There was an article in last Friday's Fin Review that has been bugging me all week. It described the use of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) by the US, particularly along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.

The idea is that these machines are launched from a nearby base, after which the controls are handed over to the CIA back in the US. The Predator can stay aloft for up to 40 hours, hovers over suspected targets and feeds back visual information.

If/when they identify a target (the resolution apparently enables visual confirmation of the identity of individual terrorist leaders) they fire their missiles.

The justification is that they "take out" the villains with the minimum of collateral damage - the standard euphemism for innocent civilians.

Obviously, if you build enough of these machines, you will gradually reduce the need for troops on the ground to put themselves in harm's way.

What bugs me, and I haven't been able to come to grips with, is the ethical basis for remote killing. It doesn't fit the pattern of any previous form of warfare throughout history.

It's a pretty sure bet that the Geneva Convention doesn't cover what is, effectively, live shoot-em-up games, where people are killed by a bunch of geeks in an office in Langley VA, in between coffee breaks.

Dear Pericles,

How different is the description you give of remote
killing to roadside bombs placed by Iraqis and
Afghanis and set off remotely killing Allied forces?

This remote killing appears to be more economical
than the CIA method - but it achieves the same result -
sometimes resulting in the death of innocent people,
not counting soldiers.

All this appears a means of revenge against the CIA
actions. And universally can be interpreted as
"partisan" activity - to drive out occupying forces.

In the case of the USSR and present day Russia - countries
formerly occupied and currently occupied - resorted to
partisan activity to drive out the enemy and gain
independence.

Take a look at the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
And what the Palestinians are trying to achieve.

The drones could be a highly effectual way of a US computer geek safely killing people in a video game but if they don't work extremely well they risk the target groups considering US people (particularly soldiers) to be insipid and pathetic (the term 'cowards' comes to mind) as they send in machines in their place. This could lower their respect for the US thus dehumanising their perception of US citizens and inspire more enthusiasm to engage in hostile activity in the US of A.

I believe drones can be distinguished from planting a bomb at a strategic location as that often requires putting oneself in harms way to set it up even if it is triggered remotely in order to achieve the most effect.

Not much, I guess, Foxy

>>How different is the description you give of remote killing to roadside bombs placed by Iraqis and Afghanis and set off remotely killing Allied forces?<<

But there is a subtle difference, don't you think?

Wars have typically been fought by soldiers, who employ the weapons at their disposal. Hand-to-hand combat was the norm, and people who defended their country with bravery were decorated.

Increasingly, this has given way to tactics that more resemble guerrilla warfare, or even terrorist attacks.

We have graduated, if that is the right word, to sophisticated "delivery systems" that progressively lessen the exposure of the protagonist, while increasing the vulnerability of the target.

I guess my question is, do we just shrug our collective shoulders, and say "c'est la guerre"?

Or do we - because the Langley desk-jockeys who "fly" these things are actually civilians - charge them with murder?

Given that this form of killing is likely to be increasingly prominent, we should at least give it a passing thought before chucking it in the too-hard basket.

I don't think it matters for the reasons you say. The only real opposition to military aggression comes from within countries when 'Our Boys' are killed in high enough numbers.

Take away any risk of casualties and the government has no opposition to waging war all over the place. 'Send the robots home' doesn't have the same ring to it as 'Send the troops home'.

Pericles, I would guess you don't have any folk in our defence forces. Your point of view may be different, if you did.

Your post has decided me to do a post on what some acquaintances were saying on the weekend. Their point of view is coloured by the fact a son of theirs will be going to Afghanistan in november. That will follow.

Perhaps you could explain to them why you believe their son should be put at greater risk, to fulfil some sense of fair play in war, as you see it.

We have long had a tradition of sending our blokes out in inferior equipment. I would believe the families of our pilots who flew wirriways, against zeros in WW11 would have liked some sort of equality of equiptment, as would the French who faced English long bows.

War has always been such. Just be happy that our short term advantage, for that is all it is, will bring a few more of our blokes home in one piece.

Oh, & also be pleased that we have people prepared to put their lives on the line for you, & their country, even if they don't necessarily believe in what ever government policy is current, at any particular time. They deserve our unqualified support.

Ethics in war?

A novel concept.

Maybe the soldiers should shed their bullet proof flak jackets to make it more fair?

I am with Foxy and Shadow here. I don't see how bombing a building from 2 km away while sitting in a plane is that much different from sitting 1000 km away. Or for that matter from ship bombarding a shoreline from 10km, or artillery from 40 km.

As for these drone attacks stories on assassination, they seem to miss the bigger picture, as usual. The US has some 6,000 drones. Only 100 odd carry weapons. http://islamonline.com/news/print.php?newid=318109 So they are used mainly for reconnaissance, not assassinations.

On a side note, I love the irony of finding the best overview of the topic in an Islamic news site.

What's ridiculous is being perplexed about minimising the amount of our troops in harms way because it's what .... more SPORTING?.

Please.

I think you may be reading a text that isn't there, Hasbeen.

My "point of view" is that we have changed the way that we conduct warfare, and because it is different, it surely calls for a different set of rules.

We do not charge soldiers with murder when they kill people while doing the job we ask of them, and quite rightly so. They are protected by the Geneva Convention, which provides guidelines on what is an acceptable form of warfare.

Here we have a situation where CIA civilians are taking aim, not soldiers. The people they target are not necessarily soldiers either. I'm simply asking, where does this fit in the scheme of things? Should the Geneva Convention be expanded to encompass their activities too?

