The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > The ethics of remote warfare

The ethics of remote warfare

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All
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.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 12 April 2010 12:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*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
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 April 2010 9:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 12 April 2010 2:44:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 12 April 2010 3:47:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy