That is an understandable concern, but I believe it is misplaced.

The primary role for drones is the Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance mission. They can stay up in the air for hours watching the same area with amazing sensors. Precisely because they are low risk it allows us to be more cautious and more discriminating in our use of force. It is more akin to sniper waiting in the trees for hours just to get that single perfect shot.

This is not to say that the risk asymmetry you observe is without concern. It is a major topic of debate among strategists, ethicists, and others.

Agreed on the point about the manned aircraft probably having a worse collateral damage ratio when single strikes are compared. I guess what bothers me is that because the drones are so low risk on our side there seems to be much less caution in their use and so the number of strikes and thus the overall collateral damage is huge.

Save time
Save money
Save your sanity
Turn off the MSM
(You’ll thank me later)

Afghanistan due to its geography has historically been a buffer state between great powers, and as such been condemned to legacy of liquid war. Would partition along ethnic lines really be such a bad thing for the people who currently live there? I am aware of the implications of it for other players, but in terms of the well being of the people – what would be benefits and/or costs for them?

Thanks,
KF

KF

“The drone strikes are inefficient in the sense that they have a high ‘collateral damage’ to target ratio. So the point stands anyway.”
Yes, non-combatants have been killed. Comparatively speaking though, drone attacks do not have a high collateral damage to target ratio. Attacks by manned aircraft with smartbombs are much worse; they take out entire city blocks and neighborhoods. The counterproductive effects they have had in Iraq and Afghanistan has been immense – ground forces have pushed very hard for less powerful smartbombs, to the point where sometimes they are just filled with concrete.

“Besides I’d be more surprised to find out it didn’t have some truth to it than that it did.”
I am sure there was some degree of truth to it. But organizations learn from mistakes, and practices that lead to errors are improved.

Besides I’d be more surprised to find out it didn’t have some truth to it than that it did.

And while we’re at it what do you care that they killed this 19 year old? I mean isn’t that good for us as Americans since it’s bad publicity for them?

Where else can a person get this kind of downright tight news and opinion? Where else? Even the comments here are mainly hearty, thanks to some knowledgeable folks who can’t leave it alone.

I, myself, have come to respect especially the comments of KingFisher. Although I still have some points of contention with him regarding [please refer to his comment about the line between conspiracy and incompetence], I can’t stand to not openly appreciate his involvement here. Thank you, KF.

It’s time for another round of financial support, y’all. It’s not too soon. Let’s all of us kick it in RIGHT NOW and see what we can get from the Sibel-vetted, fact-finding, fascist-ass-kicking group of people that we have become. LET’S ROLL!

And by ‘people’ you mean a 19 year old’s “confession” in a video released by the Taliban, right? Because that’s where it comes from. In that same video he is executed at the end of it.

Yeah, I realize that the perception of our arrogant interference might pose a problem. But Joya has been continually re-elected in her province. She’s very popular with the people there. I’m sure it would be looked upon more favorably than what we’re doing. And when I said we should fund these people to help them build up ‘civil society’ I had in mind schools and stuff too. In fact I had in mind infrastructure as well but I guess technically ‘civil society’ doesn’t really include that. I was waiting for you to mention the “Three cups of Tea” thing. I totally agree. But I see backing people who are Afghan and are pro-human rights at least and preferably populist in some form or another as an extension of that.

I thought it might have been Hekmatyar, but I certainly never meant to imply that she could have ‘killed soviets like him’. I’m implying that drawing the Soviets into a war may not necessarily have been the only way to go with our foreign interventions if we have to make them.

As for the drones in some cases I’m sure we’ve probably killed Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters but there have also been people who were paid by the CIA to place micro-chip tracking devices near the houses of such fighters who latter confessed that because they didn’t know where any were they just scattered them around randomly. I think they’re doing more harm than good.

“Are we assassinating people for no reason?”
We are assassinating them because they are leadership or value targets in AQ and the Taliban.

