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.