Or are we getting so cynical, that we just say, let them get on with it, why should I care?

Don't forget, that technology knows few boundaries. The natural extension of this is that if one day someone in a cave in Waziristan decides that you are a danger to them, they will have little hesitation in pushing the button.

But it's ok if we get them first, right?

>>Ethics in war? A novel concept.<<

Not novel at all, Shadow Minister. Historically, ethics have been observed until relatively recently. It started to decay when the British invented concentration camps during the Boer War - "not cricket, old boy". And quite a few objected to mustard gas in WWI trenches as being ethically dubious.

I might be persuaded to accept "old fashioned", though, instead of novel.

All views have value.
But I too am with those who find nothing wrong with using these things.
We are involved in a fight with primitive pure hatred.
A hatred that seems would exist no mater what we do.
Murder and worse is deserving of no support.
I stand with America using these tools.

Dear Pericles,

For millenia, people have hoped for peace
in their time. Today, as usual, there's
no shortage of grand proposals for peace -
such as new defensive devices...

Yet arms races and wars continue as before,
sometimes creating the discouraging idea
that hopes for peace are too "idealistic."

I think we are likely to be disappointed
if we expect dramatic results in the form
of an immediate end to war and militarism.

However - you're right - we should apply
popular pressures to try to influence
government policies. The prospects for peace
look more encouraging once we recognise that
war and peace are really opposite ends of a
continuum, and that movement along this
continuum, in either direction, is the result
of social processes that develop and change
under the influence of government policies
and popular pressures.

A few years ago I compiled a selected anthology of
anti-nuclear Australian poetry as part of my
tertiary studies. We could choose any theme -
but to me an anthology based on an anti-nuclear
theme of Australian poetry became the assignment
I had to do because I feared that our world was
becoming obsessed with the problems of hatred
and aggression, and that it would allow peace and
love to be regarded as soft and weak. Yet our
survival depends on their dominance. Otherwise
Stephen Vincent Benet's prophecy will come true:

"Oh where are you coming from soldier,
gaunt soldier
with weapons beyond any reach of my mind
with weapons so deadly
the world must grow older
and die in its tracks if it does not turn kind."

Wars have NEVER been ethical in any shape or form- at best, there might have been a bit of chivalry between higher-ranking members of the opposing forces, a bit of mercy here and there- if they were culturally similar- but it often ended there.

Personally I think a remote-controlled drone guided by a distant pilot is much more ethical than a piloted fighter commanded by a distant general (the traditional way) as it means that whenever the planes get shot down, malfunction or run out of fuel we didn't end up sacrificing two servicemen and women in the process.

The end result is otherwise exactly the same.

Beyond that, you would just need to ensure that only remote pilots in army ranks were permitted to pilot the drones.

*The natural extension of this is that if one day someone in a cave in Waziristan decides that you are a danger to them, they will have little hesitation in pushing the button.*

Pericles, I think that already applies, for I have yet to see
Al Queda or the Taliban, be concerned with ethics or the Geneva
Convention. So their only limit, is owning and knowing how to
use the technology, to push that button. For as an infidel,
you are fair game.

The thing is, Al Queda and the Taliban are still standing, as
they simply changed the rules to suit themselves. Bin Laden did
say that he would defeat the US by bankrupting them. He hasn't
done such a bad job at that either.

So laws of the jungle it is, where the smartest survives and writes
their own rule book, as they go along.

Dear Pericles,

I am also deeply disturbed by this method of warfare. A year ago I raised the topic, “A 'cowardly attack'?”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2633#59197

I reproduce my opening post below.

-Start quote-

This article in the Age newspaper

http://www.theage.com.au/world/deadly-reapers-stalk-their-quarry-over-afghan-skies-20090323-97es.html

prompts me to ask the following question, what really is a “cowardly attack“?

We hear the term used often and in bold print, “Sri Lanka vows ‘cowardly attack’ will not affect Pakistan relations” or “Cowardly attack will not derail process - Brown” and “U.S. Seeks Culprits Behind Cole Attack ... we track down the individuals responsible for this...cowardly attack," defence secretary William Cohen said.”

Quite possibly a case could be made that all of these incidents had an element of cowardness in them. However the attack on the Sri Lankan cricketers did involve exchanges of gunfire with armed police, the Northern Ireland episode was an attack on an army base and the USS Cole assault was a highly armed warship in which the attackers blew themselves up.

Last year approximately 7000 Taliban were said to have perished, most of those from munitions from the sky. These were delivered primarily by jet pilots whose greatest threats come from their own side. They are not opposed by any enemy airforce and few weapons used by the Taliban are capable of reaching them even at relatively low levels. Admittedly there is the risk of capture after mechanical malfunctions or such like.

However the Reaper crews discussed in The Age article sit in “darkened control rooms” “12,000 kilometres away” where the “most dangerous part of their day is the drive between the base and their homes”. “It is, quite simply, the most risk-free form of combat”.

So I am wondering what needs to be present for an attack to be deemed cowardly? Is the risk to the attacker relevant? Is the military status of the victims the key? Or is it primarily the nature of the attack itself?”

-End quote-

Condoning this have we forever abrogated our ability to call any attack cowardly?

csteele- the logical answer to the quote you posted is to treat more kinds of attacks as cowardly- as ultimately the one actually responsible tends to be a long distance away anyway- you don't see Bin Laden strapping bombs to his little dialysis machine and pushing the button himself, or George Bush infiltrating deep behind enemy lines, after all.

