
We’re not the “good guys”: American drone warfare is terrorizing the Middle East - nkurz
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/23/were_not_the_good_guys_partner/
======
jkraker
I don't think anyone would argue that at least some of these individuals who
are targeted are really bad people who are trying to do orders of magnitude
more damage other populations.

So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that
person? The US has settled on killing them with drones as the "best" solution
and its leaders I think truly believe that this minimizes collateral damage.
Is there a better course of action besides just letting these people work
toward their horrific goals? I think that history has proven that you can't
just leave people like this alone and expect them to chill out, so what do you
do?

~~~
Blackthorn
> So here's the key question: How to you best neutralize the threat of that
> person?

Honest question: has assassination _ever_ actually been effective at effecting
the political change the assassin wants?

It's probably easier now to assassinate someone than it ever has been in human
history, but the actual number doesn't seem higher per capita (maybe it is,
feel free to correct me on that).

~~~
omonra
1\. The goal of US drone assassinations is not to _effect_ political change
but to keep the status quo. That's a different question than one you asked.

2\. On a more general level, your question can be rephrased as 'has violence
ever been effective at making a (political) difference'. The answer to that is
- absolutely. It has actually been the _most_ effective strategy at effecting
change throughout history.

~~~
Blackthorn
1) Fair point

2) This is not a valid generalization and represents a leap of logic. I was
talking specifically of assassinations.

~~~
omonra
Ok - re #2 - look at what % of political movements succeeded despite most of
their leaders being killed. I'd say that since majority of political movements
succeed with _live_ leaders, it must mean that the ones whose leaders were
killed in time, did not succeed.

It's like the WW2 story about looking for holes in returning fighter planes :)

------
valvar
I find that pieces like this one skewer the debate. The debate should be about
war and the use of force, not drones. What's the alternative to drones? It's
either boots on the ground, or not waging war. I think a lot of people,
including myself, would prefer the latter. But if we're choosing between boots
on the grounds, and drones, we should look at the facts. I don't have them at
hand, but I have a strong suspicion that drones are the better option if you
care for the people, both American and native. If you abolish the drones but
continue the war, that's not a particularly desirable result. So let's focus
on the negatives of war in general, not the negatives of a particularly
effective technology that it can be waged with.

I think the aspect of operators' mental health which the article brought up
was very important, though. These people are soliders, but are they treated as
such? Why are they not given more support? Why are they not selected more
carefully and given better psychological training beforehand? It's a budget
question, of course, but it still desperately needs to be addressed.

------
Blackthorn
I've made the claim in the past on, for example, my FB feed that American
drone strikes are literally terrorism and should be treated no differently
than (for example) the Brussels attacks. This has resulted in more than a few
hurt feelings but honestly I cannot see a difference. I am American.

~~~
jeremyt
You can't see any difference between an attack in an extremely public place
that indiscriminately targets civilians in an effort to kill as many people as
possible and targeted attacks on specific targets with sometimes unfortunate
and unavoidable collateral damage?

~~~
the-dude
I do not see why intention matters.

~~~
jeremyt
A scientist attempting to find a cure for cancer accidentally mixes up some
chemicals and causes a huge explosion which results in 1000 deaths.
Alternately, a terrorist sets off a bomb in a public place killing 1000
people.

Should they each be charged with the same crime and receive the same
punishment?

~~~
Jtsummers
Your scientist had no intent on killing anyone. Drone strikes are intended to
kill. It's an unapt comparison for a discussion about two groups deliberately
killing people. One classified as "terrorism" and the other classified as "war
as usual/collateral damage" when they kill innocent people.

~~~
jeremyt
I was responding to a comment stating "I don't see why intention matters"

------
ourmandave
I'd read that ISIS beheading videos we're for recruiting (besides proving that
they'll kill if you don't pay the ransom).

But I wondered why anyone would want to join an organization that does that.

I guess having your wedding hellfire-missiled might be a motivator.

------
md224
Ah, a political thread. Who wants to place bets on how fast this gets flagged
off the front page? :P

EDIT: And there it goes.

~~~
jdubs
This add nothings to HN.

------
Joeri
To be fair, this is an international war. It's not the U.S. that's fighting
ISIL, it's NATO. I doubt the drone strikes help things, but when you look at
what ISIL does it would be equally wrong to stand by and let it happen.

There are no easy answers on what should be done in conflicts like these. I'm
pretty sure drones are the wrong answer, but I don't know what a better one
would be. Maybe as a species we just haven't developed the right ethical code
to avoid getting into these horrible messes, because in one form or another
they keep returning. It's always war somewhere.

------
eevilspock
“Imagine If This Was Happening to Us”

~~~
noir_lord
If a foreign power blew up my wedding with a drone strike because they thought
someone there was on their watch list (correctly or not) I'd be likely to take
up arms against them.

I don't understand how anyone can think this isn't going to happen, wouldn't
matter that I'm an atheist not religious or anything else either.

Shit is all fucked up, We should never have gone into Iraq the second time and
the case for Afghanistan while stronger was still debatable.

It's fucking absurd to the point of tragedy.

------
clavalle
I have a really hard time feeling bad for people that join the military that
get upset that they have to kill people.

~~~
noir_lord
There is a great deal of difference between joining the military because you
want a career and to defend your country (for example joining the Japanese
Defence Force) and joining other militaries.

It is perhaps naive to join the US or UK military and not expect to deployed
to fight in often pointless wars with no clear strategic goals beyond
"something must be done, this is something ergo we must do it".

That said the entire PR effort of both militaries is around serving your
country and been the "good guy", it's not until you are inside the factory you
see how the sausage is made, remember most of us aren't 18-19 year old kids
often from a poor background.

Lots of people do things I think are strange (going to a cold stone building
to worship a being who most likely doesn't exist, blowing yourself up because
a man who claims a better of understanding of being who probably doesn't exist
than you says so etc etc).

------
user10001
Islamic militants coming from Russia are terrorizing the Middle East. On the
one hand, Putin is pretending to fight ISIS in Syria. On the other hand, he is
shaking hands with ISIS sympathizer Kadyrov.

~~~
hellbanner
Maybe you were trying to discuss other geo-politikal issues but I don't see
this as relating to the USA's drone warware at hand.

------
throwaway4728
Dumb political topic, inflammatory headline, link to Salon. (Though I suppose
the third implies the first two.)

I know the right answer is "flag and move on", which I mostly do with these
types of articles, but jeez. This has been happening a lot recently. The HN
front page has seriously gotten a lot worse just over the past few months.

