Better that and contained casualties, than say carpet bombing, cluster bombs; and or, tactical nuclear weapons.

What must be emphasized, is we are fighting some very bad people here, who think nothing of putting a bullet in the brain of a hapless (forced to accept the union) wife, because she said no?

And all the evidence needed to accuse her of adultery, which is a sure death sentence, and without real proof!

Or able to climb on a bus and gun down a student, merely because she wanted to go and went to school and advocated the same for all other girls.

The only real problem I have with taking out these monsters and all their ilk, is target identification, which must be sure and certain!
Rhrosty.

A good essay on a very important topic?
A new essay on Tomdispatch also provides some essential contexts for understanding this issue. It is titled Bringing the Battlefield To the Border by Miller & Schivone.
It could be said that we are being eaten alive by our oh-so-clever out of control technology. A technology that seems to have its own self-perpetuating momentum.
Meanwhile remember that in this psycho-physical world everything and everyone is instantaneously inter-connected, and that every action sooner or later always creates and equal and opposite reaction/response/manifestation (such is the immutable law of psycho-physics).
For every "monster" that is destroyed a new and more powerful hydra-headed monster spontaneously manifests.
Which is to say that we are well and truly stuffed, because there does not seem to be any way out of this deadly "game" being dramatized all over the planet. The deadly game of seeking monsters to destroy.

Neve Gordon may not like drones, but drones are here to stay There are now 52 countries either using or developing drones for warfare. Neve Gordon will have just as much success in banning drones, as the Pope did in banning the crossbow.

Drones are now the primary weapon in the fight against Muslim terrorism, which is probably why Neve does not like them. Muslim terrorists thought that they could plan and train for attacks in the west in the most remote and lawless places on Earth, safe from retaliation. They are now learning that their supposed invulnerability was wrong.

The first US military drone was the Reaper, which was a reconnaissance platform that was never designed to carry weapons. It was just sheer luck that the Hellfire missile was light enough so that one could be carried on each wing of the Reaper. With this lash up, the USA began terrorising terrorists everywhere that the Muslim terrorists thought was safe ground. Reapers meant that they could not meet, train, travel, sleep, or even bury their dead, without wondering if the Reapers would come down on them like the hammer of God. The message to Muslim terrorists is clear. There is nowhere you can run to or hide, where we can't find you and kill you. Neve Gordon thinks this is terrible, but I don't.

The Predator is a Reaper on steroids. Predators can carry 4 Hellfires and two 500 Kilo laser guided bombs. It was designed solely because the less much capable Reaper was so successful in killing the most murderous senior Al Qaida and Taliban leaders. They have used them in The Philippines and in other Gulf States as well.

The Pakistanis were screaming to the international press that the Reapers were violating Pakistani airspace, at the same time that they were allowing the USA to base Reapers on a Pakistani airfield, and begging the yanks to give them some drones of their own.

Everything that Neve Gordon wrote is total malarky. As Stonewall Jackson once quipped "Sah, ah do believe your sympathies are with the enemy."

Hmmm

Predator in use since 1995 - 2 hardpoints generally for 2 Hellfire missiles = 20 A-rabs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator

Reaper developed from Predator. Reaper in use since 2007 - 7 hardpoints "Up to 4 AGM-114 Hellfire air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway II laser-guided bombs. The 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) can also be carried." = whole tribe of them A-rabs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-9_Reaper

Go Team!!

Rhosty, the bigger problem for me is accountability and limiting their use to targets who would be considered valid targets in a conventional war.

With so many less people involved it's much easier to find those willing to just follow orders, those willing to do great wrong if those who call the shots want great wrong done.

I posted recently on another thread a couple of links to articles on Joint Special Operations Command (JSoc), most of the material around seems to be derived from the film Dirty Wars. A starting place is at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/03/jsoc-obama-secret-assassins

Some areas of similar concern in the lack of accountability for how those targets are determined and an apparent lack of independent review. I've not seen anything that looks like a credible rebuttal of the main claims around JSoc or the use of drones outlines in this article.

I've seen mixed messages about the change in doctrine, some commentators suggest Rumsfeld and Cheney ramped up the use of JSoc for operational use and that Obama has just taken that further as well as adding in the use of drones. Other suggest most of the change is Obama's doing.

I do wonder how those who considered the holding of prisoners on suspect legal grounds at Guantanamo Bay a horror that had to end deal with the summary execution of others without trial approach.

Very hard to get politicians to give up the use of that kind of capability even when most of us might consider circumstances don't warrant such use.

R0bert

To RObert.

Muslims can not understand how they were so powerful for 1,000 years and now they are poverty stricken. Their Koran and Prophet assured them that they would rule the world and it has not happened. They think that the reason for this, is because they have not faithfully kept to Allah's message to fight, rape, and rob all infidels.

The defeat of the Soviet Union in Afghanistan by holy warriors was a significant moment for them. Here was proof that jihadis could defeat a superpower. The fact that the USA supplied the mujahidin with Stingers, Milan ATGM, and a billion dollars a year in other arms and ammo, did not register on the Arab world. $35 million in captured Soviet arms was even supplied by Israel. But the Muslims thought it was all Allah's doing.

The Muslim's think their moment has come. The time is ripe to destroy the decadent western democracies and replace them with pure Islamic states. I would have thought that pure self interest would see you supporting the secular western democracies led by the USA?