Dear King Hazza,

I am supposing that if we want to use logic to answer this question (although I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate to do so here) then surely I might ask what would you define as a heroic attack?

I don't see anyone ever regarding a Reaper pilot as heroic, nor should they, but many may well see them as cowardly and not without justification. Haven't the notions of what constitutes a cowardly act such as the use of Mustard gas as mentioned earlier, or shooting a prisoner, or torture, helped inform our rules of war? Why not this one?

I remember Hamas fighters being called cowards because they remained in built up areas for protection. The implication was in order to fight heroically they should all march out to cleared areas to fight. Sure the overwhelming technology of the Israelis including drones would mean they could all be slaughtered without risk to the IDF personnel but at least they wouldn't be deemed cowards.

Logic tends to break down a little here doesn't it.

I share the concerns of Pericles.

If we need to resort to this kind of warfare then we shouldn't be in those countries full stop.

http://web.youngmuslims.ca/online_library/books/milestones/hold/index_2.htm

Not so csteele, we are in Afghanistan for good reasons. Milestones
was written by Syed Qutb, an Egytpian whose ideology is followed
by the likes of Bin Laden Zawahiri and the rest. Whilst these
people are a bunch of extremists, they really want the lot of us
to convert to Islam or die. Read for yourself what drives the thinking.

They had been bombing their way around the world for years, but
it was only when they started wiping people out in NY, that the
rest of the world took action and responded in any kind of serious
manner.

Dear Yabby,

No, if the world was serious about stopping terrorism it would be invading Saudi Arabia from whence the Wahhabist poison gushes, the money to fund the propagation of that poison in far more moderate Islamic counties who make up the vast bulk of the Muslims of this world, and from where the vast majority of the 9/11 attackers came.

If you feel some great justification for beating the hell out of some terribly blighted country that has been the play pen for the machinations of the most powerful nations on earth in recent history then don't ask me to share it. Each one of those 7,000 Taliban fighters that we helped 'eliminate' last year had families, mothers, fathers, brother, sisters and often wives and children. The vast majority were Afghan citizens who are opposing the corruption and despotism of the warlords and the invading foreign forces.

Zawahiri and Bin Laden are now supposedly hiding in Pakistan. Perhaps this is where efforts should be concentrated or should we just invade it?

What will probably happen instead is another 7,000 Afghani dead this year, mostly from unmanned aircraft flown by people 12,000 miles away.

Deary me csteele, do you even know what life was like in Afghanistan
when the Taliban ruled? Frankly, they made the Wahabis look like
schoolgirls, although of course there were no schoolgirls, as
education, sport, and employment for women was banned. So was tv,
music, hanging pictures in your home, dancing and a host other things.
Men who dared shave, were beaten.

Now you think I should feel sorry for people who want to impose
this kind of draconian lifestyle on others? Perhaps the people
of Afghanistan should be allowed to vote on this one, rather then
have it forced down their throats by a gun, be it from a warlord
of from the Taliban.

The Qutb school of Islam is far more draconian and violent then any
other. Its also the one that was followed by Mullah Omar, along with
Al Queda. Afghanistan was to be the first "perfect" Islamic State,
according to bin Laden.

*Zawahiri and Bin Laden are now supposedly hiding in Pakistan.*

Exactly. They are hiding in the mountain areas between Afghanistan
and Pakistan, making use of both countries. So the drones are
a perfect way of dealing with them.

Meantime its time that the people of Afghanistan decide who they
support and they should have the chance to do that. That is why
we are there.

You're quite right csteele- which is why I actually have a hard time picturing a heroic attack.

Say, a dangerous attempt by brave soldiers to head into a dangerous area to take or sabotage a military installation would qualify- although it does so because the soldiers are putting their lives in danger, and the enemy soldiers got singled out to take the damage from the attack.
Although commendable and VERY heroic for both sides (one braving danger to attack a military outpost and the military outpost for putting up a defense) it is still too horrible to actually label with a nice tag, and I for one would never demand any service personel do such a thing for my approval.

But you're right about the purpose of being in a war if there is a need for drones- food for thought to say the least.

Csteele,

When the term "cowardly attack" is used, it is generally directed at those that deliberately attack soft or civilian targets such as markets, schools etc, where the purpose is to cause terror through the massive loss of civilian life.

The purpose of the drones is to attack military targets. As the taliban hid within the civilian population, the lengths they go to not to kill civilians is often not enough.

The purpose of war is not to get your own troops killed.

The drones have effectively destroyed the Taliban's ability to fight anything but a small guerilla conflict, which has significantly reduced the casualities on the allied side.

It certainly gives pause for thought.

One question to ponder is whether the information sent back via drones is more accurate or useful than the old fashioned scouting mission using a human on the ground assessing a situation; as opposed to a group sitting back at HQ using only footage in their decision making process.

Would this process dehumanise those decision makers or would it acutally reduce the risk of collateral damage. I guess it might be similar to making decisions based on satellite information. It is not something I know much about.

The British weren't very ethical about using foot soldiers as cannon fodder at Fromelle or at Gallipoli with many more casualities.

It will always come back to the ethical make-up of those in command and this will vary regardless of technologies.

I feel on such an important issue we need to be cognisant of what we are discussing even if it might be harrowing for some.

