http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/07/wired.terrorist.drone.strikes/index.html?hpt=C1

(WIRED ) -- Once upon a time, the CIA had to know a militant's name before putting him up for a robotic targeted killing. Now, if the guy acts like a guerrilla, it's enough to call in a drone strike.

It's another sign of that a once-limited, once-covert program to off senior terrorist leaders has morphed into a full-scale -- if undeclared -- war in Pakistan. And in a war, you don't need to know the name of someone on the other side before you take a shot.

Across the border, in Afghanistan, the rules for launching an airstrike have become tighter than a balled fist. Dropping a bomb from above is now a tactic of last resort; even when U.S. troops are under fire, commanders are reluctant to authorize air strikes.

In Pakistan, however, the opposite has happened. Starting in the latter days of the Bush administration, and accelerating under the Obama presidency, drone pilots have become more and more free to launch their weapons.

"You've had an expanded target set for [some] time now and, given the danger these groups pose and their relative inaccessibility, these kinds of strikes -- precise and effective -- have become almost like the cannon fire of this war. They're no longer extraordinary or even unusual," one American official tells CNN.

This official -- like many other officials -- insists that the drone strikes have torn up the ranks of militants.

"The enemy has lost not just operational leaders and facilitators -- people whose names we know -- but formations of fighters and other terrorists," the official tells the Los Angeles Times. "We might not always have their names, but ... these are people whose actions over time have made it obvious that they are a threat."

National security law experts, inside the government and out, are in the middle of an intense debate over whether the remotely piloted attacks are legal. One leading law professor told Congress last week that the drone operators could be tried for "war crimes," under certain circumstances.

The State Department's top lawyer counters that the drone attacks are a legitimate act of self-defense.

The connection between the robotic strikes over there and our safety here appears to be growing, The Pakistani Taliban, who have claimed credit for the botched Times Square bombing, say the car bomb was in retaliation for drone strikes.

But the robotic aircraft are only one component in the war in Pakistan. American troops are on the ground there, and getting into firefights. American contractors are operating a fleet of helicopters above. Higher in the sky are the American drones, flown by the U.S. Air Force and the CIA.

There has indeed been a lot of debate over whether the drone strikes are war crimes, though surprisingly little outrage over the Taliban attacking Afghan schoolgirls or blowing up Pakistani civilians in crowded markets.  What I find interesting is that so many people react to the idea of using drones to kill people as if it's somehow worse than killing with more traditional weapons systems such as artillery or manned aircraft. It's becoming increasingly clear that the program is hurting the extremists, but the jury is still out on whether civilian casualties (which are always inflated by Taliban propagandists) inflicted by the Predators are hurting our cause more than the disruption of terrorist networks is helping it. It all comes back to one simple fact though; there's no other way to strike at Al Qaeda and Taliban leadership without getting into a ground war in the tribal areas.

Apparently the deal with Pakistan is that the Pakistani government permits it clandestinely, but has a free hand to publicly denounce the USA for using drone strikes, in return for getting cash.

freediver wrote on May 9^th, 2010 at 8:25pm:

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/05/07/wired.terrorist.drone.strikes/index.html?hpt=C1 And in a war, you don't need to know the name of someone on the other side before you take a shot.

That's right. He's the enemy. Or Johnny Enemy, if you prefer.

nanatehay wrote on May 10^th, 2010 at 3:58pm:

There has indeed been a lot of debate over whether the drone strikes are war crimes, though surprisingly little outrage over the Taliban attacking Afghan schoolgirls or blowing up Pakistani civilians in crowded markets.  What I find interesting is that so many people react to the idea of using drones to kill people as if it's somehow worse than killing with more traditional weapons systems such as artillery or manned aircraft.

Whatever happened to the "guns-don't-kill-people" argument?

Bombing raids traditionally follow a declaration of war. Sure, Cambodia and Panama have been notable exceptions, but you'll never get the US before a war crimes tribunal. They're not on the Security Council for nothing.

But if you support the US sending a drone into your backyard and blowing up anything they want by remote control, you might as well support Osama. I can't see the difference.

Still, it must be fun to have the technology to send a remote control robot anywhere you want and just blow away any old thing that walks past.

From a desk in Huston, Texas, everyone's the enemy.

Quote:

Whatever happened to the "guns-don't-kill-people" argument?

Why, I'm not sure what happened to it, though I'm certain I didn't bring it up here. Would you like me to argue it pro or con? I can do either.


Quote:

Bombing raids traditionally follow a declaration of war.

