

Pakistan's deadly robots in the sky - mcantelon
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/asia-pacific/pakistans-deadly-robots-in-the-sky/article1739172/

======
simplegeek
I'm based in Pakistan and all I have to say is that this is hurting America
more than anything (these guys have no idea how much hatred this is causing
among Pakistanis). I mean there is this American guy who's helping people
teach their kids and this American guy is a hero (and he teaches in the same
_dangerous_ zone). So I think if we need help we need it in education and etc.

I've been working with Americans for last 6 years and I've found them very
honest, friendly, smart & hard-working. But when I look at American foreign
policy towards the region I live in I find it most disturbing. Something is
seriously wrong with the current drones-policy and American's(people in
charge) have no idea how wrong it is ;( But our own leaders are probably
responsible for it too. Stories of current government's corruption are very
common now. I mean we have a 90+ member cabinet & most of them don't know an
iota about running a country. I mean I can go on and on ;(

I'm currently pursuing graduate studies and most of people I meet everyday
they want peace as much as you all want. We just don't know when will this
terror end ;(

~~~
zohaibr
The American you are talking about is Greg Mortenson?

~~~
simplegeek
Yeah, I'm sorry but I was unable to recall his name ;)

------
RyanMcGreal
Title should be: " _America's_ deadly robots in Pakistan's sky".

~~~
drtse4
I don't know about upvotes, but with this title i guess that nearly 100% of HN
will click...

------
tokenadult
The article does a good job of revealing the degree of superstition in that
very poorly educated and isolated area. (I am referring, for example, to the
claims that drones leave behind "poisonous dust," not a very likely payload at
all.) If that superstition turns into hatred of America, that can't be good
for United States foreign policy. Regions that are safe havens for the Taliban
and Al-Qaeda include so many people who think so differently from people in
the developed world that it may be very difficult to find a way to gain
support for shutting down the terrorist networks. This is a bad situation all
around.

~~~
run4yourlives
This is the great issue that the US - over and over again - fails to grasp:
You cannot use technology to bring a mind into agreement with your objectives.

The only way to win the hearts and minds of the people in that region is to
meet them face to face where they live. Talk to them, argue with them, protect
them and if required kill them. They need to see you as real, your objectives
as firm statements - even if they disagree - and your resolve complete. They
respect the strong and the committed, they deride the weak and conflicted.

This is a human war, and the only thing accomplished by flying drones around
is a further separation from the people subject to their actions from the
values of the people flying them.

All everyone ever really wants is to have a better life for themselves and
their family. Maslow's hierarchy of needs suggests that if you can address or
improve the base of the pyramid, you can restructure the entire pyramid. You
can see easily how perverse religion warps the perception by manipulating
these base needs; pretending that they aren't required, or even rejecting them
outright as evil.

What we should be doing in Pakistan is essentially ignoring the fundamentalist
nature of the region and showering them with things to address the bottom two
levels of the pyramid. Yes this is a massive short term investment and yes
this will cost lives.

Be sure though that it is the only way for the west to win this war over the
long term. Every drone bringing faceless death from the sky only prolongs it.

~~~
krschultz
This is a very popular opinion these days, but since when do we have to win
the _hearts and minds_ to win the war?

What if the US just nukes every country with terrorists in it? There would
hypothetically be no terrorists left, and everyone would work very hard not to
be grouped in with those countires, otherwise they're going to get nuked too.

It sounds crazy (and I certainly don't condone that strategy), but realize
that is one of the other options. For the vast majority of history winning
wars didn't rely on winning the hearts and minds of _anyone_ , it relied on
the complete destruction and subjugation of the other faction.

You could say "this war is different", but it really is not. It is different
than the West on West wars of the last 3 centuries, but it is no different
than a lot of guerilla wars in the past. The Native Americans tried really
hard to stop Americans from expanding into their land - and the US won that
guerilla war by just excersizing extreme cruelty.

Trying to win hearts and minds is a losing strategy against an opponent who
doesn't care about that at all. The terrorists are not trying to win our
hearts and minds, they are trying to kill as many Americans as possible. That
makes their goals a lot easier to achieve.

Can we really invade every single country that holds some people that want us
dead and "meet them face to face". Hell no, that would require conquering the
whole world, which is impossible even for the US. The other option is making
an example of a country and dissuading every other country from allowing
terrorists to exist inside their borders, lest they end up like country X or Y
that was conquered by the US.

Unfortunately by bungling in Iraq and forgetting about Afghanistan, the US
ends up just looking weak. The reality is that the biggest obstacle to total
victory is the lack of support for the level of violence required to win a war
like this. The American people just won't stomach anywhere near the level of
damage inflicted on the opponent in World War 1 or 2.

Thus with "total domination" off of the play book, we have "ignore borders and
start dropping hellfire missiles on people no matter where they are" as a the
current method for dealing with people. Overall, I'd consider it far more
humanitarian than the other options.

