A short comment on our use of armed Predator Drones

[ThomWV]

It would be difficult to imagine a more cowardly way to fight a war.

[ixion]

1. no less cowardly than bombing...

as my sig line describes.

[ThomWV]

2. The pilot and crew of a bomber are at risk and can be shot down

[ixion]

4. only if the country they're bombing has modern anti-aircraft defenses

otherwise, they're pretty safe.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

3. It's a nice way to keep the killer's hands clean.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Crossbows were more 'cowardly' than swords.

Muskets with bayonets were more 'cowardly' than cavalry charges.
Rifles were more 'cowardly' than smoothbore muskets.
Tanks are more 'cowardly' than rifles.
Airplanes are more 'cowardly' than tanks.
Missiles are more 'cowardly' than airplanes.

'cowardly' seems to be nothing but another word for 'effective.'

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. Yep. And, if they went back to using their hands, they're be a helluva lot fewer "heroes".

Not to mention a helluva lot fewer wars.

[DS1]

34. Agreed. It's an oversimplified view

[SemiCharmedQuark]

46. I agree.

Such is the nature of war.

That doesn't mean you cannot be against drones, but "it's a cowardly way to fight a war" is not a very good reason, IMHO.

[Occam Bandage]

58. There's many arguments against the way we're using them.

The best, I think, is that it has a high risk of false positives, and that they should not be used without ground verification in areas with considerable civilian populations.

The worst, I think, is that it does not involve the risk of an American dying in glorious battle.

[AngryAmish]

5. Land mines? Sea mines?

[JHB]

6. Oh, it's easy to imagine a more cowardly way...

Just imagine "Dick Cheney".

I don't have anything against technology that helps keep the guys in the field from getting shot at.

I do mind when the decision-makers put them in the wrong field to begin with.

[JackRiddler]

61. You might not see it the same way if you lived in "the field" where "the guys" work.

[The2ndWheel]

7. Our reality is increasingly based on distance

We're all abstractions. I don't have to know you, see you, or hear you to communicate with you right now. Seems to make sense that today war would function in the same way. Obviously not completely function that way, since we do still have human soldiers on the ground. Then again, humans still have physical contact. So we're still in that in-between stage.

[MyUserNameIsBroken]

8. Medieval notions of chivalry

Have no place on a modern battlefield. I don't want a war we're in to be fair. I want it to be short and decisive. I would prefer it not happen at all, of course...but saying that it's cowardice to avoid unneeded exposure to casualty risk perpetuates a romantic view of combat, I fear.

That said, using unmanned drones in pursuit of dubious security goals, or just going after ill-defined targets, or on intelligence from questionable sources, is no better than using manned aircraft or ground troops to do those things.

[backscatter712]

20. Yes. In WWI, it was considered cowardly to wear a parachute while dogfighting in your biplane.

Times change, but one thing of war does not - the goal is to win the battle while incurring as few friendly casualties as possible.

Today, that means that we use aircraft flown by remote control.

Yeah, you have a point in that we should be using these drones better - blowing up weddings does not help us much - we need concrete, definable goals that we can achieve through military means, that help our interests, before we bring in the military.

[JackRiddler]

62. This mentality has enabled a series of murderous wars.

And who are "we"? Nobody asked "us" before killing a million Iraqis and Afghanis on "our" behalf.

[BlooInBloo]

9. I'm sure such bourgeois distinctions mean a great deal to parents of the dead...

"My son died of a gut shot from an ak47. Thank god it wasn't a predator drone."

Yah - I don't think you'll hear that very often.

Egads - the sheer jackass fuckwit idiocy of the notion it's BRAVE to kill a person by ripping his throat out with your bare hands, while it's COWARDLY to use some distal means, is just astonishing.

[Lasher]

10. Hogwash

Sounds like something the British would have said during the Revolutionary War when our guys hid behind trees instead of standing out in the open like real men were supposed to do. I am highly pleased that we have this technology and the good sense to use it. We are taking the initiative against al Qaida while our soldiers sustain zero casualties.

[Fumesucker]

12. Zero casualties?

Taking the initiative?

We will pay a heavy price in the future for our foolishness.

Do Americans have some sort of psychological blind spot when it comes to foreseeing the logical consequences of the actions of our government?

[Lasher]

23. Yes, zero casualties.

Maybe you don't understand what a Predator Drone is.

I will resist the urge to lecture you about foolishness since you seem to be an expert at it.

