Discussion
A new phase of secret, unaccountable and illegal warfare is being deployed by General Petraeus and the CIA.
The guiding force has once again been General Petraeus, who is already being tipped as favourite to win the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential elections. Appointed director of the CIA last summer, he is converting the intelligence agency into a paramilitary organisation. Conventional military forces are scarcely relevant: it is Petraeus who now masterminds what George Bush used to call the “war on terror” from the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
President Obama has reportedly allowed his CIA chief to deepen the connection between Special Forces and secret intelligence, a potentially unconstitutional move because it can mean that military operations are no longer answerable to Congress. More important still, the CIA also seems to mastermind and direct the drone strikes which have suddenly become the central element of US (and therefore British) military strategy.
Even 10 years ago, drones – remotely operated killing machines – were unthinkable because they seemed to spring direct from the imagination of a deranged science-fiction movie director. But today they dominate. Already, more US armed forces personnel are being trained as drone operators (computer geeks who sit in front of a computer screen somewhere in the mid-west of America doling out real-life death and destruction) than air force pilots.
It is easy to understand why. First of all, they can be deadly accurate. Tribal Afghans have been amazed not just that the car a Taliban leader was travelling in was precisely targeted – but that the missile went in through the door on the side he was sitting. The US claims that drones have proved very effective at targeting and killing Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders, but with the very minimum of civilian casualties.
Second, US soldiers and airmen are not placed in harm’s way. This is very important in a democracy. In America, the killing of a dozen military personnel is a political event. The death of a dozen Afghan or Pakistani villagers in a remote part of what used to be called the north‑west frontier does not register, unless a US military spokesmen labels them “militants”, in which case it becomes a victory.
There is no surprise, then – as the New York Times revealed in an important article on Tuesday – that Mr Obama “has placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical”.
The least enviable task of an old-fashioned British home secretary was to sign the death warrant for convicted murderers. According to the New York Times, the President has taken these exquisite agonies one stage further: “When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises, but his family is with him, it is the President who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.”
So, in the US, drone strikes are a good thing. In Pakistan, from where I write this, it is impossible to overestimate the anger and distress they cause. Almost all Pakistanis feel that they are personally under attack, and that America tramples on their precarious national sovereignty. There are good reasons for this. When, last year in Lahore, an out-of-control CIA operative shot dead two reportedly unarmed Pakistanis, and his follow-up car ran over and killed a third, the American was spirited out of the country.
Meanwhile, America refuses to apologise for killing 24 Pakistani servicemen in a botched ISAF operation. This is election year and Mr Obama, having apologised already over Koran-burning, may be nervous about a second apology, and has therefore confined himself to an expression of “regret”.
I am told by a number of credible sources that this refusal to behave decently – allied to dismay at the use of drones as the weapon of default in tribal areas – is the reason for the unusual decision of the US ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, to step down after less than two years in his post. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – increasingly irrelevant and marginalised in an administration dominated by the partnership between Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defence, and Petraeus – has protested but been ignored.
We need a serious public debate on drones. They are still in their infancy, but have already changed the nature of warfare. The new technology points the way, within just a few decades, to a battlefield where soldiers never die or even risk their lives, and only alleged enemies of the state, their family members, and civilians die in combat – a world straight out of the mouse’s tale in Alice in Wonderland: “ 'I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury’, said cunning old Fury. 'I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’ ” Justice as dealt out by drones cannot be reconciled with the rule of law which we say we wish to defend.
Supporters of drones – and they make up practically the entire respectable political establishment in Britain and the US – argue that they are indispensable in the fight against al-Qaeda. But plenty of very experienced voices have expressed profound qualms. The former army officer David Kilcullen, one of the architects of the 2007 Iraqi surge, has warned that drone attacks create more extremists than they eliminate. Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain’s former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is equally adamant that drone attacks are horribly counter-productive because of the hatred they have started to generate: according to a recent poll, more than two thirds of Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Britain used to be popular and respected in this part of the world for our wisdom and decency. Now, thanks to our refusal to challenge American military doctrine, we are hated, too.
The guiding force has once again been General Petraeus, who is already being tipped as favourite to win the Republican nomination in the 2016 presidential elections. Appointed director of the CIA last summer, he is converting the intelligence agency into a paramilitary organisation. Conventional military forces are scarcely relevant: it is Petraeus who now masterminds what George Bush used to call the “war on terror” from the CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
President Obama has reportedly allowed his CIA chief to deepen the connection between Special Forces and secret intelligence, a potentially unconstitutional move because it can mean that military operations are no longer answerable to Congress. More important still, the CIA also seems to mastermind and direct the drone strikes which have suddenly become the central element of US (and therefore British) military strategy.
Even 10 years ago, drones – remotely operated killing machines – were unthinkable because they seemed to spring direct from the imagination of a deranged science-fiction movie director. But today they dominate. Already, more US armed forces personnel are being trained as drone operators (computer geeks who sit in front of a computer screen somewhere in the mid-west of America doling out real-life death and destruction) than air force pilots.
