Tweet
The United States should pursue strategies in Afghanistan that focus on reducing civilian deaths and enhancing stability. However, a report today by Julian Barnes at the LA Times shows that the U.S. is shifting drones from hunting al-Qaida to attacking suspected Taliban in Afghanistan, a shift likely to cause more civilian deaths and further destabilization.
This actual policy of escalating drone strikes runs exactly counter to the "official policy" of reducing airstrikes and civilian casualties in Afghanistan under McChrystal’s much ballyhooed new orders. We know from experience in Pakistan that drone strikes kill far, far more civilians than they do suspected militants, and that drone operators in other branches of the U.S. government are firing their weapons even when they lack intelligence to back them up. Ratcheting up their use in Afghanistan will mean more dead civilians, and a higher ratio of civilian-to-militant death.
While the rationale offered for increasing drone attacks against the Taliban is to "prevent the country from slipping deeper into anarchy," their use could very likely have the opposite effect. Again, as we’ve seen in Pakistan, rampant drone attacks were used against targets under the rationale of preventing the country from ‘falling into anarchy.’ However, their use helped contribute to one of the largest human migrations in recent history, actually pushing the country closer to anarchy. Drones will not help stabilize Afghanistan.
If the U.S. wants to reduce civilian casualties and enhance stability in Afghanistan, we should decrease, not increase, the number of drone-based airstrikes.
(Cross-posted at Return Good for Evil.)
15 Comments
FYI, folks, I’m going to be out of pocket for the rest of the day. Please check back in the morning for any responses to your comments. Thanks for stopping in.
Drones are the new way of fighting war. They depend upon good human intelligence. They can remain on station longer than traditional bomber/fighter combinations and prevent casualty to American fighters. Stability is enhanced in Afghanistan by killing the enemy and the leadership and depriving him of equipment and personnel. It is of particular interest when attempting to target high value targets. With it, the reach of our forces is extended and the reliability of the weapon is enhanced. Any collateral damage caused is usually the result of bad intelligence which occurs in any war at any time. To say we cannot kill the enemy because innocent civilians may die is to say we must tie one arm and foot behind our back while the enemy is free to dish it out unhindered. That is not the Law of War. War is kill people and break things. The more high value targets we take, the more we win the war.
I’ve never heard a more perfect recitation of drone propaganda.
Derrick, do you not understand that the primary use of the drone is to gather information?
Yes, but it carries up to 2 500 pound bombs or one 1000 pound laser guided bomb and can carry other precision munitions…
I understand that they are armed and are used to kill. However, Derrick is going beyond facts in saying that increasing their usage is going to cause increased civilian deaths and increased instability. The linked article seems to be saying that the extra drones are to be used, in areas our soldiers are patrolling, as advanced scouting.
I think if the drones were used for scouting only, we’d be having a different discussion. But they’re not.
I think that when they’re used mostly for scouting they’re not too likely to be causing the civilian casualties that Derrick is convinced are coming.
And one more for good measure: here’s Lt. Gen. Gary North in 2007 describing his excitement about a new shipment of MQ-9s in Afghanistan:
By the way, he was describing his excitement that the drones would be replacing a manned airstrike team. So please spare us the attempt to portray drones as benign surveillance tools. Yes, they have a surveillance function, but it’s hard to take you seriously when you try to obscure their obvious other functions.
“The sweeping redeployment means that insurgent groups that have carried out ambushes and roadside bombings will for the first time be tracked by dozens of drones capable of remaining over a target for hours undetected, identifying key individuals, and firing missiles within a matter of seconds.”
Derrick, you fail to grasp that using them to scout out and then strike at people attempting to ambush our troops isn’t likely to cause many civilian casualties or much real outrage.
What makes your argument less than worthwhile is your failure to distinguish between firing missiles into areas where we’ve never gone and firing missiles at people in areas that we regularly patrol.
I’m not at all trying to obscure their ability to carry and discharge weapons, but merely to allow you to see the rather obvious point that the offensive capability is a secondary function. Perhaps you might consider the number of planes and hours aloft compared to the number of missiles fired before you take either of us too seriously.
Macaquerman:
Let’s assume for a moment that you’re only talking about “firing weapons in areas where we regularly patrol.” (That’s hardly a given, but I’ll grant it just for the sake of argument.) Please explain how that would not make it more likely that the drones will be used in airstrikes in support of troops in contact, which is the tactic responsible for most of the U.S. caused civilian casualties.
You can argue all day long that they are primarily surveillance tools, and even if that were true, you’re still obfuscating the fact that having more Hellfire armed drones (in addition to the ones carrying 500+ lbs bombs) flying over Afghanistan, *even if they were primarily used for surveillance*, will mean more hellfire and other munitions-based strikes by our troops.
Again, read Lt. General North’s comments above. He considers them attack platforms that have the additional benefit of surveillance after the weapons have been fired. But even if the inverse were true, your “aw shucks, they’re just paper airplanes with webcams” assertions hold no water.
macaquerman:
I think that’s a hopelessly naive view of what the drones will be used for. McChrystal is reportedly talking about pulling back troops from more remote areas in favor of stationing them around population centers while increasing drone usage. Remember just prior to the surge the reason folks were arguing for the surge? The rationale given was that a lack of boots on the ground in a given area leads to reliance on more air strikes when we identify potential targets. Of course the drones are used for intelligence. But the idea that, while pulling troops back from contested areas while ratcheting up drone use, we’ll be using them just as spies in the skies when they are frequently outfitted with ordinance–that’s pretty Pollyanna-ish.
These are war crimes practices that Obama not only inherited from the previous government but pursues without reservation as well. This is the reason Obama hesitates to conduct enquiries into war crimes of said previous government. Bill Clinton, of course, relied on cruise missiles to kill people, at will. That was before the deployment of the missile firing drone. What a great country.
These are not war crimes. These are simply using efficient weapons of war.