Ship of Fools: The legality of drone strikes

Thread: The legality of drone strikes Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020465

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

This thread is a spin off from a tangent in the long running "Oops Trump" thread.

Here is a link posted in the other thread.

chris styles and I have had some exchanges on the Oops thread. We are in agreement that it is a "grey area", but not I think just how "grey it is".

I think it is an important topic and worthy of a separate thread. Over to you for views and opinions

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

As far as the US Constitution is the basis for US law:

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The power to declare war is granted specifically to congress in Article 1 Section 8.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

I am not a lawyer so I might be completely wrong, but my understanding is that international NGOs say that there are issues with drone strike in international law when they're being used to launch attacks against individuals in countries that are not actually in conflict.

So attacks in Pakistan when the issues are in Afghanistan.

But then there are other humanitarian law issues, including when the attacks target unarmed civilians or when civilians are killed by accident.

On the other hand this might be all academic. Nobody is really in a position to hold the USA or anyone else who uses drones to account under international law.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles on the Trump thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
As a follow up, here is a detailed look at the legality of drone strikes. And this is the grey area. What limits apply to the pursuit of unlawful combatants, given that the traditional definition of battleground doesn't really work any more.
Which glosses over the irregular nature of the 'war' (both in temporal and spatial terms), and completely ignores the issue of so-called 'signature strikes'.

And here is a copy of a key post from chris styles, raising two specific issues.

1. The irregular nature of the 'war'
2. Signature Strikes.

What may be an issue under point 1 is the constitutionality and status under international law of the Military Commissions Act 2006 (modified in 2009). Central to that is the definition of unlawful enemy combatant (as opposed to lawful enemy combatant). What steps are legal and permissible to capture or kill people who are classified this way? What are their rights under international law?

On the second point, signature strikes, there are many critical articles to be found online. Here is one example.

Maybe these questions are worth exploring first?

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

I'm not clear what this means. Does it allow a separate military justice to operate in time of war such that persons can be liable without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury if the case arises "in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Or does it mean that "in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" there can be no liability even on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

(steels himself to agree with romanlion)

I'm pretty certain that in both UK and US law, drone strikes outside of a designated field of conflict are most likely state-sponsored murder.

We can dress this up which ever way we want. We can cite the immanent danger to UK assets and civilians, we can cite difficulties in trying to arrest or extradite persons of interest, we can point out all the measures we take to minimise civilian casualties, we can even squirm around the term 'extra-judicial killing'.

But it comes down to hunting and killing people we think are too dangerous to allow to live, without any independent scrutiny of those decisions, in places which are effectively away from the public gaze, or care.

And of course innocent people die. Explody boom containers are indifferent to walls, passengers, drivers, passersby.

If we have decided that's our policy, let's at least call it for what it is.

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Can that be the case? Doesn't the CIA have legal cover for foreign assassinations?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Is a suicide bomber a walking, living drone?

The whole thing is horrid.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I'm probably being dim here but I find it hard to differentiate between drone strikes and similar strikes carried out by other means, eg piloted aircraft and artillery, for similar reasons and consequences.

Apart from the pilot/weapons systems operator being thousands of miles away I can't see a difference. Can someone help me please?

Posted by romanlion (# 10325) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm probably being dim here but I find it hard to differentiate between drone strikes and similar strikes carried out by other means, eg piloted aircraft and artillery, for similar reasons and consequences.

Apart from the pilot/weapons systems operator being thousands of miles away I can't see a difference. Can someone help me please?

This is illuminating, because there is no difference. You can imagine the different reactions though, if we were talking about M1 Abrams patrolling thousands of miles from any conflict zone and taking out anyone deemed by the executive as deserving of death.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'm probably being dim here but I find it hard to differentiate between drone strikes and similar strikes carried out by other means, eg piloted aircraft and artillery, for similar reasons and consequences.

In theory there is no difference. In practice there are a number of things in play - as the infrastructure used is less expensive a lot of the normal command hierarchy can be side-stepped (thus 'compressing the kill chain'). As the units are smaller they are less likely to show up on radar and necessitate embarrassing explanations to the military/governments of other countries except maybe after the event, and the fact that human life isn't risked on the offensive side means that politicians are far more likely to use it as a means.

It parallels a number of moves of Othering, that creates a realm outside the West in which due process need not apply, where infrastructure damage doesn't matter as it is inhabited by people who aren't civilised in the way 'we' are, and where civilian casualties can be reduced to collateral damage and 'bug splats'.

[ 09. February 2018, 13:12: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from the pilot/weapons systems operator being thousands of miles away I can't see a difference. Can someone help me please?

I agree that the result for the people being shot at, bombed, assaulted, is the same within some limits.