~~~
run4yourlives
_What if the US just nukes every country with terrorists in it?_

Well, you'll get the war you're looking for that's for sure. Unfortunately,
you might actually be fighting a war that looks more like the downfall of the
Roman empire than the liberation you seem to think you'll achieve. This isn't
really a winnable strategy, even if you win the actual conflict.

 _For the vast majority of history winning wars didn't rely on winning the
hearts and minds of anyone, it relied on the complete destruction and
subjugation of the other faction._

History shows that wars without a clear decisive outcome tend to drag on for
generations. "Most wars" did exactly that. The fact that WWII did have such an
clear outcome does not make it the norm, even with the idea of "total
domination".

Wars of ideas(opposed to those over resources and/or land) don't end until one
of the ideas goes out of fashion. The cold war is a perfect example of this.
That stalemate ended because the _communists_ didn't think their ideas would
work. It had little to do with how many nukes the west could muster.

In the same light, radical Islam - I could argue Islam/religion itself - can
only be "defeated" when the Islamics themselves decide that the particular
path that they are on isn't worth the struggle. People turn to religion - any
religion - when their needs are not being met. This is true even in the West -
the Catholic church was the supreme authority during the dark ages, when
Europe was suffering, and the Muslim world was enjoying a much less religious
but more established existence a few miles away.

Fulfill the needs of the person to a basic level and religion offers nothing.
You cannot win a war of ideas until you kill the idea, not the person.

------
alexgartrell
We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for
free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal
price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

~~~
VladRussian
>We're seeing the very beginning of what it means to be able to go to war for
free (both in terms of cost in lives, and, in practical terms, in literal
price), and there's no putting the genie back in the bottle.

you're right about very beginning. The "to go to war for free" is available
and applicable to both sides, and thus, after a couple of iterations would
lead to cost escalation. Remember the Stinger effect on the Soviet forces 20+
years ago in Afghanistan? The same way the next couple of steps are clearly
visible: 1\. Pakistanis buy Stingers(or likes) 2\. USA start using stealth
drones (google for SkunkWorks' one already being tested in Afghanistan) 3\.
Pakistanis buy small [mull cart/pickup truck mountable] radar/missile
automated system like Phalanx or Kashtan CIWS 4\. USA improve speed/stealth of
the drones, increase the range and intelligence of Hellfire ...

As a result it is going to be more expensive and technologically intensive.

------
Arun2009
It's inhuman and unwise to target civilians when they are mere puppets of
agents higher up in the hierarchy. It's simple, really: the US is killing
Pakistanis, and when they find that their people are being _culled_ , the
likes of Faisal Shahzad _will_ snap and go to any length to get back at the
US.

IMO, what we really need is a MASSIVE propaganda effort to isolate Islamist
ideologues within Pakistan. Not sure how this will happen, but the parallel I
have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany. If NATO along sympathetic
states like India pool their resources together, I think it should be possible
to buy out/instigate/support any number of revolutionaries within Pakistan who
will effectively portray the Islamists as the cancer of not just Pakistan, but
of mankind itself.

~~~
pvg
_but the parallel I have in mind is the downfall of Nazism in Germany._

That took the systematic leveling of a good chunk of Germany, just for
starters. Perhaps not an optimal parallel.

~~~
brudgers
But better than Imperial Japan.

~~~
pvg
If you go by death toll, it seems by most sources, Germany fared quite a bit
worse.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II)

~~~
brudgers
My comment was regarding weapon systems deployed, as that was the subject of
the article, not which pile of bodies was bigger.

