rather witty. Try to ban it is an attempt at thought control. Leave it be!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Interesting question - thought provoking and may have somer doing some soul searching. Sometimes it is not OK just because "our" side does it. That realization can be upsetting to some.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Flamebait and insults which are nonspecific are (within reason) perfectly acceptable rhetorical devices, particularly if they are employed to support a liberal or progressive ideal - anti-war activism is probably the most legitimate of all liberal activism, and I vote to leave this post.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given

[coalition_unwilling]

79. I salute the civil libertarians on DU who served on this jury and can only

hope I will measure up if and when called to serve.

Thank you also for posting.

[Sea-Dog]

77. no rationalization

only a wanker would think otherwise

[AtomicKitten]

82. VOTE: "How ya likin' my passive-aggressive troll, er I mean poll?"

Last edited Mon Jun 4, 2012, 10:51 PM - Edit history (1)

Meh. I've seen better. You better believe it.

on edit: This poll is kabuki theater, Greenwald-inspired no less. It does not promote discussion, in fact, limits it by mocking discussion. Go get 'em Glenn, the vote's not going to suppress itself.

[coalition_unwilling]

83. Here's an assertion straight-up: AtomicKitten has no problem whatsoever

with U.S. drones killing civilian non-combatants.

[DeSwiss]

84. FYI.....

If you're referring to the Standford Prison Experiment that was 1971.

And it is a very apt example I would say, although some today would probably not agree. And that's because back then, as today, it required the acquiescence of the larger population in accepting blatantly illegal and immoral acts to be accepted as "normal" in order for the authoritarian model to function at all. And so that the atrocities committed in the name of "law and order and security" are then easily accepted by the group as a whole.

- And it is all based upon the use of an almost unnameable FEAR..........



[center][/center]

[coalition_unwilling]

88. Now this is trippy. My mind melded two separate experiments, the Stanford prison experiment of the

early 1970s and the Milgram experiment of the late 1950s (conducted by Yalie Stanley Milgram):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

I was right in the details of the Milgram experiment except for its geography And I was aware of the 'real' Stanford prison experimetn you referenced but had forgotten it in thinking about these drones and the fact that the person firing upon human beings is pressing a button upon the orders of an authority figure (much like subjects in the Milgram experiment pressed a button or switch on the order of an 'authority figure' to deliver what they through were lethal and near-lethal doses of electricity to people).

My mind is starting to go. Maybe I've been chaneling a little too much Timothy Leary