The difference is that a plane low enough to shoot with some accuracy is probably going to be going fast to keep the pilot from getting shot. That means a lot of stray rounds shot both before and after the target.

Drones are smaller and harder to hit and do not have a crew on board. That can mean a little more accuracy, thereby reducing unintended casualties.

Which brings to mind that the alternative to drones and planes and helicopters is troops on the ground. That means something has to insert them. That means they have to navigate to the intended site, risking their own lives and the lives of people they encounter on the way. Then, there may well be a fire fight involving people who might have guns, but might not otherwise be involved in combat. Just because it would be live people is no guarantee that they might not shoot at anything that moves out of fear that a moving person might well be seeking cover for safety, or a better firing position. After that, the whole process would have to be reversed.

All of the foregoing assumes the legitimacy of war.

I understand the perceived need to fight people like IS. I also understand that for every soul we kill to protect our interests, we have raised up a whole new group of people intent upon revenge.

Violence begets violence. This is a lesson history has taught us time after time after time.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:
Originally posted by romanlion:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger
I'm not clear what this means. Does it allow a separate military justice to operate in time of war such that persons can be liable without presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury if the case arises "in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". Or does it mean that "in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" there can be no liability even on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury?

That section of the U.S. Constitution is covering two things. First, it's stipulating that the military ("the land or naval forces, or in the Militia") operates according to a law different than the law applicable to everyone else. (Note that the Militia only operates under military law "when in actual service in time of War or public danger".) At present the military law of the United States is the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Courts martial operate differently than civilian courts and can proceed without an indictment from a Grand Jury.

Second, it holds that in all cases which do not fall within the military's purview an indictment from a Grand Jury is required before trial for "a capital, or otherwise infamous crime". There are some exceptions from case law. For example ex parte Milligan held that it's okay to try civilians in military court, but only in situations where the local civilian courts were not functioning due to whatever "War or public danger" required a military presence in the first place.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from the pilot/weapons systems operator being thousands of miles away I can't see a difference. Can someone help me please?
I agree that the result for the people being shot at, bombed, assaulted, is the same within some limits.

The difference is that a plane low enough to shoot with some accuracy is probably going to be going fast to keep the pilot from getting shot. That means a lot of stray rounds shot both before and after the target.

Drones are smaller and harder to hit and do not have a crew on board. That can mean a little more accuracy, thereby reducing unintended casualties.

Which brings to mind that the alternative to drones and planes and helicopters is troops on the ground. That means something has to insert them. That means they have to navigate to the intended site, risking their own lives and the lives of people they encounter on the way. Then, there may well be a fire fight involving people who might have guns, but might not otherwise be involved in combat. Just because it would be live people is no guarantee that they might not shoot at anything that moves out of fear that a moving person might well be seeking cover for safety, or a better firing position. After that, the whole process would have to be reversed.

All of the foregoing assumes the legitimacy of war.

I understand the perceived need to fight people like IS. I also understand that for every soul we kill to protect our interests, we have raised up a whole new group of people intent upon revenge.

Violence begets violence. This is a lesson history has taught us time after time after time.

Thanks, that's pretty much what I understood.

The differences are entirely practical. There are no legal, moral or ethical differences IMHO. It might not be fair to use drones, because they are a considerable force multiplier, but I'm sure the net/medium-term effect will be to act as a spur to those under attack to step up their efforts, and the outcome of that will be still more drone attacks.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the argument about means (drones or otherwise) is well made. The legal issues seem to be about 'who' and 'where' not 'what with'.

I don't think the Military Commissions Act 2006 contradicts Article 5 of the US Constitution and the definition of unlawful enemy combatant does allow for the fact that such people, not representing a nation state at war, but terrorist organisations, are expected to be found in other sovereign states. Subject to the laws of armed combat, they become legitimate capture or kill targets if they are classified that way. And I think POTUS has broad discretionary powers over such classifications. The legal challenge against MCA 2006 was not on the issues of the legitimacy of that definition of unlawful enemy combatant, nor the discretionary powers, but whether it could be applied to US citizens.

Coupled with Article 51, legitimate self-defence, I think this is the current legal defence for the legitimacy of drone strikes (or other means). I might be wrong about that. Happy to be corrected. But if I am right, the other restraint is the laws of armed combat, which certainly cover taking all possible steps to avoid the deaths of innocent noncombatants.

MCA 2006 was heavily criticised by various civil liberties groups and legal authorities, but it was passed by Congress, then subject to 2009 modification.

So it is US Law and is not, so far as I am aware, the subject of legal attack, nationally or internationally. Does it contradict Amendment V of the US constitution? I guess someone could try to make the argument. Does the use of drones contravene the laws of armed combat? I think that is probably a case by case issue, particularly over the steps taken to avoid harm to noncombatants.

