
Use of Drones for Killings Risks a War Without End - aet
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/world/use-of-drones-for-killings-risks-a-war-without-end-panel-concludes-in-report.html?action=click&contentCollection=Health&region=Footer&module=TopNews&pgtype=Blogs
======
seren
What I find really odd is how similar a drone strike is to a terrorist attack.
A military convoy is being attacked by a remotely controlled IED, you can
retaliate by sending a drone to blow up some pre-defined target. Maybe it is a
fitting weapon for the twenty-first century, to put back some symmetry in
asymmetric wars. The next logical step is the use of drones to perform
terrorist attacks. It is easy to envision an eternal low intensity war with
objectives being remotely destroyed by both opponents. It muddles further the
blurry line, if any has ever existed, between regular and irregular warfare.

~~~
spingsprong
Sure, if by similar you mean completely different.

If a group did attack a military convoy with a remote controlled IED, it
wouldn't be an act of terrorism.

Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

A remote controlled IED isn't indiscriminate, and a military convoy isn't
civilian.

~~~
sanderjd
> Terrorism is the indiscriminate targeting of civilians.

Source? Debating the definitions of words is often silly, but I think it's
worth pointing out that 1) the definition of "terrorism" isn't broadly agreed
upon, and 2) the definition you're using is more narrow than peoples'. The
definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and
intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks certainly
fit into.

More generally, it seems that condemning vague things like "torture" and
"terrorism" accomplishes very little, because people will simply use different
definitions of the terms to skirt the condemnation. So we have to condemn
specific things that are wrong, like waterboarding and drone strikes.

~~~
GHFigs
_The definition that searching google gives is "the use of violence and
intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", which drone attacks certainly
fit into._

I think the point is that drone strikes (targeting angry people with guns and
bombs) are meaningfully different than someone blowing themselves up in a a
crowded market or mosque (targeting people whose religion is slightly
different from his or her own).

You can say they're the same because they're "the use of violence and
intimidation in the pursuit of political aims", but there's something of a
different quality to those political aims that warrants a distinction.

~~~
sanderjd
Certainly no disagreement that there are things far worse than drone strikes.

I regret making a comment that encourages this sort of debate over what
terrible things should and shouldn't be labeled a certain way.

------
streptomycin
_The report raised warnings that other countries might adopt the same
rationale as the United States has for carrying out lethal strikes outside of
declared war zones. Using an example of a current crisis, it said that Russia
could use armed drones in Ukraine under the justification that it was killing
anti-Russian terrorists and then refuse to disclose the intelligence that
served as the basis for the strike._

 _“In such circumstances,” the report asked, “how could the United States
credibly condemn Russian targeted killings?”_

Good question.

~~~
davidf18
Well, if the Russian's are targeting terrorists (those people who attack
civilians) then we should applaud their efforts for saving civilian lives.

~~~
streptomycin
Even if you make the assumptions that killing terrorists is always a good
thing, that it is possible to accurately identify terrorists, that it is
possible to kill them without collateral damage, etc... How do you know if
they are honest about their intentions? Just take Putin's word for it?

~~~
davidf18
Well, at times there will be collateral damage when targeting terrorists just
as when targeting other enemy combatants. Sure, Putin's (or any other's
intent) is a different matter, but on the whole, any country should be allowed
to use drones or any other technology to target individuals who target their
civilians (eg, terrorists) as well as their military and infrastructure. What
they do not have the right to do is target civilians with drones.

~~~
vidarh
> any country should be allowed to use drones or any other technology to
> target individuals who target their civilians (eg, terrorists)

According to Russia, this definition have in several instances included
regular Ukrainian troops, who according to the Ukranian government, is
fighting terrorists/insurgents that are targeting Ukranian civilians on
Ukrainian territory. See how this gets messy quickly, when either side have
completely different versions of events?

The "we need to protect our civilians (even if they live in a different
country, were born there, and have never been our citizens) against
individuals who are targeting them" argument is one of history's oldest
excuses for going to war. Sometimes it may be justified, but it also very
often conveniently ignore that the "targeted civilians" may themselves have
been insurgents or terrorists or infiltrators who were legitimate targets.

It's a popular excuse whether or not it is true, because assuming your attacks
go well, it gets very hard to find out the truth when everyone involved has
been conveniently killed.

------
dragonwriter
That's a silly conclusion, since the US has been engaged in essentially non-
stop war since at least WWII (with a developing national security state based
on that permanent war footing), most of which didn't involve drones.

Drones certainly lower the political cost of war, but they aren't something
that "risks" war without end, they are something developed and deployed in an
environment where "war without end" was already the established reality.

~~~
dmix
There is plenty of unique things about this new type of long-term warfare:

a) _every_ operation is conducted in total secrecy

b) most of it is executed remotely, or occasionally via Special Forces
commandos on the ground when drones can't get the job done

c) they are (apparently) based off of a 'kill-list', which is essentially an
assassination list

This is very different than the decades of conventional warfare the US
traditionally engaged in, using troops and engagements openly talked about to
the public (even if it's after the fact).

It is only comparable to the CIA operations in latin america in the 1980s.