[Fumesucker]

25. Creating more enemies than you kill is not a wise path..

We are creating many, many enemies with Predator drones (and yes, I know what they are, I've been flying RC planes for over 20 years, I've even had a couple with on board cameras).

Telling friend from foe, or just foe from innocent, from the air is a very chancy proposition. Tell me, how would you feel about someone who killed your entire family with such a device, would you love them, would you wish them well?

[Lasher]

49. And how about continuing to allow al Qaida a safe haven in Pakistan?

Do you think if we make nice with them they will sing our praises? Remember, these are the actual ones who were behind the 2001 attacks on the USA. No need to lecture me about telling friend from foe. They are not friends and they never will be, wake up. If 'innocents' crowd around these murders they do so at their own peril.

[Political Tiger]

14. Or maybe we should do away with all weapons

and just have troops fight hand to hand?

[Statistical]

19. That would be "fair" unless our soldiers are bigger/stronger.

Maybe we should:

1) capture all of the enemy w/ taser equipped drones.
2) measure enemy weight, muscle mass, intelligence, strength.
3) us database to analyze all American soldiers
4) match up closest match
5) soldiers fight 1:1 to the death
6) score one point for winning team.
7) first side to 100,000 points wins and the other side retreats.

maybe that would be "fair" enough for the OP.

[NeedleCast]

11. What a strange comment

Reminds me of how nobles in the middle ages thought the crossbow was a cowardly weapon because it allowed commoners with little training to kill nobles.

[Political Tiger]

13. What about firing missiles from an offshore Navy vessel? n/t

[Occam Bandage]

15. "Courage" and "cowardice," when applied to war, are nothing but ways of encouraging boys to die.

I'm fine with taking the courage and cowardice out of war. It doesn't save the other side's young men, nor their innocent victims of war, but I don't see a problem with saving American lives.

[jmg257]

17. What's bravery have to do with it? Just make the OTHER guy die for his country,

Or blow up more of HIS equipment.

Seems pretty smart to me.

[Statistical]

18. War isn't suppose to be fair.

"fair" wars tend to last very long time and result in massive deaths (both civilian and soldiers) on both sides.

The "goal" of war is ALWAYS to gain an advantage over the enemy.

Is it cowardly that US Soldiers wear body armor?
Is it cowardly that US Soldiers use their sights and properly aim before firing?
Is it cowardly that US Soldiers have access to artillery & air strikes?
Is it cowardly that US Soldiers have quick access to medivac?
Is it cowardly that US Soldiers are well trained and the team operates more lethaly than group of individuals?
IS it cowardly that US Soldiers employ snipers and the enemy often never sees them?

This topic wins stupidest post of the day award. 04/07/2009.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

22. and it's still early!

but i agree with you. the military's job is to kill more of their soldiers and break more of their shit than they do to us and ours. they should achieve that through any means necessary otherwise they should not go to war in the first place...

sP

[Fumesucker]

26. You are wrong..

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

Sun Tzu figured this out about 2300 years ago, why do Americans have such a hard time with it today?

[pnutbutr]

30. maybe

Americans are not interested in supreme excellence.

[Fumesucker]

38. No, Americans just like to kill people and break shit..

Comes from being so Christ-like I guess.

[pnutbutr]

41. I'm not even sure

what supreme excellence means. Maybe to explain? :rofl:

[Fumesucker]

42. The most desirable outcome in war is for the other side to capitulate

Without fighting..

Actual combat is always costly, bloody and unpredictable.

Edited to add: That is why it is generally considered that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives overall, the US invasion of Japan would have almost certainly have killed millions, many of them civilians.

Von Clausewitz's "fog of war" is a reality..

http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm


The Prussian military thinker Carl von Clausewitz is widely acknowledged as the most important of the major strategic theorists. Even though he's been dead for over a century and a half, he remains the most frequently cited, the most controversial, and in many respects the most modern.

[pnutbutr]

44. that's technically not war

Your going toward the use of diplomacy here.

Oh, wait on your edit. Wat? You didn't just passively suggest using nuclear weapons on civilian population centers was a good thing did you?

[Fumesucker]

45. The firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined..

That was distinctly non-nuclear, not really even explosives.

And yes, diplomacy is far less costly in blood, misery and treasure than combat.

Which is why the experienced soldier is the least eager to fight.

[pnutbutr]

51. so

the use of diplomacy to resolve disputes is supreme excellence?