[ 09. February 2018, 14:49: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Apart from the pilot/weapons systems operator being thousands of miles away I can't see a difference. Can someone help me please?
I agree that the result for the people being shot at, bombed, assaulted, is the same within some limits.

The difference is that a plane low enough to shoot with some accuracy is probably going to be going fast to keep the pilot from getting shot. That means a lot of stray rounds shot both before and after the target.

Drones are smaller and harder to hit and do not have a crew on board. That can mean a little more accuracy, thereby reducing unintended casualties.

Which brings to mind that the alternative to drones and planes and helicopters is troops on the ground. That means something has to insert them. That means they have to navigate to the intended site, risking their own lives and the lives of people they encounter on the way. Then, there may well be a fire fight involving people who might have guns, but might not otherwise be involved in combat. Just because it would be live people is no guarantee that they might not shoot at anything that moves out of fear that a moving person might well be seeking cover for safety, or a better firing position. After that, the whole process would have to be reversed.

All of the foregoing assumes the legitimacy of war.

I understand the perceived need to fight people like IS. I also understand that for every soul we kill to protect our interests, we have raised up a whole new group of people intent upon revenge.

Violence begets violence. This is a lesson history has taught us time after time after time.

After time immemorial forever and ever, amen.

The calculus is therefore 'we' will 'manage' 'them' and their attacks too. Like the American mass shooting rate, it's sustainable for the foreseeable future. There will have to be a sustained period, many months, of outrages every few weeks for anything to change. I mean you're four hundred times more likely to die using your phone while driving. 2% of terrorist killings are in Europe. And the change wouldn't be for the good. Drone strikes would increase for a start.

[ 09. February 2018, 14:51: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So it is US Law and is not, so far as I am aware, the subject of legal attack, nationally or internationally.

This part of your post is critical.

If you're a drone operator, I wouldn't go holidaying in any of the countries you've been flying over, nor those with treaties of those countries.

US law - despite the craven attitude of the UK government - stops at the border.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

This report produced jointly by the Baptists, Methgodists and URC a few years ago may be of interest.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So it is US Law and is not, so far as I am aware, the subject of legal attack, nationally or internationally.
This part of your post is critical.

If you're a drone operator, I wouldn't go holidaying in any of the countries you've been flying over, nor those with treaties of those countries.

US law - despite the craven attitude of the UK government - stops at the border.

Don't get me wrong Doc. I really don't like the way unlawful enemy combatants can be classified and identified as targets. I don't like MCA 2006. I'm just trying to look at the legal question based on national and international laws as they are, not as I'd like them to be.

BTW Article 51, which I also referred to, is international; it is the self defence provision in the United Nations Charter. The UK used it in the Falklands War.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Does the use of drones contravene the laws of armed combat? I think that is probably a case by case issue, particularly over the steps taken to avoid harm to noncombatants.

Making this even more complicated and dubious is giving the CIA the authorization to kill people with drones. The CIA is a civilian agency and is not covered by "the laws of armed combat" or the UCMJ. The question of what is permissible when conducting a war seems out of place when applied to an entity that's not supposed to be waging war.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Certainly recreational drones are fairly easy to buy. How long until the killing technology comes into a drone-deploying country?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ Croesos

Presumably it's military personnel who fly the drones, which remain military equipment? Strikes me as a pretty messy chain of command. I don't think the CIA can order a drone pilot to do anything his military rules of engagement wouldn't permit. If for example the authorisation involved high risk to civilians, the military pilot would be right to refer the authorisation up his normal chain of command. That's self preservation, not insubordination.

But in any case I agree the comment in the article. It should not be the CIA's job to authorise a drone strike.

[ 09. February 2018, 18:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Presumably it's military personnel who fly the drones, which remain military equipment? Strikes me as a pretty messy chain of command. I don't think the CIA can order a drone pilot to do anything his military rules of engagement wouldn't permit.

The issue seems to be that while the various US forces are invested in their large infrastructure they are less invested emotionally in drones - and so shortcuts are the order of the day.

Couple that with the Othering of large segments of the world ( http://www.newsweek.com/bugsplats-and-jackpots-us-military-drone-operators-enjoy-gamers-delight-667050 ) and you have a recipe for a situation where even if in theory minimizing civilian casualties is a goal, in practice things are more .. fuzzy.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think that's right, chris. The further downhill slide is a real risk.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I think that's right, chris. The further downhill slide is a real risk.

I disagree, the downhill slide has already happened. The lack of checks and balances and the lack of an outcry is evidence enough - even if one misses the talking heads daily speaking about intervention and 'non-kinetic' in such antiseptic terms.