But no, you and your friends just can't get over your reflexive anti Americanism. President Obama got into the White House promising to close GB. But it is OK to play to wimpy and crazy left liberals like yourself when you are not in government. But when Obama got into power he got a reality check. He was now responsible for protecting all US citizens from attack and helping US allies to do the same. Bush authorised a about one drone strike a month. Osama, your left wing buddy, is authorising two a week.

The Muslim terrorists who thought they were in safe in Waziristan, Yeman, Somalia, and Mindanao shiit blue bricks every time they hear the lawnmower sound of a drone overhead. It was a pity that the drones were not active when David Hicks was fighting for the Al Qaida, because we might have splattered the bastard instead of now, because of legal technicalities, contemplating the idea of apologising to him for jailing him for his treason.

"wimpy and crazy left liberals like yourself", impressive. Do you ever actually think about what you write or is it just pigeon hole any differing views as wimpy and crazy left liberal.

I'd consider myself a crazy right liberal, undecided about wimpy. When it gets to it I don't consider it overly wimpy to be concerned about government power or that power being exercised without independant review. There is a tradition within parts of the right to consider abuse of government power a greater threat than a lot of the external threats used to justify those extensions of government. In my view even more justified as the potential for constant monitoring by government grows.

Number plate recognition, rapidly improving electronic facial recognition, scanning of emails and other electronic communications, logging of phone calls etc all have some good uses for protecting our security and a risk of being part of taking away freedom.

I'm overall pro-american but I've also noticed that when they have debates about whos freedoms are protected we are not mentioned. As they talk about limits to monitoring those limits apply to Americans with a seeming assumption that non-americans are open game (even as Americans privacy protections are breached in secret).

I have no reason to assume that America (or more specifically its then president and his or her inner circle) will always act just against shared enemies. Enough history suggesting that they have got it to wrong in the past let alone in the future. Left or right we should be concerned when there is a change that gives thise who hold power far greater capability to hurt their opponents without accountability.

R0bert

I used to have a lot to say about the moral status of military personnel, having never been to war myself. I still haven’t. But I have realised that if I am to shelter behind a soldier, I at least need to acknowledge the risk he or she is taking on my behalf.

I suggest we return to the days of chivalry. Where the “other ranks” wore red jackets to give the other chaps a fighting chance. It’s the machine gun we should ban, making all this shooting so jolly indiscriminate – it even brought an end to the cavalry, which always used to put on such a superb show for those of us able to watch from a nearby hilltop.

It is good to debate drones in this way, but it brings to mind a personal account by my father of a large raid on Mandalay in 1944. In the course of this event they flattened the entire Japanese quarter of the city. I have an aerial photo taken from one of the heavy bombers; the bombing was accurate for time, with the destruction following quite closely down the streets either side of the targeted blocks. They went for the Japanese deliberately and as best they could, but what about the many Burmese who were caught up in the attack? The air crew were well aware of how this panned out on the ground.

It is safe for us to chat about the need for a soldier to feel the danger personally, to justify (to some extent) killing on the basis of the risk of being killed. To ponder whether the horror of combat and the risk of casualties introduces some measure of restraint. Perhaps Neve has seen active duty and has a firmer foundation from which to comment on drones than I have. However I am glad we can now shelter behind robots, somewhat. Because I regret having to shelter behind a soldier, while recognising that I will continue to do so.

This may just be our modern salvation.

At Kokoda it was only the fact that our country kids could shoot straight before they joined up that saved our bacon.

Perhaps the fact that so many of our kids, & young adults are learning to fly these things for fun will give us something of an advantage in the next one. We will need something, now most of our people don't even know which end of a gun is dangerous.

My son, who was until recently instructing officer cadets prior them going to Duntroon, was telling me his biggest problem, was in getting them to keep their eyes open when the gun went BANG, loudly.

With these things they won't hear the bang, so they may be able to keep their eyes open, & see what they are doing.

Well, RObert. I suppose some people can see nothing but misery in every bit of good news. You are worried that drone technology could be misused by western governments? I am happy that it is being used effectively to kill the terrorist enemies of our people.

Since the Muslim terrorist incident at the Munich Olympics, the free world has been very much on the defensive from Muslim terrorists. They have bombed our aircraft, buses, trains, rail stations, sporting events and nightclubs. You don't win wars by waiting until the other guy hits you, you do it by going after them and putting them on the defensive. Drone warfare has for the first time put the terrorists on the defensive, and all you see is misery. So far, over 30 senior terrorist leaders from Al Qaida and the Taliban have been splattered all over the countryside, along with their bodyguards. There is nowhere except the deepest jungles where the drones can not find them, and terminate them with extreme prejudice.

This is a unique moment in military history. When it comes to guerrilla wars, we now have the technology to go after the enemy leaders who send fools to do their bidding, while sitting in comfort in the rear, with the beer and the gear, and with all the money, power, and sex they want.

Drone warfare is not beyond government control. The Predator was originally specified by the CIA who never intended to arm them. When the drones were armed, the CIA refused to fly them citing the Congressional the ban on CIA assassinations. The drones were transferred to the US Air force, which is under government control.

It is too late to put the genie back in the bottle anyway, so stop whining. Even remote control airplane hobbyists can access the technology to do their own reconnaissance missions. This includes programming RC aircraft to fly GPS controlled missions, as well as the fact that RC transmitters can use satellites to control RC planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrSEyS-GpZs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DjPiCdE2KI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPlWho3KJHY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NqzXXFi4ms