It is easy to understand why. First of all, they can be deadly accurate. Tribal Afghans have been amazed not just that the car a Taliban leader was travelling in was precisely targeted – but that the missile went in through the door on the side he was sitting. The US claims that drones have proved very effective at targeting and killing Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders, but with the very minimum of civilian casualties.
Second, US soldiers and airmen are not placed in harm’s way. This is very important in a democracy. In America, the killing of a dozen military personnel is a political event. The death of a dozen Afghan or Pakistani villagers in a remote part of what used to be called the north‑west frontier does not register, unless a US military spokesmen labels them “militants”, in which case it becomes a victory.
There is no surprise, then – as the New York Times revealed in an important article on Tuesday – that Mr Obama “has placed himself at the helm of a top secret 'nominations’ process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical”.
The least enviable task of an old-fashioned British home secretary was to sign the death warrant for convicted murderers. According to the New York Times, the President has taken these exquisite agonies one stage further: “When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises, but his family is with him, it is the President who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.”
So, in the US, drone strikes are a good thing. In Pakistan, from where I write this, it is impossible to overestimate the anger and distress they cause. Almost all Pakistanis feel that they are personally under attack, and that America tramples on their precarious national sovereignty. There are good reasons for this. When, last year in Lahore, an out-of-control CIA operative shot dead two reportedly unarmed Pakistanis, and his follow-up car ran over and killed a third, the American was spirited out of the country.
Meanwhile, America refuses to apologise for killing 24 Pakistani servicemen in a botched ISAF operation. This is election year and Mr Obama, having apologised already over Koran-burning, may be nervous about a second apology, and has therefore confined himself to an expression of “regret”.
I am told by a number of credible sources that this refusal to behave decently – allied to dismay at the use of drones as the weapon of default in tribal areas – is the reason for the unusual decision of the US ambassador in Islamabad, Cameron Munter, to step down after less than two years in his post. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – increasingly irrelevant and marginalised in an administration dominated by the partnership between Leon Panetta, the Secretary of Defence, and Petraeus – has protested but been ignored.
We need a serious public debate on drones. They are still in their infancy, but have already changed the nature of warfare. The new technology points the way, within just a few decades, to a battlefield where soldiers never die or even risk their lives, and only alleged enemies of the state, their family members, and civilians die in combat – a world straight out of the mouse’s tale in Alice in Wonderland: “ 'I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury’, said cunning old Fury. 'I’ll try the whole cause and condemn you to death.’ ” Justice as dealt out by drones cannot be reconciled with the rule of law which we say we wish to defend.
Supporters of drones – and they make up practically the entire respectable political establishment in Britain and the US – argue that they are indispensable in the fight against al-Qaeda. But plenty of very experienced voices have expressed profound qualms. The former army officer David Kilcullen, one of the architects of the 2007 Iraqi surge, has warned that drone attacks create more extremists than they eliminate. Sir Sherard Cowper-Coles, Britain’s former special representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is equally adamant that drone attacks are horribly counter-productive because of the hatred they have started to generate: according to a recent poll, more than two thirds of Pakistanis regard the United States as an enemy. Britain used to be popular and respected in this part of the world for our wisdom and decency. Now, thanks to our refusal to challenge American military doctrine, we are hated, too.
Some Pakistanis may not like it when the Taliban/AQ supporters and activists in their midst/under their protection are killed - and probably wouldn't be much more in favour if it was via a bullet or bayonet - but those are the ones who are, in effect, our enemies, and do despise us come what may. Some ally when they jail the doctor (shamelessly abandoned by the US, btw) who helped nail Bin Laden. The same ones who harboured Bin Laden for years despite their naive pleas of innocence. If they were really anti AQ/ on our side they'd have a root and branch reform of their secret service/ military.
I know a guy who was a junior/deputy ambassador in both Agfghanistan and Pakistan - ask him how 'allied' he felt we were to Pakistan, and how safe he felt there, where, "... you feel everyone is out to kill you or would like to see you dead." Pre-drones by the way.
Would he rather we waited until they hatched their terror plans and stepped over the border?
Think we'd catch and stop them all? Or maybe we should risk soldiers on the ground or helicopter pilots to do the shooting up close and personal lest the sensible method of using technology to protect our own while ridding the world of our enemies offends some backward facing, chaotic barbarian 'nation'?
And as for that limp dick Sir Sherard Cowper-Cole have you heard him interviewed lately? Not fit to represent us at this level, apologist handwringing t
t.Edited by Lost_BMW on Monday 4th June 14:39
So its not really fair they are being taken out by drones, rather than conventional aircraft with a pilot ? What's the big deal ? A conventional armed aircraft would not be able to operate like the drone and not be able to operate long standing patrols like a drone can.
If something like a Apache did come across millitants, it would have a very limited time to survey the situation and watch. I'd guess that leads to lots of missed chances and rushed choices. The drone can watch for hours and confirm, wait until they perhaps move out of a built-up area before attacking and many things like that.
I also think that some would like to think of the drone as some kinda automaton that selects its own targets - clearly it is not. As said, the drone operators can take their time and there is a team of people operating and not just one pilot who may have to risk himself in any attack with very limited time.