“Could the people we’re killing be captured and put through a court process?”
This is Waziristan we are dealing with, not Sweden. The government of Pakistan has little to no control over the area, and raids or capture missions by US special operations forces have an even more destabilizing effect then drone attacks.

“Are we breaking international laws?”
Maybe, but probably not. Again, we are dealing with Wazaristan.

“We need to think more about the strategy of using drones and what it means for all of us.”
Drone attacks are not a strategy, they are tactic, and are only effective if encompassed into a broader strategy. The Obama administration has not decided on a strategy yet.

KF

“Predator drone attacks kill more civilians than jihadists, further inflaming the very people we’re trying to win over. For what purpose? To what end?”

The drone attacks in Pakistan have destroyed significant AQ and Pakistani Taliban targets; the attacks take the initiative away from the enemy and disrupt their operations, while sewing discord and terror within their ranks. The deaths of non-combatants have counter balanced that success. To that end drone strikes are a tactic not a strategy, however the strikes are being used in lieu of a strategy.

“…secure our own ports, inspect every container of cargo coming into this country and end our dependance on foreign oil and energy.”

I wish we could, but it is just not possible without a radical change in the American way of life (to which some would say is a good-thing).

KF

“Iraq, rich in oil on the one hand and internally torn on the other, is guaranteed as a candidate for Israel’s targets. Its dissolution is even more important for us than that of Syria. Iraq is stronger than Syria. In the short run it is Iraqi power which constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. An Iraqi-Iranian war will tear Iraq apart and cause its downfall at home even before it is able to organize a struggle on a wide front against us. Every kind of inter-Arab confrontation will assist us in the short run and will shorten the way to the more important aim of breaking up Iraq into denominations as in Syria and in Lebanon. In Iraq, a division into provinces along ethnic/religious lines as in Syria during Ottoman times is possible. So, three (or more) states will exist around the three major cities: Basra, Baghdad and Mosul, and Shi’ite areas in the south will separate from the Sunni and Kurdish north.”

That’s exactly what we did. It was almost like the US took direct marching orders from Israel. But when you understand what Israel really is, (a cash cow for the MIC) there is no tail waging the dog or dog wagging a tail. It’s just a marriage of overlapping monetary interests. Religious fanaticism is always ripe for making conflicts. And with Israel you get the extra bonus of a combined religion and race card to throw down any time you need to ward off critics with hyper sensitive name calling.

“Washington’s current policy may lead to outright civil war between the majority Pashtun population and the remnants of the so-called Northern Alliance of Tajik, Hazara and Uzbek tribes. Whether this is intended as an intentional prelude to partitioning Afghanistan and redrawing the map of Central Asia remains to be seen. But whatever the end result of Washington’s apparent confusion over policy in Afghanistan, it will have little success until the Afghan people and the population of Pakistan’s Western territories are brought politically into the decision making.”

PNAC also wrote about war with Afghanistan in 2000 in a paper called Afghan vortex. It’s much like the plan for Iraq. Divide and conquer in limbo, always leave low level conflict on a slow burn. I agree with you on the direction on this Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould, but I wouldn’t say the Washington is “confused” or “mistaken” about what they are doing. Sure everything they are doing is wrong. (wrong if you assume the goal is to make things right and honor justice and peace.) But it’s intentional. They flat out admit it in their own Machiavellian policy papers. They state how what they are doing would benefit who, and what to pass it off as to the public. It’s all a big game for them. Washington is basically a rent-a-government to major industries most involved in defense, drugs (legal and illegal), construction, and logistics, who use the government like a personal ATM machine. And the government through central banks uses it’s populous like an ATM machine. Steal from the many to feed the billionaires and at the extra price of killing foreigners. That’s US policy and has been since the days of Killing American Indians.

@Metem,

The man is Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. And no, she couldn’t have killed communists like could.

“Still using people like her to build up civil society while keeping the warlords placated and then hoping to make a transition down the road might be possible.”