In the other thread you used examples for WWII - well at the point at which that war ended space opened up for reflection. The 'forever' nature of this 'war' means that the same thing can be put off indefinitely.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

You missed my 'further' I think. However likely we might see it to be, it's a risk until it happens.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

If your family is dead, it's already happened.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
@ Croesos

Presumably it's military personnel who fly the drones, which remain military equipment?

Why would you presume that? The CIA has long had its own fleet of surveillance drones. Arming them is not that far a stretch, once someone has authorized it. Neither the Pentagon nor the CIA is willing to comment on the exact way drone operations are structured so this is largely speculative, but I'm not sure we can simply presume all armed U.S. drones are piloted by the U.S. military.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

It's the cheap solution, avoiding equipment duplication, additional staff, training costs and time, greater risks of operations going wrong because of inexperience.

But of course I could be wrong. Inter-agency rivalry, ambition etc could drive things in the other direction.

Anyway, those were the reasons for my presumption.

[ 09. February 2018, 19:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BTW Article 51, which I also referred to, is international; it is the self defence provision in the United Nations Charter. The UK used it in the Falklands War.

Yes, but.

The idea that 'self defence' covers killing Abdul, the local Taliban fixer, in a street in a village in Waziristan, is really stretching matters. In effect, the US is doing what it wants, where it wants, in a way that is essentially terrorism by drone.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

PS to Croesos

Plus the psychology of blame delegation. If you subcontract the dirty work, you can take the credit if it goes right, dump on the subcontractors if it goes wrong.

[ 09. February 2018, 19:41: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BTW Article 51, which I also referred to, is international; it is the self defence provision in the United Nations Charter. The UK used it in the Falklands War.
Yes, but.

The idea that 'self defence' covers killing Abdul, the local Taliban fixer, in a street in a village in Waziristan, is really stretching matters. In effect, the US is doing what it wants, where it wants, in a way that is essentially terrorism by drone.

I'm beginning to feel like a Jesuit! The argument just needs to be defensible. For all you and I know, Abdul may be a vital cog in a munitions supply chain, a recruiter of suicide bombers, etc, hiding his light under some routine bushel.

After all, we don't know, do we. It's classified, as is the source of information about Abdul.

Doc, of course it's a stretch to use the self defence provision. But it retains sufficient plausibility to get by.

[ 09. February 2018, 19:52: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It's defensible if you're the one pushing the button 1000 miles away, because you need it to be defensible. That's pretty much all that can be said about that argument.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's defensible if you're the one pushing the button 1000 miles away, because you need it to be defensible. That's pretty much all that can be said about that argument.

Exactly. The policy is based on the hope that this lethal harrying will at worst contain the terrorist threat, at best reduce it.

That might be a false hope. There might be a better approach. But what would it be?

[ 09. February 2018, 20:28: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The war on terror was a blank cheque from the get-go and the continuation drone strikes 16 yrs later have been one of it’s purchases.
The public were enthralled by surgical weaponisation employed during Iraq war one of 1991. Drones are merely a extension of that tactic in the minds of most. Regardless of legality the general view is that drones kill baddies so what’s the problem.

Ethics and warfare never have been compatible bedfellows.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I'm beginning to feel like a Jesuit! The argument just needs to be defensible. For all you and I know, Abdul may be a vital cog in a munitions supply chain, a recruiter of suicide bombers, etc, hiding his light under some routine bushel.

After all, we don't know, do we. It's classified, as is the source of information about Abdul.

.. we also know that in a significant number of cases, even the intelligence doesn't claim that Abdul is a vital cog, it just claims he may possibly look like a vital cog. Using a set of measures of embedded inside some data processing software which frequently just embeds its creators own prejudices.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Certainly recreational drones are fairly easy to buy. How long until the killing technology comes into a drone-deploying country?

Military drones are a different level to recreational or commercial drones. So, Reaper level capability is not likely any-time soon.
Commercial drones are expensive and regulated. However, building a drone isn't exactly rocket surgery.
Commercial drones can certainly carry enough a payload to cause as much damage as the average terrorist strike.
However, so can a person. And a car or van so much more.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It's defensible if you're the one pushing the button 1000 miles away, because you need it to be defensible. That's pretty much all that can be said about that argument.
Exactly. The policy is based on the hope that this lethal harrying will at worst contain the terrorist threat, at best reduce it.

That might be a false hope. There might be a better approach. But what would it be?

It is a false hope. The targets (and collateral) will be as dead if they were killed by a soldier, a jet fighter or a drone. But, to the people surviving, they are different things with different psychological impact. What drones save in operator lives now, they cost later in extended conflict.
The idea that terrorism can be conquered by causing terror is ridiculous in the extreme.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
BTW Article 51, which I also referred to, is international; it is the self defence provision in the United Nations Charter. The UK used it in the Falklands War.
Yes, but.