As for Pakistan, it was quick to close the Kyber Pass to NATO traffic, if it really doesn't like drones operating over its country, I'm sure they could say no, rather than a lame protest that it doesn't like it.
If something like a Apache did come across millitants, it would have a very limited time to survey the situation and watch. I'd guess that leads to lots of missed chances and rushed choices. The drone can watch for hours and confirm, wait until they perhaps move out of a built-up area before attacking and many things like that.
I also think that some would like to think of the drone as some kinda automaton that selects its own targets - clearly it is not. As said, the drone operators can take their time and there is a team of people operating and not just one pilot who may have to risk himself in any attack with very limited time.
As for Pakistan, it was quick to close the Kyber Pass to NATO traffic, if it really doesn't like drones operating over its country, I'm sure they could say no, rather than a lame protest that it doesn't like it.
Lost_BMW said:
@ Ffitster - where did you come up with this ste? From some journal or something or did you really write it?
Peter Obourne, Daily Telegraph.te? From some journal or something or did you really write it?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afg...
eldar said:
Lost_BMW said:
@ Ffitster - where did you come up with this ste? From some journal or something or did you really write it?
Peter Obourne, Daily Telegraph.te? From some journal or something or did you really write it?http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afg...
"It is easy to understand why. First of all, they can be deadly accurate. Tribal Afghans have been amazed not just that the car a Taliban leader was travelling in was precisely targeted – but that the missile went in through the door on the side he was sitting."
That is impressive.......an Afghan in a car
That is impressive.......an Afghan in a car
There might be a debate to be had about wether the US should be operating in Pakistani territory. To moan about the tools of operating is pretty pointless, unless you object to their military effectiveness. A missile fired from a manned aircraft would kill the targets just as dead. Missiles flying through a particular window? Yeah right. Do you think it matters a jot where an air to surface missile strikes a car?
robm3 said:
Three militants killed in the first strike and then when others turned up to survey the damage they drop another one in hoho...
I guess that would be Obama's definition of a militant: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_pr...Whereas on the the other side of the propaganda divide: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1015042127...
wl606 said:
robm3 said:
Three militants killed in the first strike and then when others turned up to survey the damage they drop another one in hoho...
I guess that would be Obama's definition of a militant: http://www.salon.com/2012/05/29/militants_media_pr..."It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent. Counterterrorism officials insist this approach is one of simple logic: people in an area of known terrorist activity, or found with a top Qaeda operative, are probably up to no good. “Al Qaeda is an insular, paranoid organization — innocent neighbors don’t hitchhike rides in the back of trucks headed for the border with guns and bombs,” said one official"
Sounds about right.
Whereas on the the other side of the propaganda divide: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1015042127...
Doesn't say definitively how, where or by whom the children were killed. Looks suspiciously like the images activists throw at recruits to win them over to the cause - and seems to be working looking at the replies. Would the poster of those also show and criticise the images of children killed by the Taliban/AQ types for going to school, their teachers executed for running said schools or the women executed for leaving husbands, meeting men without chaperones or for being unlucky enough to have been raped?
There is no real difference, except to the techno-phobic, to a manned aircraft carrying out an air strike to a drone doing so, being operated by remote control.
What the increased frequency of drone attacks in the 'tribal' areas of Pakistan do demonstrate is that America did learn one lesson from Vietnam, that you cannot hope to defeat an insurgency that is being supplied and reinforced through a supposedly neutral neighbour.
As to act as judge, jury and executioner, this is a war, you don't arrest enemy soldiers, you kill or capture them.
What the increased frequency of drone attacks in the 'tribal' areas of Pakistan do demonstrate is that America did learn one lesson from Vietnam, that you cannot hope to defeat an insurgency that is being supplied and reinforced through a supposedly neutral neighbour.
As to act as judge, jury and executioner, this is a war, you don't arrest enemy soldiers, you kill or capture them.
SmoothCriminal said:
More of them we can eliminate the better! And more so if we don't have to send fully loaded manned aircraft up there!
As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven yearsYeah, let's kill those children!!
JagLover said:
There is no real difference, except to the techno-phobic, to a manned aircraft carrying out an air strike to a drone doing so, being operated by remote control.
In the mind of the military they are quite different. Putting a drone up over Pakistan is much less of a risk in terms of personnel than a manned plane. Fittster said:
As many as 168 children have been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan during the past seven years
Yeah, let's kill those children!!
No one can rejoice in thise stats - except, perhaps, the Taleban. But what else do you propose should be done?Yeah, let's kill those children!!
BruceV8 said:
There might be a debate to be had about wether the US should be operating in Pakistani territory. To moan about the tools of operating is pretty pointless, unless you object to their military effectiveness. A missile fired from a manned aircraft would kill the targets just as dead. Missiles flying through a particular window? Yeah right. Do you think it matters a jot where an air to surface missile strikes a car?
I don't think the article was moaning about the method of killing: a bullet is a bullet. I think more to the point is the suggestion (fact?) that the army is no longer identifying targets. The CIA now picks targets. This is, the way I understand it, illegal.As to what are the options other than killing 168 children is, of course, blindingly apparent.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff