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