I'm not opposed to all drone warfare but this particular technique seems disgusting to me.

Bryant

can you imagine living under the threat of drones, never knowing when you hear them buzzing above if today you'll get blown up? Can you imagine being a child seeing your grandmother blown up in the garden and then when people come running to help, seeing your brother blown up by a "double tap"?

Thus endless war.

Maybe some day the world will wake up and look, and there won't be a single human left in Afghanistan at all.


Maybe then, on that day, we'll recognize this type of warfare for what it is; genocide.

way back to when we first found out about Bush using them.

I believe it was Robert Fisk, or perhaps another investigative journalist from the UK, who was actually present during a drone strike in a remote part of Afghanistan.

I never, ever forgot his description of the carnage, the grotesque crime scene littered with body parts, many of the children and the grief stricken mothers and fathers who rushed to the scene trying to find the remains of their children in order to bury them.

And now we have Democrats defending what they once condemned. Turning blind eyes to what is now even worse than it was back then.

And I wonder, what kind of people can simply dismiss the killing of innoncents, including children, who have zero compassion for the heart break of a dead child?

I would love to know how someone gets to that point, to the point where they are so lacking in what should be normal feelings of sadness, of empathy, that they can refer to those lives casually as 'collateral damage' and try to make excuses for their deaths?

Something is very wrong with such people imo.

both in terms of the number of strikes made and the number of countries we've attacked

Apart from the handful of social issues which are demarcated along party lines for the most part many democrats particularly in the blogosphere are just anti-republican and what I believe this does is allow them to justify to themselves especially that things that are going on are acceptable because we are the ones doing it. The other effect of this is just denial, unable or unwilling to believe that "we" are not perfect or worse, that we can possibly be wrong about some things or someone. In a nutshell it's ego and the lengths people go to protect it. IMO.

It was as disgusting as Bush's joke about WMD.

Both parties are not the same, but in some aspects they are exactly the same.

by Bush's despicable 'joke' about WMDs were not at all disturbed by the President's Drone 'joke'.

I think it has become apparent that when it comes to the MIC the policies are already in place and no one person is going to be able to change them. They have gained far too much power and this should be a huge issue now if it is ever to change.

Have you seen this video?

53¢ of every tax dollar goes to the military

With more 3-1/2 minute Advertisements for Sanity like this we could change the world!

I've had the debate many times with neocons who claim that we're living in a vast welfare state because they count in the Medicaid and Social Security payments as gummint spending (these are trust funded, not tax-funded) and they dishonestly minimize the military spending by leaving out all the ancillary costs such as VA, interest on war debt, and military components to AEC, State Dept, etc.

How do we rein in the behemoth? Easy. We elect courageous and visionary public servants to Congress and we watch them die in mysterious plane crashes, and we mourn them and elect more and watch them die, and eventually there will be too many to kill. That's how democracy works.

sort of.

<snip>

After ordering a review of a policy that was one of his predecessor’s last official moves, Hagel said Monday that he concluded no such medal was needed. Instead, he said, a “device” will be affixed to existing medals to recognize those who fly and operate drones, whom he described as “critical to our military’s mission of safeguarding the nation.”

Devices are used by the Pentagon to add a specific form of additional recognition when troops are lauded for exceptional performance.

<snip>

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-15/world/38553247_1_distinguished-warfare-medal-new-medal-valor

Sounds like the PR was bad so they found another way to reward the slaughter.

Is that we have Du'ers who, so long as the victims pray towards Mecca, see no problem in this "strategy." One of 'em is yucking it up just a few posts downthread.

as it is that the president who's doing it now has a "D" after his name. If Romney had won and was behind this, they'd be back to protesting it.

fuck this shit.

I've posted lots of threads about drones and I intend to post many more.

double-tapping?

thousands of people terrorized day in and day out?

civilians being killed?

You don't think these constitute atrocities?

Do explain why not.

and these operations help win hearts and mines for America's war on terror?

but they don't want to be seen as going after terrorists so they will try to act like it's americans doing it on their own against the wishes of the pakistan govt.

U.S. are carrying out - but they just pretend they don't - and certainly no evidence the Pakistani people approve.

Yeah, other than that, there's no evidence...

Hell, we have the memo by which Pakistan re-cleared strikes 2 years ago.

Yes, you're right, and everybody in the media and foreign policy is wrong

position as opposed to creative speculation coming from agenda driven media

The Pakistani people as a whole don't like it, which is why the Pakistani government would rather us do it than them.

and these operations help win hearts and mines for America's war on terror?