However it appears in doing a little research we may well add to the new phenomena of “Drone Porn”. This clip addresses the issue of the huge popularity of the drone footage on youtube. It asks why the US military is so keen to release this footage and is it turning war into entertainment?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UdbV5J20mpw

An example is this footage. Simple with no sound and titled 'UAV Kills 6 Heavily Armed Criminals', note the word criminals not insurgents, and has received over 1,300,000 hits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNNJJrcIa7A&feature=related

The viability of using drones as an effective weapon really relies on the enemy as being very weak militarily. It is difficult to envisage their use against Russia, China or even far smaller nations who would have the capacity to shoot them down either from the air or for the ground with Stingers or their equivalent.

It does add to the notion that they are a cowards weapon, used by a bully on a victim who is defenceless against them. If I were a Taliban fighter that would be my take.

This is a report on Al Jazzerra about a miss directed strike by an Israeli drone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K43kRH5Q6wc&feature=related

These are just difficult to watch even though they are from a distance and in night vision.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7dg74jfxl8&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLxAnNmxYa0&feature=related

The last is a long clip and not from a drone but rather a gunship. It shows 8 to 10 missiles being used to kill one individual and probably the one that distressed me the most. Note the orders to protect the Mosque. Very sickening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gMMQTt5-c&feature=related

If there are any of our troops assisting this sort of 'Turkey Shoot' then they are not doing it in my name.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote “The drones have effectively destroyed the Taliban's ability to fight anything but a small guerilla conflict, which has significantly reduced the casualities on the allied side.”

But you just can't know that. I could quite easily say the use of this type of weaponry has caused such anger on those targeted that they have reacted with greater ferocity as a direct result and thus significantly increased casualties.

From the BBC; “Pakistani leaders had expressed hope that the new US administration would halt the controversial air strikes, saying they fuelled public anger and complicated Pakistan's own counter-insurgency efforts.”

From Zcommunications; “However, in response to the US Government's figures the Pakistani Government leaked data of its own to The News International, the second-largest English language newspaper in the country. These records revealed that out of the 60 US drone strikes that had been carried out in Pakistan since January 2006 only 10 hit their actual targets, killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders.  Meanwhile these attacks have killed 687 Pakistani civilians (about 160 of which have been killed since Obama took office according to the Los Angeles Times). “

“David Kilcullen, the top counter-insurgency advisor to General Petraeus, told the House Armed Service Committee in the US that the drones attacks are "highly unpopular" in Pakistan and have "given rise to feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism". One such "spike" was the March terrorist attack on the police academy in Lahore, which the Pakistani Taliban said was in revenge for the remotely-controlled air strikes. Returning from a fact-finding trip to the region, the UK's social cohesion minister Saddiq Khan backed up Kilcullen's testimony, noting "the anger at the drone attacks was huge.  The view they [the students he met] had was the UK was somehow responsible for this... They lumped us together with the US, which to me is a poison."

Or is it only allies casualties that we care about?

Dear King Hazza,

“In attack a brave man draws other on, the coward holds them back. In defence the brave man stands his ground and fires at the right time and at the right place but the coward avoids exposing himself and his fire is unaimed.”
Reflections on the Art of War  By Reginald Clare Hart

Possibly a description more suited to more simple times but given the figures of drone 'collateral damage' the last part is not that far off the mark.

This is a more pragmatic view by Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War.
“Order of disorder depends on organisation; courage or cowardice on circumstances; strength or weakness on dispositions."

“Li Ch'uan: Now when troops gain a favourable situation the coward is brave; if it be lost, the brave become cowards. In the art of war there are no fixed rules. These can only be worked out according to circumstances.”

It begs the question where are we most likely to find bravery in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan?

And what of countries? How do we measure the banning of the use of torture by the Israelis who are under a fair degree of threat, compared to a presidential endorsement of such practices in America.

From the Tao of Politics; “Cultivated people can only live by justice; if they loose justice they loose their raison d'etre. Infantile people can live only by desires, if they loose their desires, they have no way to live. Cultivated people fear loss of justice; infantile people fear loss of material advantages. By observing what they fear you can tell the differences.”

And yes I probably do need to get off this high horse.

*And yes I probably do need to get off this high horse.*

You probably should, csteele. For you are trying to defend a
group, who have done what cannot be defended. From blowing
up girls schools, to filming the execution of their victims,
murdering and torturing people, to public executions every
weekend.

Nope I don't feel sorry for the Taliban or Al Queda. It
is the Taliban who use civilians as a shield. Clearly
they are not so brave!

Anyone who dares vote, is threatened with execution.

Sorry csteele, but rather then your high horse, your
defence comes from the gutter

Yabby, I think you have provided one end of the "how do we wage war" spectrum that bugged me enough to start the thread.

>>you are trying to defend a group, who have done what cannot be defended. From blowing up girls schools, to filming the execution of their victims, murdering and torturing people, to public executions every weekend.<<

This is the "they are evil, therefore they must be stamped out" approach.

This stance justifies the use of everything from torture of prisoners to biological warfare to nuclear weapons.

For which, quite possibly, plans already exist. On both sides.

War is necessarily ugly. But not entirely without ethics.

One of the aspects of "civilization" over the years has been the acceptance that there have to be some rules. Otherwise, what on earth was the point of establishing the Geneva Convention in the first place?

