6 ms·

They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some esti

They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. Compare this to estimated civillian casualty rate of 60% in WWII [2] and around 50% in Vietnam [3] (distorted figures because anyone in a "free-fire" zone is considered the enemy). The intelligence for drone strikes are based on patterns, such as a party of men carrying guns or a group of unknown people plotting something. And so these strikes routinely -- and sometimes deliberately -- target wedding parties [4], funerals, and rescue workers [5], and children [6]. Add to this the psychological trauma of constantly living under the threat of drones [7], it is no wonder citizens of countries where these programs are carried out hold somewhat of a grudge against the US [8]. You can call it signature strike, or whatever you want, the fact is that bombs do not know the difference between combatants and women/children/civilians. They kill indiscriminately. So forgive me if I don't see the "advantage" of using drones over boots on the ground or see how they are "better". [1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/ind... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties [3] http://www.vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/cost_of_vn_war.html http://www.vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/cost_of_vn_war.htm... [4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57448041/afghanistan-officials-claim-nato-air-strike-kills-women-kids-at-wedding-party/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57448041/afghanistan-off... [5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drone... [6] http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/ http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/ [7] http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stan... [8] http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion-ever-more-critical-of-u-s/ http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion...

Dove 14y ago
In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment. The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%. Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been rising over the life of the drone program. The number of militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush. I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare. The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it? There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at least two credible news sources. While this represents a significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related fatalities. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?
- deadbea7 14y ago
  Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
  - Dove 14y ago
    All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
    - n3rdy 14y ago
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.
mc32 14y ago
>They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact... Percentage may or may not be the best way to assess effectiveness (reduction in casualties). Another measure could be collateral, or even total casualties, per highly valued target. After all a strategy in war is to take out the leadership making engagement with grunts and or civilians less necessary.

Dove 14y ago

In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment. The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," those individuals whose precise status could not be determined from media reports, reported killed by drones in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under President Bush it was 33%. Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been rising over the life of the drone program. The number of militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush. I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare. The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it? There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of? Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at least two credible news sources. While this represents a significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related fatalities. I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?

deadbea7 14y ago
Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers. [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...
- Dove 14y ago
  All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top? And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!
  - n3rdy 14y ago
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea... This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't. What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them. In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy. So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to. This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.

mc32 14y ago

>They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact... Percentage may or may not be the best way to assess effectiveness (reduction in casualties). Another measure could be collateral, or even total casualties, per highly valued target. After all a strategy in war is to take out the leadership making engagement with grunts and or civilians less necessary.