UN Warns Obama: Drone Attacks May Violate International Law

[FaaR]

Succeeding in invading a country, and in establishing peace are two different things.

The US succeeded with the former in Afghanistan. So did the Soviets I might add.

Neither succeeded with the latter, despite fighting foes that are vastly inferior in both training, equipment and quite possibly also numbers.

 

[cwjerome]

I am not sure where people are getting confused that the use of drones is some sort of game winner. It's a tool, like any other system... don't read too much into it.

These types of operations though precise and well considered are not ominipresent... that is, perfect. The target may move and the target usually hides by purpose among civilians. The enemy does not use a uniform to identify himself. So how much of the threat's activities is done deliberately to cause civilians to be engaged because the threat moves and hides among the civilians?

Another example -and a case the UN investigator should also concern himself with- the various IEDs used by our opponents. Usually these kill more civilians than does UAV air strikes... yet I have heard of no censure or investigation or public outcry that they should be stopped.

That leads me to think the first thing is to identify and understand the background of this UN investigator. Second, based on the type of questions he's asking, it seems it would compromise TTPs that would be published and would assist our enemies to figure out better how to counter them. Don't assume this UN character is concerned about fragile morality.

 

[piasabird]

The UN must hate the fact that when a drone is shot down or crashes, there are no pilots to drag through the streets. Where is the UN warning to the terrorists?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

The main difference between manned aircraft and unmanned drones killing civilians is accountability.

How do you hold anyone responsible when you've no proper way of identifying who was controlling that drone, or indeed if it was being actively controlled at all. How does innocent Afghans seek justice after death strikes from above and you might not even have been able to identify the aircraft the bomb or missile came from?

You can't bomb yourself to victory from the air, it didn't work in Vietnam in the 60s and 70s, it didn't work for the Russians in Afghanistan in the 80s, hasn't worked for Israel in Gaza or the West Bank for decades now (and not for lack of trying!), and it's not going to work in Afghanistan now either.

Every village blown up by drone strikes is just going to turn even more Afghans against any and all foreign troops on their soil. Lame excuses like "it saves American lives" is just idiocy; a soldier that's scared to die shouldn't have joined the armed forces, and a commander that isn't willing to risk his troops is spineless and incompetent. Risking one's life - hopefully in a righteous cause - is a soldier's job. When you start blowing up villagers to save the lives of soldiers then you've already lost the battle.

Also, the people targetted aren't "terrorists" by any legal definition of the word. At best they're SUSPECTS, and proper western tradition is to treat suspects as innocents until proven guilty in a court of law. It's NOT proper tradition to blow suspects to kingdom come just in case they might be guilty of something, together with anyone who happen to stand nearby.

Are you suggesting that we invade Western Pakistan with ground troops to take on the enemy leadership face-to-face instead?

 

[FaaR]

I'm suggesting people stop acting stupid and jingoistic.

You're not going to win any war by sending in drones - into Pakistan or anywhere else - and blowing up bunches of villagers and pissing off tons of civilians, thus turning them against you.

This mentality that "but we have to do SOMETHING to stop these terrorists!" is just going to cost you a lot more in the long run than not doing anything at all. This "war on terror" is, and always has been, a self-defeating strategy. It's not a winnable fight because a military force is not what triumphs over terrorism. Building bridges between people, and trust, is the way to victory, not dropping explosives from the sky.

Everybody with half a brain knows this.

 

[TheSkinsFan]

I'm suggesting people stop acting stupid and jingoistic.

You're not going to win any war by sending in drones - into Pakistan or anywhere else - and blowing up bunches of villagers and pissing off tons of civilians, thus turning them against you.

This mentality that "but we have to do SOMETHING to stop these terrorists!" is just going to cost you a lot more in the long run than not doing anything at all. This "war on terror" is, and always has been, a self-defeating strategy. It's not a winnable fight because a military force is not what triumphs over terrorism. Building bridges between people, and trust, is the way to victory, not dropping explosives from the sky.

Everybody with half a brain knows this.

Tell that to the parents of dead Afghan children or NATO soldiers who get killed because you decided to allow the enemy leadership to live another day.

There still needs to be kinetic actions taken against the known terrorists hiding out in the hills if/when we find them. The killing of their leadership and destruction of their havens must happen simultaneously with any social, economic, and political reform we conduct elsewhere. We can't just turn our backs on them while we do these other things.

A multi-faceted approach that includes kinetic military operations, of some kind, is the only real solution. Progress in any of the other areas cannot be made if the Taliban and AQ leadership remain militarily unchallenged.

Multitasking ftw.