It handled, for example, the difference in treatment that you as a protagonist could dish out to individuals on the opposite side. If they were soldiers, you were required to detain them in POW camps. If they were spies, you could shoot them etc.

I guess my underlying question is, have we now moved on from that position? And should we/could we replace it with an updated set of guidelines that are more appropriate to the twentyfirst century?

Or is it already too late to even contemplate such a notion?

My concern is that what we are seeing is more reminiscent of Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" than Tobruk. But is this merely a hangover from past idealism, or a genuine fear for our future?

*One of the aspects of "civilization" over the years has been the acceptance that there have to be some rules.*

Pericles, I guess that still exists between countries. AFAIK we
still abide by the Geneva Convention. That is fine for war between
Govts, but that hardly applies in the case of the Taliban. If
you read up on Qutbs ideology which is what Mullah Omar follows,
our whole concept of Govt and rules, is not acceptable to them.

When Omar ran Afghanistan, the floor of his house was basically
the Afghan parliament. The only laws that apply are their
interpretation of the Koran. So all your Govts and Conventions
simply don't matter in their world.

I just get a little pissed off sometimes, when people do this
black and white thing as in "evil America - the poor Taliban."

If anyone was a bully, it was the Taliban whilst they ran
Afghanistan.

So I support any attempt to give the actual people in Afghanistan
a say about their own lives, like the right to vote.

There was recently an interesting debate on BBC TV about Afghanistan
and it involved some female Afghan MPs as part of the discussion.

One of the big worries in Afghanistan is that if an individual should
show open support for the introduction of a democratic system,
when Western troops leave and should the Taliban take over once
again, they will basically be chopped liver. Unlike csteele, these
people have experienced the brutal side of the Taliban.

The real problem is men like war and killing people- particularly the defenceless. The world is run by sick phycopaths. Kill them all!

I think that the current controversy over the leaked video of the 2007 American slaughter of 12 noncombatants in Baghdad is something of a precursor of what is likely to happen as these video-controlled drones inevitably proliferate.

<< The pilots in the video act "like they are playing a computer game and their desire is they want to get high scores" by killing opponents >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/06/2864956.htm

If that's what happens when the pilots are actually there, how much more likely is it for them to get it so wrong when the targets are just images on a video screen?

Oh well, the Baghdad massacre was found by the US military to be "justified" under their rules of engagement, as will massacres by remotely-controlled drones undoubtedly be. Just collateral damage I guess, but it's hardly going to win over 'hearts and minds', is it?

@CJ Morgan: << The pilots in the video act "like they are playing a computer game and their desire is they want to get high scores" by killing opponents >>

That reminded me of the glee the older pilots like the Red Barron got from their kill counts. I don't think much has changed in that department.

'but it's hardly going to win over 'hearts and minds', is it?'

Beemmmm! Wrong.

As I said, the salient point is more about the hearts and minds of the drone owning counttries. The less of 'our boys' that are put in danger the more freedom our governments have to do as they please without any of that nasty political backlash.

Civilian deaths of arab-looking 'terrorists' doesn't generate negativity in the same way as coffins coming home covered in the flag.

I don't recall the Red Baron being known for machine-gunning unarmed civilians on the ground.

civilians? terrorists is the preferred nomenclature. Where have you been living?

If the Red Baron (Julia G?) was shooting down boats of asylum seekers I don't think much of the population would be too concerned.

Plus the Red Barron was able to be shot down as was his fate, not sitting in a comfortable chair 12,000kms from the action playing God in the ultimate of video games.

@csteele: not sitting in a comfortable chair 12,000kms from the action playing God in the ultimate of video games.

Yeah, well you are commenting on the ethics of remote killing. I was commenting on soldiers being proud of kill tallies. There is nothing unique about this now, and there never has been. If you want to argue ethics of war and kill tallies, try this example.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/05/0082488

They jumped into an APC, displayed some bait and killed everyone that was drawn to it. I have no doubt they expected God and country to be proud of them being so ingenious at killing barbarian heathens.

To me it makes observing someone for days on end from 12,000 kms away, and then killing them once you are sure of their intentions look positively saintly.

On a different thread I made the comment ;

“...I have respect for our law enforcement and armed service personnel. They have sacrificed a portion of their autonomy for the service to their community or country. To put it crudely they have been prepared to shelve part of their natural morality to effectively do their job. Rather than deny this or find a moral justification for an immoral act perhaps we should recognise the sacrifice being made, often on our behalf.”

We need to realise we have a responsibility as the citizenry to temper the actions of our armed forces.

It is not the military who are working to outlaw things like mines, cluster bombs, depleted uranium munitions rather it is the people. It was also not the military who outlawed mustard gas, torture, the use of phosphorus weaponry in built up areas etc.

We expect them to do a job on our behalf efficiently and with as little loss to their fellow service people as possible.

It is unfair of me to call one of these pilots (perhaps drone controllers is a more suitable word) cowardly. It is those of us who are not prepared to speak out and attempt to change methods, that are obviously unjust and immoral, who are the real cowards.

As Gandhi wrote: “They say, 'means are, after all, means'. I would say, 'means are, after all, everything'. As the means so the end...”

Some of the means we are resorting to as Western nations to prosecute these wars should be appalling to most fair minded people.

It will take a special kind of courage from our leaders if these were to ever be addressed because implicit in that change would be an acceptance of greater allied casualties, but it needs to happen.