The idea that 'self defence' covers killing Abdul, the local Taliban fixer, in a street in a village in Waziristan, is really stretching matters. In effect, the US is doing what it wants, where it wants, in a way that is essentially terrorism by drone.

Taking out enemy combatants (and their collateral neighbours' kids), including 'traitors' with the same passport you have, isn't terrorism.

And no I don't approve of any of it. The real alternative is infinitely too radical for all concerned however. Is as politically impossible as gun control in America.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Point of fact, even ISIL and the Taliban have used drones. The basic technology is not that secret. To be sure, there are advanced technologies, such as piloting systems and ordinance systems that can be secret. But just lose one over hostile territory, such as the US losing one over Iran a few years ago, and all bets are off.

Under the Just War Scenario, it is better to kill one, or even a few, than to have many killed by the one who was targeted.

The United States admits it has killed at least six Americans. Only one was specifically targeted. He was the one that tried to blow up a plane over Detriot, he made the bomb that fizzled when the underwear bomber tried to trigger it. He was also experimenting with other ways to bring bonbs on planes.

However, it does say the others were righteous for various reasons. There is one kill that has been challenged. It was the death of a sixteen-year-old boy who was with his father when they were both killed.

I am not sure of the Trump numbers, but the Obama administration claimed they were responsible for only 200 collateral deaths, but in truth, it may have been several thousand. They fudged the numbers by saying those who were killed in the bombing were combatants even though there was no way to prove it. One way they have used to target militants is to target one individual first and then launch another missile at the people who rush in to attempt a rescue. (This gives me a nasty taste.)

What they have found is even though the pilots of drones may be thousands of miles away, they do suffer from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. I know of one instance where the pilot had been observing a house of a suspected terrorist for quite a long time. He was waiting to launch a missile at the house, but he wanted to be sure the family members of the terrorist were out of the house. The time came when he observed a woman with four children leaving the house. Once the pilot got permission to launch he did, but as the missile was streaking to the house, he observed one of the children turn and go back into it. Now that would mess any normal person up.

Let's say there is a person that we want to take out. What are the alternatives?

Well, there is high altitude carpet bombing? But that assumes the person is not on the move. The downside is carpet bombing will destroy everything along a certain path. And even then the person may survive the attack.

Then there is the use of cruise missiles which can be launched some distance away. But you have to assume the target is not moving. Clinton launched a Tomahawk missile at a training camp that Osama Bin Laden was assumed to be at; but, by the time the missile reached the target, Bin Laden had left the area.

Okay, a single, close-in, air strike. Remember that while the target may be on the move, say in a convey, that pilot is coming in at well over 500 mph, trying to avoid any defensive measures, and may only have just a second over the target.

Helicopters are not much better because they will definitely be avoiding defensive measures.

How about an artillery strike? Well, you need to be able to pinpoint the target, usually through some observation platform--a person on the ground, or a drone in the area. But usually, an artillery strike entails a range shot, then a full barrage once the target range is found.

The other alternative would be a sniper team going in. These are small teams at least two, a spotter and a shooter. Usually no more than a platoon. Usually very accurate and nearly nil collateral damage. But there is the logistics of insertion and then extraction.

Of all possibilities, a drone strike has many advantages. The drone can stay on target for quite a long time, gathering intelligence, waiting for the ideal time to launch. Once launched, the missile is laser guided. It also involves the least risk for personnel, and in the overall scheme of things, it is the least expensive.

In the end war is hell. Ideally, you try to kill the least number of people

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:

Ethics and warfare never have been compatible bedfellows.

Not sure about that.

Our tradition is one of seeking to agree "rules of war" to make it less hellish.

And although in the heat of the moment those rules may often be broken, the existence of the rules means that once the dust has settled, there's some basis for repentance, apology, possibly even compensation. And for moral pressure to be exerted on the offending power by the community of nations.

Isn't one of the issues here that the traditional rules assume functioning nation states with a monopoly of military-grade force ? So that if North Ruritanians are committing acts of war against South Ruritania, the remedy is for South Ruritania and its allies to declare war upon North Ruritania and make war until that country is persuaded to desist from such acts.

Which doesn't work in the case of "failed states".

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The policy is based on the hope that this lethal harrying will at worst contain the terrorist threat, at best reduce it.

That might be a false hope. There might be a better approach. But what would it be?
It is a false hope.

Now here, as a tangent to the thread, is a huge topic.

Personally, I'm persuaded by the discussions here that drone strikes are, at best, of dubious legality, And signature strikes seem especially dubious.

But the tangential argument is this one. How effective are they? Indeed, how effective has the whole war on terror been?

There is an old military saying. 'We must do something. This is something. So !et's do this'.