No, this is not hearts and minds, it's "blowing up people who want to kill other people".

Ignatius wrote about if half a decade ago, for starters.

In all seriousness, I didn't realize people who care about this issue actually denied this.

on its territory? The article does not provide any evidence of the sort - it's all secret you know.

It may very well be that some generals on some occasions were personally happy about some figure being killed.. That is possible. Maybe even probably. But I have not yet seen any evidence that the Pakistani government does broadly support drone strikes in its territory - just creative speculation based on the argument of, "of course they do."

the Pakistani government broadly supports drone strikes - only speculation based on secret sources that suggest that sometimes they do when it involves certain characters. There is an undeniable fact that they have publicly condemned them on numerous occasions. No one seriously believes that the Pakistani people supports drone strikes.

favorite option.

Why does that have such a familiar ring to it?

Your argument - that we must use drones to kill "terrorists" - looks good on first glance, but when you realize that "militants" is just Obama Administration shorthand for "military-age males" the argument falls apart completely.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&

Is that some unknown person in our government decides that the person is militant? That justifies killing them and the innocent people around?

And I would love to hear your rationalization for a "double tap"?

Never let them get away with it.

Are you upset about the use of drones to kill people or about the exposure of the use of drones to kill people?

generally speaking that raises intelligence and/or integrity issues of the deficit kind.

During training, we didn't fire just 1 SM-1 SAM or Harpoon SSM; we usually fired a salvo of two as there was no guarantee that the first missile fired would do the job.

in case it either misses or malfunctions, then that's been pretty much SOp for some decades now.

Firing two missiles at once isn't double tapping. Double tapping is firing a missile, waiting until paramedics and other first responders show up, then hitting them with a missile.

Yes, all War = Terrorism, but is one form more objectionable than the other?

This strategy is being used to keep American troops from engaging the enemy directly. I don't think the Military has a better idea of how to prosecute The War On Terror more precisely than this.

Aside from ending the war, that is. But that doesn't seem to be an option.

areas of countries we aren't at war with.

Ending what war? the fucking phony ass "war on terrorism" is not a war.

And that we don't have the right to conduct military operations on foreign soil without an invitation.

But I'd wager that the ISI/Military in Pakistan has given us that invitation privately, while they reserve the right to deny it publicly. Like the hue and cry over the Bin Laden raid.

I doubt you'd admit we have the "right" to conduct drone strikes on Afghan soil, either - despite the congressional Authorization of Force in 2001.

So let's say "ending illegal hostilities" then.

the killing of innocents creates and endless supply of new "Terrorist". We are the real terrorists and have been way before 9/11.

As in all the wars in the late 20th century, the winners are the makers of said drones, cruise missiles, etc.

The losers are the victims and those sent off to fight these wars of prosperity.

It makes me even sicker to know that the man I voted for to end these wars has ramped them up a tad!

A Sunni blowing up a Shiia funeral in Iraq, the Muslim Brotherhood raking a Coptic Wedding with gunfire? Those are real terrorists, too. We may have contributed to exacerbating those hatreds, but we didn't start those fires.

The "Real Terrorist" club isn't so exclusive as to distinguish between authenitic (state-sponsored, AKA "war&quot and "terrorist" (which I presume you to mean having a legitimate grievance) terror. Both are unacceptable.

strikes. Could you imagine even one American objecting if some foreign government were carrying out strikes inside the U.S.? Of course not, we would be just as grateful as the Pakistan and Afghanistan people are for what we are doing for them.

carrying out attacks against americans i'm sure there would be people who would support a foreign power's help in taking out the mcveighs.

Or Afghanis or Yemenis - for that matter?

and they drone his ass. Only the drone takes out YOUR crib too, including your wife and 3 kids. Then, just to be on the "safe side", they double-tap ya, taking out all the first responders, of which maybe your Dad, or your sister Kathy, or your brother Jack, is one of them.

Would you be all happy happy happy? Or would you be the first one burning their flag and itching to kill their sorry asses?

in places like Pakistan and Yemen, thus justifying the use of drones.

NO - our troops do NOT need to be engaged with anyone in the Middle East, therefore we do NOT need to be using drones there.

The Military & CIA may believe that it is a Need, but it is a Want. Our gubmint has chosen to engage in these actions against Islamic militancy, and made a calculation that the least objectionable method is drone strikes.