[Fumesucker]

53. According to one of the finest military strategists in history, yes..

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

[pnutbutr]

56. only took 8 posts

I could have said that 8 posts ago but was just holding out for you to do it. Oh, well. Guess I won't bother asking for explanations anymore, I'll just take the initiative from now on and explain what other people are trying to say.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Over 27 thousand Allied soldiers lost their lives taking an island that was about 8 sq. miles

It's not as black and white as atomic bomb = bad when you look at it from the perspective of the people who were planning it at the time.

[pnutbutr]

24. prevent death

The drones are used with the intent of preventing the deaths of our neighbors and their children.

[Fumesucker]

27. But is that what happens IN THE LONG RUN?

I think a lot of the tactics we use may be effective in the short term and wildly stupid in the long term..

I suspect using drones the way we do is such a tactic, possibly effective now but with long term implications that have been completely ignored.

It often occurs to me to wonder why so many Americans are totally unable to see things from any other perspective than their own.

[pnutbutr]

28. long term implications such as??? nt

[Fumesucker]

29. Your innocent family just got wiped out by a Predator drone..

Do you and your neighbors have warm, fuzzy feelings about the people who paid for and operate the drone?

Or do you vow vengeance and do your utmost to kill as many of those who killed your family as possible?

Americans have very short memories, not so for much of the rest of the world and particularly so in places like Afghanistan, they carry on blood feuds for centuries. Hell, the Sunni-Shia divide is about 1300 years old and they're still fighting over it..

[pnutbutr]

31. what does that

specifically have to do with drones?

[Fumesucker]

33. If you don't get it then I don't think I'm going to be able to explain in a way you can understand..

Everyone knows who owns the drones, America..

Drones are not good at telling friend from innocent from foe, we are going to kill and indeed are killing a lot of innocents with these things.

Making a lot of implacable enemies is not a good or wise thing to do. As a wise man once said, friends come and go, enemies accumulate.

Americans in particular make the mistake of thinking that people living in primitive conditions are stupid, that is far from the case.

We would be far better served by trying to win Afghans over as friends than doing stupid things with robots that will make them hate us.

The current impasse with Iran dates back to 1954, Americans for the most part have completely forgotten about the incident that triggered it, if they even ever knew, Iranians on the other hand remember very well.

[pnutbutr]

35. why is it

that nobody will ever explain anything around here?

Hatred from portions of native populations is created by any and all military action against them and is not confined to the use of drones.

[Fumesucker]

37. Often because explanations are futile and have been repeated many times..

And yes, "native populations" don't like it when you kill them and blow their homes and families apart, they are strange that way..

I'm just pointing out that drones are a particularly bad way of going about this task since they are so likely to kill innocents.

[pnutbutr]

40. no more than

a pilot in an aircraft using the same video technology to determine targets on the ground.

[Fumesucker]

47. The technology is seductive, which means it is more likely to be used..

The more people we kill, the more enemies we make, robotic technology is going to make it more likely that we will kill innocents, IMO.

[pnutbutr]

50. kinda like

gps targeting systems as compared to just letting bombs drop like the WWII Tokyo firebombing you mentioned? :rofl:

[Canuckistanian]

32. "What did you do in the war, Daddy?"

"Why son, I sat in a bunker in Washington and pushed buttons. I killed 400 enemy fighters! (Oh, and a few women and children, too)"

[pnutbutr]

36. better than the same question being asked here

[Occam Bandage]

39. A far better question than, "What did daddy do in the war, Mommy?" nt

[Statistical]

54. +1

[harun]

43. Agree completely. Won't gain respect of the enemy. Should be outlawed.

[NeedleCast]

48. Won't gain respect of the enemy

Huh?

I can honestly say that the number of times I was concerned about whether the Taliban respected me or not while stationed in Afghanistan was zero.

[Occam Bandage]

57. I don't think "making the Taliban respect us" is our goal in Afghanistan. nt

[Statistical]

60. Hard for them to "not respect us" if they catch a bad case of dead n/t

[Cid_B]

55. Ahh.. excuse me...

I think your cup of stupid has spilled and has slopped all over the floor.

Seriously, you think we should do this Braveheart style? If we offered do you think they would be stupid enough to stand on the other side?

Sheesh...

[ProdigalJunkMail]

59. let's just line up and throw rocks at each other

i know the other side would agree to that...unless they develop some other weapon that they could use...but we should keep throwing rocks...

sP