Of course the major issue with the war on terror is that, unlike a war on a nation state, there is no obvious ending, in military victory, or defeat, or peace agreement. Terrorism is a hydra headed monster. Chop off one head and another springs up.

I think the argument that drone strikes are effective for the domestic market is quite powerful. 'We are doing something'. It's relatively financially inexpensive, it does not put US military lives at risk, it kills some of the bad guys, so it can be easily presented as making progress. The fact that it is morally and legally dubious can be glossed.

The deeper question, whether the current policy is helping to achieve the strategic objective of eradicating terrorism, doesn't really seem to have been much explored, in any real depth.

'Without objectives, you cannot fail'. So what are the objectives and how can they be measured? A reduction in terrorist attacks? A reduction in recruitment to terrorist causes? Damage to the capability of specific terrorist groups to carry out acts of terror? Reduction in the number of supportive nations? More effective preventative security and intelligence measures? Foreign policy modifications aimed at reducing the attractiveness of terrorist causes? Add your own ideas to the list, these are just a few that occur to me.

Once we start looking at these kinds of objectives, we realise that the current policy contains very little to guide thinking about how such objectives are to be measured, or assessed, or prioritised.

Which essentially is why I'm questioning effectiveness while lilBuddha is denying it. There is no real public agreement, of even much discussion, about measurable objectives and priorities. War has been declared against terror without any clear ideas, not just about winning it, but what winning actually means.

Short version. Sixteen years after 9/11, I still cannot see that the war on terror, which has led to drone strikes, is a coherent, worked out policy, rather than a series of reactions to murderous intentions and actions.

Now I may be wrong here. Maybe US and allied policies are better worked out than they look? Have any of you seen anything to suggest that they are?

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

President Sarkoff, in Blake's 7 once observed:

quote:
Assassination has always been a legitimate tool of statecraft. Its respectability and public acceptance has varied from civilization to civilization, but its practical application has remained remarkably consistent.

Back in the old days assassination came with some risks. You either had to find an assassin who was prepared to die in the course of the assassination, or you had to find a professional who could get it done with a reasonable expectation of getting out alive. With the establishment of the nation state the latter tended to be members of the intelligence services or the armed forces. This restricted the use of assassination because a hit that went wrong could have all sorts of unfortunate implications. The last thing any government wanted was a member of the intelligence service making a public confession and singing like a canary about anything else the survivor wanted to know about. Nor would a government want to discover that they had, inadvertently, sent a bunch of war heroes to their deaths. Those of us who admire President Obama's sang-froid, particularly remember the White House Correspondents Dinner where he poked fun at Donald Trump knowing that he could have had a Jimmy Carter type catastrophe on his hands when he got back to the White House. Fortunately, the monkey's paw did it's work and Osama Bin Laden was no more. Now the fun thing about drones is that none of those constraints apply. Before the order to get Bin Laden was given there would have been a shed load of analysis of the relevant information because the last thing anyone wanted was a dead bunch of Navy Seals and Bin Laden putting out a video mocking the decadent west. The watchword is always going to be caution. Drones change that. Sending in Navy Seals means that your target is always going to be sufficiently impressive to be worth whacking. Drones mean that you can go after some minor league fixer on the grounds that it disrupts the terrorists plan of campaign. Assassination no longer becomes exceptional, it becomes routine and mundane.

I am reminded of the member of the US Government who suggested that the key to setting off the US nuclear armoury ought to be implanted in a member of the Secret Service. The US President would be equipped with a knife and would have to retrieve the implant before blowing up the world. This was objected to, unironically, that the President's unwillingness to murder a member of his coterie might dissuade him from blowing up the world. The practical, pre-drone, limits to killing people made it a matter of the last resort. Post drone, anything goes. Luckily, thus far, the US has not elected an unprincipled narcissist to the highest off... OH.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Before the order to get Bin Laden was given there would have been a shed load of analysis of the relevant information because the last thing anyone wanted was a dead bunch of Navy Seals and Bin Laden putting out a video mocking the decadent west. The watchword is always going to be caution. Drones change that. Sending in Navy Seals means that your target is always going to be sufficiently impressive to be worth whacking. Drones mean that you can go after some minor league fixer on the grounds that it disrupts the terrorists plan of campaign. Assassination no longer becomes exceptional, it becomes routine and mundane.

/snip/

The practical, pre-drone, limits to killing people made it a matter of the last resort. Post drone, anything goes. Luckily, thus far, the US has not elected an unprincipled narcissist to the highest off... OH.

Spot on.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

Which essentially is why I'm questioning effectiveness while lilBuddha is denying it. There is no real public agreement, of even much discussion, about measurable objectives and priorities.