Nobody declares war anymore; it's as passe as parachute pants. You're right about no one dragging the US before a war crimes tribunal though. It's one of the perqs of superpower status.


Quote:

if you support the US sending a drone into your backyard and blowing up anything they want by remote control, you might as well support Osama. I can't see the difference.

That's OK, I can see it for you. If you can't see the difference between Osama on the one hand and the US conducting targeted strikes at terrorists who have no compunction at blowing up civilians at random with suicide bombers on the other, nothing I say is going to change your mind.


Quote:

Still, it must be fun to have the technology to send a remote control robot anywhere you want and just blow away any old thing that walks past

I'm not sure if fun is the right word. It's certainly a lot safer than blowing things away in person.

I think it's OK to kill the enemy in a war, don't you?

nanatehay wrote on May 12^th, 2010 at 7:49pm:

Nobody declares war anymore; it's as passe as parachute pants. You're right about no one dragging the US before a war crimes tribunal though. It's one of the perqs of superpower status.

I couldn't agree more. Declarations of war are one of those quaint olde-worlde things like the Geneva Convention.

I wonder why Osama can't afford a couple of drones himself. This way, things would be a bit more matched. He could sit at his evil terminal and take out Fort Bliss, El Paso.

The days of infantry charges and sword fights are long gone. It's sad. The days of total war are with us, particularly if you have a white sheet wrapped around your head in northern Pakistan.

War has never been about minimising civilian casualties, but now, it seems, it's about maximising them. That Wikileaks video said a lot. The clinical, distanced way we can take out a van of good Samaritans, for example, says a lot about war.

You'd think it would make people more cautious about going in, but no. We're addicted to the passive consumption of action - someone else's action, of course.

Quote:

I wonder why Osama can't afford a couple of drones himself. This way, things would be a bit more matched. He could sit at his evil terminal and take out Fort Bliss, El Paso.

As I recall Osama already used up his drones, or rather, jetliners full of innocent civilians.  It was fascinating to watch afterwards, the people choosing to leap from the WTC towers rather than burn to death. Passive consumption of action? I guess so. I just wish the whole thing was over, but Bush/Cheney muffed their chances of resolving anything in Central Asia when they diverted all our resources and focus into their imbecilic invasion of Iraq. Welcome to the Forever War.

nanatehay wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

Quote: I wonder why Osama can't afford a couple of drones himself. This way, things would be a bit more matched. He could sit at his evil terminal and take out Fort Bliss, El Paso. As I recall Osama already used up his drones, or rather, jetliners full of innocent civilians.  It was fascinating to watch afterwards, the people choosing to leap from the WTC towers rather than burn to death. Passive consumption of action? I guess so. I just wish the whole thing was over, but Bush/Cheney muffed their chances of resolving anything in Central Asia when they diverted all our resources and focus into their imbecilic invasion of Iraq. Welcome to the Forever War.

You got it in one, Nanatehay. The war is with Eurasia. The war has always been with Eurasia.

nanatehay wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 2:09pm:

It was fascinating to watch afterwards, the people choosing to leap from the WTC towers rather than burn to death.

The shrivelled smallness of spirit is startling.

Karnal wrote on May 14^th, 2010 at 4:28pm:

nanatehay wrote on May 14th, 2010 at 2:09pm: Quote: I wonder why Osama can't afford a couple of drones himself. This way, things would be a bit more matched. He could sit at his evil terminal and take out Fort Bliss, El Paso. As I recall Osama already used up his drones, or rather, jetliners full of innocent civilians.  It was fascinating to watch afterwards, the people choosing to leap from the WTC towers rather than burn to death. Passive consumption of action? I guess so. I just wish the whole thing was over, but Bush/Cheney muffed their chances of resolving anything in Central Asia when they diverted all our resources and focus into their imbecilic invasion of Iraq. Welcome to the Forever War. You got it in one, Nanatehay. The war is with Eurasia. The war has always been with Eurasia.

Your self-preening knows no limit. The proverbial dog walking on its hind legs.

"The war has always been with Eurasia"  Jetliners=drones. Stop svcking each other's d!cks in public. It's nauseating.

Quote:

Stop svcking each other's d!cks in public.

Tell me Soren, do you think before you comment or do you just wipe and flush?  Regarding your displeasure at my description of people jumping from the WTC as fascinating - and it WAS fascinating, as many horrible things are -  I watched my fellow citizens die in their thousands that day in real-time, so stuff your outrage and everything you presume to know about me up your smug little ass my friend.  