CSteele,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/05/world/asia/05drones.html?scp=1&sq=drones&st=cse

This article and many others I have read show how the Taliban and Al Quaeda operations are severely crippled.

This is enabling the Pakistani army to excise one area at a time from the Taliban control, as the Taliban are unable to mobilise much more than a token bombing.

I see no evidence of a more vigourous counter attack by the Taliban, and their area of control seems to be shrinking by the day.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I'm afraid you will need to cite some other evidence of the ailing Taliban since the article you linked to talks about the disruptions to the Taliban operations but also of the methods they have adopted to mitigate them.

The article quotes; “The question of civilian deaths is an almost daily worry, all four men said. “Civilians are worried because there is hardly a house without a fighter,” the militant said.”

So it would appear there is a lot more work for the drones to complete.

Wikipedia states Taliban numbers have increased from 11,000 in 2008 to 25,000 in 2009. British Maj. Gen. Richard Barrons last month put their strength as being up to 36,000.

It seems that our apprehensions about real-life video gaming were premature. I have it on good authority that the US Military has acted swiftly to ensure that all drone jockeys have been equipped with visual aids to ensure that they only acquire legitimate targets nowadays.

Like this one, for example:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/clutterbells/4495993800/sizes/o/

*Militants now sneak into villages two at a time to sleep, he said. Some homeowners were refusing to rent space to Arabs, who are associated with Al Qaeda, for fear of their families’ being killed by the drones, he said.*

From the earlier quoted URL. If they have to sneak into villages
just to sleep, I doubt if they are doing so well. Clearly the
locals would like to be rid of the Arabs who have invaded their
territory.

CSteele,

Don't confuse the entire war effort with the use of drones. The war cannot be won or lost solely by the use of drones.

Also when expressing horror at the loss of civilian life, perhaps compare it against any other tactic including men on the ground. I don't think you will find any difference. The main cause of this is the deliberate melding with the civilians by the taliban, which in itself is a grevious offence under the geneva convention, and theoretically would permit captured fighters to be shot on the spot.

The simple mathematics on the spot is that while you can attack as a guerilla you cannot hold any position. The taliban cannot congregate, or move rapidly, or use heavy armour. When a conventional force approaches they are left no choice but to try and melt away.

Dear CJMorgan,

Droll, very droll, but I loved it, especially the last one featuring the Fox Reporter.

Dear rstuart,

The link you provided is quite distressing of course. Perhaps something done in the heat of the battle is more explicable to the average person than the surgical nature of the remote death squads. Or alternatively the use of drones offends just a few of us and my opposition to this type of warfare is not supported by the majority. I am hoping that as revelations such as the recent Wikileaks video are disseminated, people will become more informed about the issue and the rules governing armed drone use may change.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The situation on the ground, particularly in Pakistan where drone use is creating so much anger, is far more nuanced than what is portrayed by the article.

It mentions Al Qaeda fighters, Arabs associated with Al Qaeda, Taliban fighters, insurgents, militants, local tribesmen. What it doesn't acknowledge, except obliquely, is that these are often interchangable.

The statement ““The question of civilian deaths is an almost daily worry, all four men said. “Civilians are worried because there is hardly a house without a fighter,” the militant said.” gives a good indication that many families have at least one member fighting for the insurgency. This is hardly melding with civilians.

The article also said the “The Arabs, who have always preferred to keep at a distance from the locals, have now gone further underground, resorting to hide-outs in tunnels dug into the mountainside in the Datta Khel area adjacent to Miram Shah, he said.” Once again hardly melding with civilians.

Whatever the cause might not these fighters be viewed as similar to the foreign fighters who went to help in the Spanish Civil War?

As to the Taliban simply fighting a guerilla war this is not always the case. “Fighting in Swat was particularly fierce since the Taliban threw away their insurgent tactics and the Army their counter-insurgency tactics. Both sides favoured more conventional frontline warfare as a means of fighting each other.” Wikipedia

Finally you state “Also when expressing horror at the loss of civilian life, perhaps compare it against any other tactic including men on the ground. I don't think you will find any difference.”

If we look at the reported drone casualties from the Pakistan Government I quoted earlier “out of the 60 US drone strikes that had been carried out in Pakistan since January 2006 only 10 hit their actual targets, killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders.  Meanwhile these attacks have killed 687 Pakistani civilians (about 160 of which have been killed since Obama took office according to the Los Angeles Times” we get a figure of 50 to 1.

Con't...

Con't...

Lets look at the figures from Wikipedia where the Taliban have used suicide bombers to attack military targets. I am only quoting those where the figures show a tally for both security forces and civilians.

On July 15, 2007, two suicide bombers attacked another Pakistani Army convoy killing 16 soldiers and 5 civilians.

The militants also struck back by attacking Army convoys, security check points and sending suicide bombers killing dozens of soldiers and police and over 100 civilians.

On September 3, two suicide bombers targeted a military intelligence (ISI) bus and a line of cars carrying ISI officers. The bus attack killed a large number of Defence Ministry workers and the other attack killed an Army colonel. In all 31 people, 19 soldiers and 12 civilians, were killed.

On February 25, 2008, a suicide bomber struck in the garrison-town of Rawalpindi killing Pakistani Lt. Gen. Mushtaq Baig along with two more soldiers and five civilians.

On July 6, 2008, a suicide bomber attacked a police station in Islamabad killing 12 policemen and seven civilians in a rally marking the first anniversary of Lal Masjid siege.