Terrorist recruitment videos feature drone strikes. So, there is that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Sure. But that''s just one factor. My point was that there are many factors which might be used to assess success in the war on terror.

As it happens, my opinion is close to yours, that behaviour which encourages recruitment is probably a major losing factor, since it encourages the hydra headed monster. But we don't have the data to look at these things more objectively i.e. if a process which degrades the terrorist capability also aids recruitment, where does the balance of advantage lie?

That's an example of the general point I was trying to make. Who, if anyone, is trying to work these things out?

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

...war on terror...

it isn't that.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

That's an example of the general point I was trying to make. Who, if anyone, is trying to work these things out?

I'm not sure anyone actually is. Not on the policy-making side, anyway.
It is a massive problem with many factors, some of which are not convenient to address.
Where is terrorism funded? Saudi Arabia has been, and continues to be, a major source. The 911 terrorists were almost all Saudi. Wahhabi groups from Saudi Arabia fund madrassas (often in poor/struggling countries) that teach extremism.
This is a very inconvenient truth. One that is not an easy problem to fix.
But the current "solution" isn't a solution at all.
Attacking terrorists is like catching bullets after they have been fired.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

But the current "solution" isn't a solution at all.
Attacking terrorists is like catching bullets after they have been fired.

That''s pretty much how it feels to me. I'm just not sure feelings are enough.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet ...:
...war on terror...

it isn't that.

It's what George Bush labelled it. You can call it whatever you like, really. It's a long running conflict between the US and terrorists, isn't it? And not just the US. I don't mind if you don't think it' a proper war, for example. It isn't a war in the traditional meaning of that word.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

But the current "solution" isn't a solution at all.
Attacking terrorists is like catching bullets after they have been fired.
That''s pretty much how it feels to me. I'm just not sure feelings are enough.

What you want is the equivalent of a clear economic strategy. They do not, and cannot exist. The factors of how an economy works are broad and complex and fixing problems isn't easy or simple.
The same can be said for any complex and enduring problem.
One thing is clear: Current strategy isn't working. It is well past time to explore another.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
By lilBuddha:

What you want is the equivalent of a clear economic strategy. They do not, and cannot exist. The factors of how an economy works are broad and complex and fixing problems isn't easy or simple.
The same can be said for any complex and enduring problem.
One thing is clear: Current strategy isn't working. It is well past time to explore another.

Oh I'm not that ambitious! A bit more clarity would do. But I do think the US needs a new script. Or at least the recognition that it needs to look for one. It's bound to involve some judgment calls; I'm arguing that such calls could do with being better informed.

[ 10. February 2018, 18:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Oh I'm not that ambitious! A bit more clarity would do. But I do think the US needs a new script. Or at least the recognition that it needs to look for one.

Not just the US. Britain doesn't receive terrorist attacks simply because of its proximity or relative ease of access.

quote:

It's bound to involve some judgment calls; I'm arguing that such calls could do with being better informed.

The information is there. It requires filtering out the noise of propaganda and that is not always easy.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet ...:
...war on terror...

it isn't that.
It's what George Bush labelled it. You can call it whatever you like, really. It's a long running conflict between the US and terrorists, isn't it? And not just the US. I don't mind if you don't think it' a proper war, for example. It isn't a war in the traditional meaning of that word.

I'm not accepting that it is just a conflict between the USA and terrorists. It appears to be part of a larger "great game" regarding economics, where the USA wants to order the world as it sees fit, per the Project for a New American Century. This is first about oil and we're just getting to see them make moves into the rest of it (space, information tech, culture, deconstruction of movements towards democracy etc).

Analysis, and their visionary documents: Rebuilding America's Defenses (pdf). If you search for "Pearl Harbor" in this pdf, you find the fascinating statements issued pre Sept 11, 2001. In this vein, the process of ongoing war and military actions by America are a cross-party, cross-administration realization of a pretty nasty plan, underway for some 25 years. The operative word being "domination" economically. To borrow their language, barring some Suez Canal like crisis (UK 1956) event, the process of blaming brown people for everything while exporting their resources and letting these people die in poverty and health crisis will continue.

Drones in this understanding are merely efficient ways of killing in aid of economics.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Case in point, the Israeli Defense Forces shot down an Iranian drone that crossed over into their territory yesterday The Iranians claimed the drone was for recognizance of ISIL positions. The Israeli Air Force attacked the vehicle that launched the drone, but one of its planes was shot down. And, in retaliation, the IAF attacked another 18 Iranian targets in Syria.

Neve ends

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's what George Bush labelled it. You can call it whatever you like, really. It's a long running conflict between the US and terrorists, isn't it?

I don't think it is really - or only in the sense that you can have a war against any other adjective - how are those working by the way?

