A Reaper drone letting loose a Hellfire missile. The Obama administration has insisted the "targeted killings" are "a last resort" against those plotting to attack the US.
----------------------------------
[THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS]
In the spirit that formerly obscure Senator Joe McCarthy popularized Communist witch trials Senator Lindsey Graham seeks to gain a national audience by backing another questionable cause - killer drones. Australia’s ABC News, February 21, 2013 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-02-21/us-senator-offers-drone-strike-casualty-total/4532162:[THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS]
"...Republican Lindsey Graham is the first US government official to offer an estimate on the total number of fatalities in America's secretive drone war. "We've killed 4,700," he was quoted as saying. "Sometimes you hit innocent people, and I hate that, but we're at war, and we've taken out some very senior members of Al Qaeda," "It's a weapon that needs to be used," he said. "It's a tactical weapon..."
His remark was unprecedented, as US officials have sometimes hinted at estimates of civilian casualties but never referred to a total body count.
The strikes have been condemned by rights groups as extrajudicial assassinations.
..."This is the first time a US official has put a total number on it," said Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Targeted killings
...US intelligence agencies and the White House have refused to divulge details about the strikes, which are officially termed classified, but officials have suggested that few if any civilians have been killed inadvertently.
In hearings this month on the nominee to lead the CIA, John Brennan, Senator Dianne Feinstein said she understood the number of civilians killed was in the "single digits".
Drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere are covert attacks overseen by the CIA, while bombing runs by drones in Afghanistan fall under the US military's authority and are not cloaked in secrecy.
The Obama administration has insisted the "targeted killings" are "a last resort" against those plotting to attack the United States but who cannot be captured."Also see http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/02/graham-drones/ on casualty statistics.
COMMENT
So whats wrong with armed drones?
Are drone strikes problematic because:
- drones technology including communications networks and sensors are not infallible
- drone pilots are not infallible. Do they have a lower degree of perception of the battle space than jet or helicopter pilots.
- Limited perceptual focus on the the small human targets on the ground more important than all round defensive focus.
- they frequently kill people in a premeditated way, discussed by targeting and intelligence committees then endorsed by the President?
- the way people are killed - from such effects as blast (including thermobaric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Effect ) fragments and heat.
- drones technology including communications networks and sensors are not infallible
- drone pilots are not infallible. Do they have a lower degree of perception of the battle space than jet or helicopter pilots.
- Limited perceptual focus on the the small human targets on the ground more important than all round defensive focus.
- they frequently kill people in a premeditated way, discussed by targeting and intelligence committees then endorsed by the President?
- the way people are killed - from such effects as blast (including thermobaric http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon#Effect ) fragments and heat.
- war is rarely declared formally against those killed by drones. Expanding undeclared war in North and Sahel Africa.
- those killed are frequently seen as unlawful combatants who have less rights than enemy soldiers.
- drone strikes pit a super power military against insurgents (some say "terrorists") who have less power than most militaries of lesser countries, particularly the insurgents in Africa. Insurgents counter-drone measures.
- drone strikes pit a super power military against insurgents (some say "terrorists") who have less power than most militaries of lesser countries, particularly the insurgents in Africa. Insurgents counter-drone measures.
- there is a lack of a "fair fight" in that the drone pilots are not at risk?
- because armed drones are often operated by the CIA partially to increase the secrecy of those drone programs?
- drones are ugly dragon like aircraft?
- they are a new, high tech class of weapon with new rules and capabilities?
- because armed drones are often operated by the CIA partially to increase the secrecy of those drone programs?
- drones are ugly dragon like aircraft?
- they are a new, high tech class of weapon with new rules and capabilities?
- because the US is the only widely known user of killer drones?
- the possibility that drones and their pilots are much more remote from the scene - increasing the chance that there'll read things wrong and perhaps more likely that they'll hit the wrong target? and
- are drones more likely to be used than jets because a drone pilot himself is not exposed to harm or capture? Drone strikes are less political than jet airstrikes because drones, unlike jets, are seen less as a weapon of war or invasion to the same extent? Would this make the US more interventionist or more likely to kill terrorists by utilizing other countries' airspace?
Arguments in Favor?
Piloted ground attack aircraft or artillery may only have a quick glimpse or no direct view of their target before they destroy it while drones can loiter for hours to be sure of their target.
- Drone pilots (unlike fighter and bomber pilots) don't need all points perception of threats from other aircraft and missiles.
- Drones are relatively expendable compared to manned aircraft so need less avoidance of enemy aircraft and missiles is less important.
- Drones types can be tailored to their threat environment to a greater extent than manned aircraft. Predator/Reapers operate in low anti-aircraft threat environments. Though not yet armed (?) stealth drones (such as RQ-170 Sentinels) can operate in higher threat environments. Drones with long range sensors (such as Global Hawk) can look into higher threat territory while being operated from friendly airspace.
- Drone pilots (unlike fighter and bomber pilots) don't need all points perception of threats from other aircraft and missiles.
- Drones are relatively expendable compared to manned aircraft so need less avoidance of enemy aircraft and missiles is less important.
- Drones types can be tailored to their threat environment to a greater extent than manned aircraft. Predator/Reapers operate in low anti-aircraft threat environments. Though not yet armed (?) stealth drones (such as RQ-170 Sentinels) can operate in higher threat environments. Drones with long range sensors (such as Global Hawk) can look into higher threat territory while being operated from friendly airspace.
Lawyers can sit with the drones pilots to discuss the legalities of the killing before, during and after the killing.
Two issues.
Two issues.
Australian military might use armed drones in the future because drones are seen by our armed forces as saving Australian lives. Armed US drones have conducted some strike missions that have been called in byAustralian special forces troops http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-08/australias-drone-war-in-afghanistan/4058058.
John O. Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Libya - while drone strikes by the US military have been more publicized. Brennan is currently chief counterterrorism advisor to President Obama. He may soon become CIA Director if the US Senate Armed Services Committee confirms him in that roll. As he is the major advocate below the President for the effectiveness of the killer drone programs there may be even greater US emphasis on drone strikes by the CIA and US military in future.
-
Pete