On November 14, 2007, senior Pakistan Army officials told at a news conference that a total of 28 suicide attacks killed some 600 Pakistani security men, in addition to 1,300 civilians in the period after the Lal Masjid siege.

So I offer up the figure of 3 civilians dead for every member of the security forces killed in suicide bombing attacks by the Taliban directed at military targets. Compare this to 50 to 1 for drones.

I would claim that rather than there being 'little difference' there is in fact a huge difference between the two. If you have other figures I would be happy to look at them.

Pericles, Wednesday, 31 March 2010 9:36:44 AM:

>... use of Predator Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) ...
> ethical basis for remote killing ...
> Geneva Convention doesn't cover ...

I teach IT ethics at the ANU in Canberra: http://www.tomw.net.au/technology/it/ictethics.shtml

Some of the software for UAVs is written in Canberra by my ex-students. They could be held responsible for the consequences of the software they write, so I have given the ethics and legality of UAVs some thought.

The UAVs are firmer ethical and legal ground, than some older weapons. In particular, the use of "dumb" land mines has been banned by international treaty (not ratified by the USA): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
The logic behind the treaty is that landmines are completely automated and kill indiscriminately. In contrast, remote control explosives, where there is a "person in the loop", are allowed by the landmines treaty. Armed UAVs similarly leave the decision to fire to a person, not a computer, removing many of the ethical and legal problems.

So far no nation has deployed fully automated UAVs which would attack without human intervention. That would cause numerous ethical and legal issues.

Rather than making the operator more removed from the consequences of their actions, reports indicate that UAVs have the opposite effect. Military personnel operating UAVs are suffering from stress because the UAVs give a far more detailed view of the effects of the weapons than for people on the battlefield.

ps: I am not a lawyer.

Technology has brought the ugly reality of war into our living rooms so that every man and his dog gets to second guess the actions of the individuals who are entrusted to secure our freedom. UAV's might inflict some collateral damage but what about Dresden or Hiroshima or 9/11? It seems to me that drones more effectively target the problem than any other solution. At least Obama has got something right.

*killing 14 Al-Qaeda leaders.*

Your figures are flawed csteele, for the deaths only refer to leaders,
not the many soldiers and hangers on to those leaders.

Next point, if the Taliban are silly enough to blow themselves up,
to achieve their goal of 72 virgins, well that is their problem, it
has little to do with the West.

But you can sleep easy. If you read up on what's coming with the
drone programme, they will be far more accurate, will be able
to follow many individuals at once, they will be able to target
indididuals, like never before.

Even Pakistan is now developing their own drone programme, to
deal with the Taliban and Al Queda. So they clearly must be impressed
with the results.

If all this prevents Al Queda and the Taliban from torturing
Afghans by trying to force their ideology down the peoples throats,
well that is all good news.

Dear Tom,

You said:

“The logic behind the treaty is that landmines are completely automated and kill indiscriminately. In contrast, remote control explosives, where there is a "person in the loop", are allowed by the landmines treaty. Armed UAVs similarly leave the decision to fire to a person, not a computer, removing many of the ethical and legal problems.”

Begs the question surely, solely based on the figures above about suicide bombing of military targets being far more discriminate than the drone campaign thus far in Pakistan, could we deem it a more ethical form of warfare?

I mean it is hard to imagine anyone being more 'in the loop' than a suicide bomber nor anyone less removed from the consequences of their actions.

Dear Yabby,

Fair point. I have had a quick look for more definitive figures but have not found anything yet.

However I do have a little insight into the mentality of those hunting Al Qaeda members. This is from my thread on a book written by the Australian Major General Jim Molan called ‘Running the War in Iraq’.

As Chief of Operations through 2004 he oversaw a force of 300,000 troops including 155,000 Americans.

Quote

Molan talks about his hunting, through air strikes, Umar Hadid a suspected terrorist leader. "I made a sustained effort to kill him and launched several strikes as the taskforce delivered the intelligence".

Four times Molan ordered strikes on four different houses and three times Hadid walks clear of the rubble (the first one kills his brother). It was only on the last when Molan used several 'JDAMs" that he finally succeeded. My thoughts were for the others in the buildings including one would assume families. There is no mention of collateral damage.

My question would have been how many other deaths occurred and at what point do you stop? Ten, twenty more houses?

End quote.

So I'm not uncomfortable with the figures.

There are no ethics in war. It's about killing people. What's ethical about that?
If talking fails and war is inevitable then the idea is to kill them without getting killed yourself, after all what's the point of being dead? So yes use drones -no problem

Csteele,

Considering the Pakistan military's support for the program and other information in the New york times and others, I seriously question where your information was published. Considering that the Taliban seldom admits to losing soldiers and almost without exception claiming that the lives lost were civilians.

Your comment "Fighting in Swat was particularly fierce since the Taliban threw away their insurgent tactics" actually lends credence to my position as this effectively pre dated the active use of the predators other than intelligence.

The Taliban would not be able to do this easily now.

Csteele, I put it to you that drones, especially as they improve
over time, will actually decrease collateral damage.

In WW 2, whole districts were bombed by the allies, it was purely
about tonnes of bombs dropped.

GPS guided bombs have improved things. When they were after Saddam,
they could take out a house or whatever. Yet the problem of time
still remained. Saddam could be here now, gone in 10 minutes, by
which time the bomb did no good at all, so the collateral damage
was about 100'000 Iraqis, to essentially get rid of Saddam and
his boys.