~~~
dragonwriter
> There is plenty of unique things about this new type of long-term warfare:

No, there aren't.

> a) every operation is conducted in total secrecy

Within the drone program, which is largely a secrete component of an overt
global military anti-"terrorism" campaign, sure. But having a major secret
component of an overt effort isn't new or unique since the inception of the
drone program, its been a regular part of the post-WWII permanent war.

> b) most of it is executed remotely, or occasionally via Special Forces
> commandos on the ground when drones can't get the job done

Yes, the technology for precisely targetted remote attacks is new, though
using whatever remote attack capability was available isn't. So, yes,
technology advances.

Obviously, use of Special Forces is not new.

> c) they are (apparently) based off of a 'kill-list', which is essentially an
> assassination list

Assassination as a tool of state policy by the US in the covert portion of its
permanent wars isn't a new product of drones, either.

------
rbanffy
Endless war is exactly what military contractors want.

On an interesting digression, "War Without End" is a two-part Babylon 5
episode that won a Hugo award.

~~~
eevilspock
A good time to listen to or reread Eisenhower's 1961 speech warning of the
Military-Industrial Complex.

 _" Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no
armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as
required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency
improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a
permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."_

Nice intro with video of Eisenhowr giving the speech:
[http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-
mili...](http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-
expansion-50-years-later)

Full text of speech:
[http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html](http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

~~~
rational-future
Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex in the speech draft.

Pretty much `they` have won and we - the 99% - have lost. Queue the downvotes
;)

~~~
jessaustin
To be fair, one could also consider the media a leg of that stool. After all,
has any journalist or pundit challenged the assumption that the goat-and-beard
enthusiasts are as dangerous a threat as the Soviets were? Before that, did
anyone challenge the assumption that the Soviets were as dangerous a threat as
the Nazis were? The narrative is inescapable.

~~~
arethuza
For a significant proportion of the Cold War the United States _wildly_
exaggerated (by multiple orders of magnitude) the strategic threat posed by
the Soviets:

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

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

------
Shivetya
The other is that it will cause large segments of society to not trust the
beneficial uses of this type of technology. When everything flying over head
is a threat what can you say of your quality of life?

Similar to how the co-opting of vaccinations in very much the same countries
has lead to killing of doctors who only come to help.

We are teaching a whole new generation to fear technology and it may take
another to fix that.

------
josefresco
Where is the line between war and security drawn? Terrorism can't be
"defeated" like an advisory in a traditional war, it's more of a mindset.
Therefore one could argue that adequate security should continuously identify
and address threats to the state. Does this mean we're in a continuous war? I
don't think the semantics matters.

~~~
bd_at_rivenhill
It might be interesting if it were possible to declare war against an
organization, as opposed to a sovereign nation. The conflict between Western
nations and Al Qaeda is complicated by the fact that it doesn't fit into
previous models of military conflict, and there seems to be a reluctance to
update those models. It would also be useful if a nation were required to
control activities within its borders and not empowered to respond militarily
to border violations in pursuit of combatants.

------
dm2
Drones aren't too much different than normal airplanes doing bombing runs or
any mission where a general sits back while troops/drones/missiles/robots kill
the target you specified.. There is definitely a sense of, "pick a target,
push a button, wait until he blows up" which the world needs to evaluate
before allowing.

I think there is a limit to putting real robots on the battlefield, humans
will always be necessary. It's always been possible to get the support of
citizens and sometimes foreign government support by having real humans in the
field doing humanitarian work. This cannot be replaced by dumb robots, a human
face will be required to work with machines or else they will always be seen
as inferior and untrustworthy.

I could see the US Government eventually having ATLAS style robots with
tablets / large screens for faces, kind of like robocop but the soldier would
just be remote controlling the robot.

------
sitkack
Drone wars are a new continuous flow, always on, Kanban killing process.

Probably get some sort of Office 360 interface so we can kill from home. Maybe
a new version of Python called KillScript that has some Hebbian learning
libraries built in. TFIDF says it is a good time to be average.

------
ghostwords
Something to think about on the subject of terrorism, by David Foster Wallace:

[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-
ask...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/11/just-
asking/306288/)

------
bakhy
"risks a war without end" \-- I'm sure many in the Pentagon would gladly take
that "risk" :)

------
tsbardella2
War without end.. Oh really? Tell me when war has ever ended? We are getting
better and this is much much better

------
davidf18
The Israeli's have saved many lives with drones both for reconnaissance and
for targeting terrorists. I don't think they would be using drones for killing
terrorists if it proved ineffective. It is hard to understand why drones are
saving Israeli lives but not American ones.

------
kalleboo
Well we've always been at war with eastasia...

------
higherpurpose
So everything is working according to plan, then?

------
pjmlp
One step closer to Terminator days.