The question of who is an enemy and who is a friend, and when to kill them, is not a new one for this war. Not all wars of old were about idiots forming nice neat lines and hacking each other to bits with swords.

nanatehay wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 4:38am:

Quote: Stop svcking each other's d!cks in public. Tell me Soren, do you think before you comment or do you just wipe and flush?  Regarding your displeasure at my description of people jumping from the WTC as fascinating - and it WAS fascinating, as many horrible things are -  I watched my fellow citizens die in their thousands that day in real-time, so stuff your outrage and everything you presume to know about me up your smug little ass my friend.

Did I claim to know anything about you? Apart from having a shrivelled spirit, that is? No. We all watched the news all day that day. Fascinating it wasn't.

Anyway, if you can be fascinated by it then I can also find you shallow on that account. You are presumptious in the extreme if you think that you deserve only approval because you happen to be their felllow citizen. Being an American does not give you a pass to be 'fascinated' by people leaping to their deaths.

I didn't ask for your approval Soren. I was pointing out to you that horror often has a fascination to it, which is something that's apparent to anyone with a bit of honesty, to anyone who's not a smug, self-righteous scold such as yourself. Tell me though, are you gay? I've found that people who introduce comments about sucking c@ck into political discussions often are. If so that's OK; I won't judge you.

What, no more droll bon mots about penises Soren? Ah well, I'm sure you'll get around to it eventualy.


Quote:

Anyway, if you can be fascinated by it then I can also find you shallow on that account.

You can try to find me anything you like Soren, and more power to you.  In the funny little world you dwell in, by *finding* others shallow (or whatever the pejorative of the moment may be) you're of course implying that you're somehow "deep." The sad truth though is that profundity isn't usually a characteristic associated with intellectually blinkered ninnys who like to go around braying obscenities to make themselves look like all that and a bag of chips.

Quote:

What, no more droll bon mots about penises Soren?

I think you missed this bit:


Quote:

Did I claim to know anything about you? Apart from having a shrivelled spirit, that is

Nanatehay was in the pool. The water was cold.

Sorry. Just got my mouth full here.

nanatehay wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

I didn't ask for your approval Soren. I was pointing out to you that horror often has a fascination to it, which is something that's apparent to anyone with a bit of honesty, to anyone who's not a smug, self-righteous scold such as yourself. Tell me though, are you gay? I've found that people who introduce comments about sucking c@ck into political discussions often are. If so that's OK; I won't judge you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NlrgjgOHrw

nanatehay wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 1:18pm:

I was pointing out to you that horror often has a fascination to it,

You pointed out nothing of the sort. You did not point out that horror often has a fascination to it.  You said only one thing about it - that it was fascinating. That's it. Not an aspect, not an angle. It was just fascinating to you.

Soren, I think you missed the centre of the hair slightly.

nanatehay wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 3:57pm:

What, no more droll bon mots about penises Soren? Ah well, I'm sure you'll get around to it eventualy. Quote: Anyway, if you can be fascinated by it then I can also find you shallow on that account. You can try to find me anything you like Soren, and more power to you.  In the funny little world you dwell in, by *finding* others shallow (or whatever the pejorative of the moment may be) you're of course implying that you're somehow "deep." The sad truth though is that profundity isn't usually a characteristic associated with intellectually blinkered ninnys who like to go around braying obscenities to make themselves look like all that and a bag of chips.

I merely claim not to be as shallow or 'fascinated' as you.

Fair enough Soren.

Karnal:

Quote:

The days of infantry charges and sword fights are long gone. It's sad. The days of total war are with us, particularly if you have a white sheet wrapped around your head in northern Pakistan.

Or if you were sitting at a desk in the WTC when someone flew a jetliner through your window. Or if you're a civilian in Islamabad shopping at the market when a child suicide bomber recruited by the Taliban blows himself up next to you. Or if you're a civilian in Iraq killed as "collateral damage" by a US JDam or blown to bits by an AQI-planted car bomb. It's an ugly world indeed.

freediver:

Quote:

The question of who is an enemy and who is a friend, and when to kill them, is not a new one for this war. Not all wars of old were about idiots forming nice neat lines and hacking each other to bits with swords.

Very true. The whole drone war thing does add a new element to it though. I for one think it's just another weapon, and one which we're going to be seeing a lot more of. The cat is out of the bag now and as time goes by more and more nations will be employing robots on the battlefield.  We haven't reached the days of "Terminator" yet, but they're coming.

I just now noticed all the comments above Soren's most recent one.

"A-huh, a-huh, a-huh. He said shrivelled."  :D