Maybe. But more likely a cadre of western-trained Afghans to build up “civil society” will be viewed with contempt as part of a conceited effort by the west to impose its values….which would have some degree of truth to it.

The Afghans have their way of life and culture, and it will progress at their choosing. We would be better served working on their own level, village by village. We will be surprised at the “progress” of their society, as we help them to meet their basic needs.

Want a bridge or school? Ok, we can help with that; we will pay for materials but the community is going to build it, because we don’t know how Afghan bridges and schools are made.

The Afghan people have their own dreams of what they want their society to blossom into. We can help them along to do it on their own terms and effort. Humans do not value things that they are just given, be it value systems, schools or hospitals, they value things when they put effort into them.

But I’m just and observer really. What do I know?

I have mentioned it many times before, but I cannot help but sing its praise. Read Greg Mortenson’s Three Cups of Tea.

KF

As Paul and Elizabeth allude to in their piece here, Washington is failing to take the Afghan sentiment into consideration here… the Afghans don’t just think that Karzai is a US-puppet; they’re infuriated that we’re promising democracy and peace and then giving them the choice of only warlordism and corruption. The truth is that where the runoff elections and structure of their society are concerned, Afghans are very much on the side of the Taliban. And you know what, if I was an Afghan, I would be, too. Listen to a real Democracy activist speak of the situation in Afghanistan. The people there want us out.

One thing that the Taliban is good at, as the Nation piece mentions, is combating the drug trade. If we get out, they can clean up at least a little bit of the corruption, and the Afghans can decide how they want to rebuild their country.

The Taliban control the tempo of the fighting and can strike key targets at will. Whether it’s the UN guest house, the Pakistani Army HQ or the Chief intelligence officer of the Karzai government. They control the engagements and all NATO troops can do is react. Meanwhile, Predator drone attacks kill more civilians than jihadists, further inflaming the very people we’re trying to win over. For what purpose? To what end? Thirty years of war have devastated the functional indiginous governmental structures of Afghanistan as power politics have prevented any real attempts at fostering a civil society, leaving only extremism, death and slaughter in their wake. The stated goal of preventing the reestablishment of terrorist training camps in the area is illusory. What good will that do if those camps are merely reestablished in Somalia or Sudan or any of the other failed states/wild regions on the planet? We can no longer afford either foreign adventurism or being World Cop. Bring all our troops home from everywhere now. Use the money and manpower we pour down the drain in places like Iraq and Afghanistan to secure our own ports, inspect every container of cargo coming into this country and end our dependance on foreign oil and energy.

If your not familiar with her you should look up Malalai Joya. She was, first, part of the Loya Jirga when she was barely 24 and then elected to the parliament multiple times in Afghanistan. She’s famous for having, multiple times, called out the warlords in parliament to their faces. To which the response was to openly threaten her with death and rape right there in parliament. She’s even been physically attacked in parliament and has been kicked out multiple times for referring to the warlords past crimes and ‘stirring up trouble’. She’s sometimes called ‘the bravest woman in the world’. Maybe we should try seeking out and supporting people like her. [BTW she's currently on a book tour of the North-East (New York, DC, Boston, etc.) and the West Coast (San fran, Los Angeles, etc.)] But of course that would leave the big problem of what to do with the warlords. Still using people like her to build up civil society while keeping the warlords placated and then hoping to make a transition down the road might be possible. But I’m just and observer really. What do I know?

This is what we did in Iraq between factions that previously lived together in peace. Not surprising this tactic would be used again to keep the conflict going. Anything to help the Military Industrial Complex keep pumping out expensive weapons and programs. When WWII ended they needed and created the Cold War. With that gone, the War on Terror became the new dog and pony show. What happens when that fizzles out? Will it be time to trot out the alien invasion scare that Ronald Reagon talked about?

My question is how do we empower the people of the region? What could we suggest to the President who still has the credibility to do it. Is there a win/win there, and could he even overcome the greed of the Corpratocracy?

Thanks for this piece Sibel!
Dennis