No one in any 'Murkin Administration has ever tried to drop a Love Bomb instead of munitions. Provide clean water for a whole country, eradicate Malaria in an entire country, etc. We had choices, and Bush chose war.

Obama got stuck with a lot of bad choices, and turning the ship of state doesn't happen easily. He can't even close Gitmo, for Chrissakes.

government to do? Kill anyone anywhere that someone in our government somewhere thinks might be a person that wants to harm us and anyone in close proximity? What exactly is the criteria for assassination?

I assume that you can tell I agree with you on this point; there is no actual "War on Terror", like there was no actual "Cold War" or "War on Christmas". The military action in Afghanistan is colloquially called a War. I will strive for more precision in the future.

There is an Authorization of Force for Afghanistan. There is not for Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia. Unless Congress did it covertly.

The drone program definitely has criteria, I just don't know what it is. One can surmise that we are targeting Islamic militants with command responsibility, that we are basing target selection on extended obervation from drones, and that we're being aided by Intel from local sources and a wink from local governments.

I'm not defending the policy, I'm surmising what the policy and the safeguard measures are. Yes, "safeguards" in quotes, because they are causing "collateral damage" to innocent civilians. But again, that is likely a deliberate policy decision, as indiscriminate bombing (i.e. Dresden, Cambodia) would cause more non-combatant deaths, and using ground troops would cause American deaths.

And Congress passed the Authorization to Use Military Force, and has never rescinded it.

Seriously, there is nothing in the Constitution that says Congress needs to use the word "WAR" when exercising its power to declare it. This isn't some sort of magic ceremony where words have arcane power that must be invoked in special ways.

Similarly, the President of the United States can't declare he has the power to "Freedomify" France (through military means) without Congresses approval - just because he's not using the word "WAR".

Whether we are at war or not is based on our actions, not on our words. We are indeed at war - low intensity conflict to be sure, but war none the less.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

that's been my pov from the beginning.

It's nice, being greeted as liberators.

eligible for a "signature" strike? Provided she does so in a middle eastern country.

My understanding is, they would.

Hitting the people who came to help with another strike? That is utterly indefensible.

those who are injured," said Qadri.>> what other evidence is there that mission planners are intentionally targeting civilians and rescue workers rather than simply putting multiple warheads on the target.

How unusual is it in the history of modern war for a succession of bombs to to be placed on a target over a period of time?

I'm very skeptical that mission planners are intentionally targeting civilian and rescue workers as a deliberate tactic and I've not seen any convincing evidence that they are.

The fact that two bombs fell within a space of minutes is not definitive proof of a crime.

you can also read these links:

Legal analysis from Stanford International Human Rights & Conflict Resolution Clinic
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report-legality/

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/03/25/graphic-new-visualisation-for-cias-drone-war-in-pakistan/

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023415880

either shows or purports to show any evidence that US mission planners have intentionally targeted civilians or rescue workers through a deliberate "double tap" tactic.

They address the broad issue of drone strikes generally and from legal, strategic, and moral perspectives.

Have a look.

That drone strikes occur and civilians are killed is not in dispute. What's in dispute is whether or not mission planners deliberately use double strikes in order to kill civilians and rescue workers.

this heinous policy.

I can't say here what I think of people who do that.

I'm questioning whether or not the tactic of using double strikes in order to kill civilians and rescue workers exists as a deliberate policy at all and I'm challenging you to defend your contention that it does. And what you offer is unimpressive. You toss out some links and say "read these".

I read them and they have exactly nothing to say regarding the question at hand.

I've read a number of reports on this subject over the past several years. The general narrative is this: there was a drone strike. several minutes later there was another drone strike. Civilians and/or rescue workers were killed in the second drone strike. Therefore, US mission planners are obviously deliberately using double strikes in order to kill civilians and rescue workers. Furthermore, this is obviously proof of a deliberate and intentional US policy.


Multiple strikes are common and happen all the time. The purpose obviously being to destroy, that is to kill, the persons who were targeted. When the strikes occur in populated areas, which many of them do, civilans and rescue workers can be killed. That doesn't demonstrate or prove that the objective was to kill civilians and rescue workers.

Well, it may to you but it doesn't to me.

What is the evidence that has convinced you that US mission planners deliberately and intentionally design missions with the objective of killing civilians?

So I'm not sure what you mean. Are we targeting only terrorists? Certainly not, not even our government would claim that. Are we targeting only militants? Certainly not, though our government's disingenuous redefinition of the term "militant" permits them to claim so. What we are doing is targeting people based on algorithmic criteria which they will not share with us. We, and apparently the people all over the world, are supposed to trust them to make the right decisions on who dies and who does not.