Clinton used guided missiles on bin Laden, but made the critical
mistake of informing Pakistan. By that time, Osama was gone by
2 hours.

Drones, especially with much better optics and smaller, more accurate
missiles, will virtually be able to pick out an individual and
target him there and now.

In most of these conflicts, its usually only a few idealogues that
we are after. So I grant you that collateral damage is a problem.
But drones are a way of decreasing it, rather then increasing it.

Dear Yabby,

You said: “Csteele, I put it to you that drones, especially as they improve over time, will actually decrease collateral damage.”

Well Yabby with respect I put it to you that drones, even if they improve over time, will actually increase collateral damage, partly because their use will escalate and partly because of the reaction of those being bombed.

Consider the words of Gen.Stanley A. McChrystal the senior American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, “We have shot an amazing number of people, but to my knowledge, none has ever proven to be a threat,”

Now he was referring to 'escalation of force' instances at checkpoints where the US forces had shot and killed carloads of Afghani civilians who were subsequently shown to completely innocent, rather than the victims of drone attacks. However it often virtually impossible to verify the innocent among those killed in drone attacks because they are outside the reach of ground forces.

You should further note that the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan, Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall talks about how many of the detainees at Bagram air base where being turned into insurgents after hearing of people they knew being shot.

Anger over the drone strikes is not is dispute but I would say it is a factor in the rapid rise in Taliban numbers in Pakistan. More Afghanis along with the collateral damage needing to be slaughtered from the sky.

At least McChrystal has managed to cut the toll from drone strikes by 20 percent over the last year. He obviously thought this was an issue and recognised just because the weapon was available its overuse was unacceptable.

I'm a little surprised to see you find no reason to think so.

*Now he was referring to 'escalation of force' instances at checkpoints*

Ah Csteele, but there is the rub. Checkpoints and drones are quite
different, for good reasons.

If I had to man a checkpoint, my life being on the line if that
Afghan puts his hand in his coat for some reason, I too would shoot
first and ask questions later. Operating a drone would take away
that danger, so reason could prevail, rather then instinctive reaction.

Don't forget, many an Afghan has died at the hands of the Taliban,
for not being wary enough, including the head of the Northern
Alliance, who was killed by a video camera filled with explosives.

*I would say it is a factor in the rapid rise in Taliban numbers in Pakistan.*

You might well say Csteele, but I have yet to see a reason to believe
you. People join the Taliban for many reasons, like paid employment
when they have no job and no centrelink. People quickly change sides
too. Today they wear one hat, next week another, whatever makes
a living.

The point remains, that with far more accurate drones, more accurately
being able to single out and eliminate targetted individuals, there
is less need for collateral damage, as we can achieve the same goals
without it.

Had some accurate drones picked out bin Laden and Zawahiri and
eliminated them, when the US had them encircled up in the mountains,
thousands of lives would have been saved

Dear Yabby,

We have been hearing for years that we have eradicated senior Taliban leadership figures but more keep stepping into their places.

Contrary to what you might think they do have some support within the population especially in the independent states of Pakistan. I recall a Dateline episode that spoke to a family where one of the sons was going to become a policeman while the other was going to fight for the Taliban.

For you to place purely material motives at their feet is denigrating. Why can't they be acting in what they see as the best interest of their community and country.

As the Taliban represents the only viable force opposing the occupation I am assuming they are getting by default young men who are opposed to the invaders.

Indeed it is interesting the comments attributed to President Karzai in an AP report about possibly joining the Taliban.

Quote

"He said that 'if I come under foreign pressure, I might join the Taliban'," said Farooq Marenai, who represents the eastern province of Nangarhar. "He said rebelling would change to resistance," Marenai said — apparently suggesting that the militant movement would then be redefined as one of resistance against a foreign occupation rather than a rebellion against an elected government.

Unquote.

You said “If I had to man a checkpoint, my life being on the line if that Afghan puts his hand in his coat for some reason, I too would shoot first and ask questions later.”

Did you read what I had posted? Not one of those killed was found to present a danger to the coalition forces. Not a single one. What does that make you?

We are in their country as an invading force and the only viable way of getting out of there in the foreseeable future is to lift our behaviour substantially otherwise the ranks of the Taliban are going to continue to swell.

Csteele, Mullah Omar, head of the Taliban and ex ruler of Afghanistan, in fact
escaped on a motor bike! He has never
been caught.

*For you to place purely material motives at their feet is denigrating.*

Call being factual whatever you will. I watch quite a bit
of CNN and BBC, they go in and talk to people. If the Taliban
have so much support, why don't they stand for elections?
Why not let the people vote? Why want to force them at
gunpoint?

A few thousand kids, indoctrinated in Pakstani madrasses, hardly
speak for a whole country.

*What does that make you?* It makes me sensible, for of course
soldiers have been regularly taken out by people pretending to be
something else. Around 6 or 7 CIA were taken out by one single
individual, whom they happened to trust.

*otherwise the ranks of the Taliban are going to continue to swell.*

Nato forces in Afghanistan have made the same mistake as the Americans
made in Iraq, when they disbanded the army. Rather then so many
Western troops, we should be bankrolling more local troops and pay
them a reasonable wage, so that they can make a living.

The Taliban rely largely on money from the poppy trade and money
from the Arabs, to bankroll their forces. When people have a family
to feed and no food, they take the best offer. You would do the
same in those circumstances.