It's pretty well established that the double tap is a strategy to further remove people who are sympatico with the people killed (associates, friends, family) and maimed in the first attack. Plus these people, having witnessed the carnage of the first attack, become more likely militants themselves. Sorry I have no link on hand to support that, maybe someone else does. But I think your skepticism is misplaced.

Why did we bother to fight the Second World War against the Nazis, if we are only going to adopt their tactics and world view? Somebody (Hegel?) once said, "When you fight a monster, take great care that you do not become the monster!" We need to STOP these drone attacks. Now, please.

getting most Americans to give a fig.

the equivalent of today's top number of recs (300+) and not one dissenter.

It's really as simple as that.

Outrage by the party faithful becomes non existant

I so admire the information and opinions that you have been posting lately.

by a policy of deliberately killing civilians and rescue workers through drone strikes?

In almost every way it compromises our strategic mission in the region. It endangers US soldiers and civilians by creating animosity. It grows the ranks of our enemies. It degrades support for the military mission in general and for the drone program in particular. It makes the drone program increasingly unpopular at home and abroad and jeopardizes its continuation. It seriously degrades our relationships with the countries in the region and makes it much harder to operate in many other ways.

And all for what? So we could kill a grandmother or her grandchild?

Why would our military leadership adopt a policy that almost everyone would correctly point out is not only immoral and illegal, but is highly counterproductive to our broader military and foreign policy goals?

Is it out of sheer malice or unbridled stupidity?

It does not make us safer as advertised for the very reasons you pointed out.

The drone wars must end!

of the people they attacked, as I said above.

I agree with your statements about the effects on our relationships there. Does our leadership agree? I don't know. I do know they aren't stupid. Misguided seems more likely.

Their line of thinking might be along the lines that the people likely to be killed and the other people in the area likely to be enraged are people we cannot positively connect with anyway, much like we at DU look at hard-core RW areas as people who will not respond to reason no matter what. They (our war-on- terra leadership) deal in cold, inhuman logic such as profiling and algorithmic risk assessment. If you're living in a certain area your "scores" are probably pretty high regardless of who you are. Sick stuff.

And let's face it, our broader military and policy goals are not to peacefully disengage, they are to provide unchallenged access of the planet's natural resources to the multinational corporations who intend to extract them and profit from them. We very much want to be engaged and militarily involved in as much of the middle east as possible. Disengagement is reserved for situations which are firmly "in control". I use "we" loosely, speaking for the powers that be.

A New York Air National Guard unit, the former 174th Fighter Wing at Syracuse, lost its F-16's (and much-needed air defence capabilities) and are now equipped with drones - renamed the 174th Attack Wing.



This literally flies in the face of the main role of the Air National Guard (one that I was part of) - AIR DEFENCE of CONUS, and of NORAD in partnership with the Royal Canadian Air Force.

I wonder where their fighters were on 9/11/2001?

They were en route along with ANG fighters from Otis ANGB (Cape Cod), Massachusetts and Atlantic City, NJ...they got there just a little too late.

nt

i'm just an emoprog ratfucking crazy leftist however so... what would I know.

What would happen if we dropped food, medicine and iPads?

Went to the secret Swiss bank accounts of the CIA installed dictators and tribal thug war lords

The same guys to fly to southern France in the winter and enjoy the Prostitutes there

I don't think we're capable of distributing aid in a non-destructive way, for the most part.

Lots of Mercedes cars driven past sand bagged stores and shops

Also just look up the aid given to Ferdinand Marcos





The before and after of his version of Mount Rushmore after his people expressed their opinion about his honesty

the assertion that that claim is falsifiable, is hogwash. there are many factors involved so it's virtually impossible to tease one out from all the others.

as for the "we dropped a Marshall Plan worth of food and medicine...."; at the same time we were dropping bombs and invading the country. Hardly the same thing as the Marshall Plan.

and killing millions of civilians. My point about that was that, as was pointed out above, most of that aid didn't really end up helping people who needed it.

there are many factors involved so it's virtually impossible to tease one out from all the others.

Sure, I grant that, but it also makes Scuba's original claim harder to stick to.

blame in your utterly twisted view?

fuck, revisionist history of the worst kind. consider me disgusted.

bye

Drone strikes are cowardly. The military personnel involved are war criminals.