It doesn't necessarily have to be a centralised plan - though certainly things like PNAC have long worked towards certain aims. The problem is once these are things that once embarked upon set up their own dynamic. Just restricting ourselves to drones for a moment, the constant presence of them in some areas lead to documented psychological impacts on the population:

http://chrgj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Living-Under-Drones.pdf

Who are essentially being terrorised as a preventative measure in the war on terror.

And the combination of signature strikes and rather optimistic characterisations of the victims of such strikes risks underestimating the casualty rate:

http://www.law.columbia.edu/human-rights-institute/counterterrorism/drone-strikes/civilian-impact-drone-strikes-unexamined-co sts-unanswered-questions

The wider picture is little better of course - unless reducing having the Middle East to chaos is an achievement.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

@ no prophet

Oh I see. That needs a bit of reflection and some independent research. Back later!

[ 10. February 2018, 20:31: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

chris stiles

The drone reports are excellent. I note they are 5 years old. I was particularly impressed with the legal analysis in the first link.

Isn't there some evidence that the Obama presidency, in its second term, made some attempts to respond to criticisms about both the legality and effectiveness of the drone programme? I'm not arguing that there was any kind of radical rethink, along the lines the first link calls for, but some kind of recognition that current drone policies needed both clarification and modification. I don't think the response was very effective.

In general terms the links are precisely the sort of serious look at effectiveness, based on real data, that the prosecution of the war on terror needs.

On wider issues, I accept that the PNAC think tank assertions were probably influential in policy making during the Bush Presidency, and may well be having some impact on the Trump Presidency. But the Obama Presidency didn't have much time for doctrinaire neoconservative approaches. I don't think Obama was much interested in US Global Military or Economic domination. He wanted to close down US military operations, bring troops home, and was indeed criticised for doing that 'prematurely'. So far as economic dominance is concerned. I think he was a global free trader, rather than an America-firster.

But I accept that multinational companies based in the US have been exerting powerful influence on US economic policies, regardless of who is in the WH.

[ 10. February 2018, 21:42: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
But I accept that multinational companies based in the US have been exerting powerful influence on US economic policies, regardless of who is in the WH.

This. I think it explains much.

If Bruce Cockburn was writing If I Had a Rocket Launcher today, it would be about drones, not helicopters (he was writing about Guatemala and USA-backed government forces who were exterminating the indigenous population, something they started decades earlier on behalf of the United Fruit Company (Chiquita, of banana fame, is the successor company).

There's a thread of military in support of multinationals which goes back a long time. Laws aren't fully applied to business when the amounts are large.

[ 10. February 2018, 22:13: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
chris stiles

The drone reports are excellent. I note they are 5 years old. I was particularly impressed with the legal analysis in the first link.

I'm sure there are more recent ones - I picked those because I remembered them from a few years back when I looked into the subject in some detail.

quote:

But the Obama Presidency didn't have much time for doctrinaire neoconservative approaches. I don't think Obama was much interested in US Global Military or Economic domination. He wanted to close down US military operations, bring troops home, and was indeed criticised for doing that 'prematurely'.

Wars have a life of their own, and in reality he started with two low level wars and ended his presidency with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and proxies and advisors in Syria and Libya.

The withdrawal from Iraq had - of course - been planned under the previous presidency, and in 2011 when it was completed ISIL didn't look like the threat they subsequently became, but then the rise of ISIL is evidence against the long term success of such interventions.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Oh Iraq2 was a disaster. And the absence of an exit strategy compounded it. And, yes, the aftermath created a power vacuum and fertile recruitment for IS.

What is interesting about that argument is that you would think it would make both US and UK governments more cautious about the adverse effects of botched military interventions.

And this is where Callan's excellent argument comes in. If targeted unlawful combatants were to be pursued, for capture or kill, by a SEAL team, there would be much more care taken because of the adverse risks, and the process would be much rarer. It is the low cost zero risk to US troops which has increased the frequency and, as your linked report shows, created the other adverse effect, of increasing innocent deaths, alienating more civilians and aiding recruitment to the terrorist cause.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I'm on the Kill List. This is what it feels like to be hunted by drones. Not fun.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The Devil's Alternative from the article:

Are drone strikes ever morally defensible?
Yes - sometimes they're necessary
No - they can only ever worsen a situation

My response is either, neither, both depending on what hat I put on. On balance, 'No'.

I cannot understand how my enlightened (HAH!) self interest is served by UK endorsed US drone strikes six thousand miles away in Pakistan from US occupied Afghanistan (the scene of the UK's greatest military-political failure since the Easter Rising), based on inadequate intel, which radicalizes my UK neighbourhood.

Never mind radical Christian idealism, I struggle to see any utilitarian argument for any of it. We have played in to Bin Laden's 9 11 Goetterdaemmerung non-stop.

I'm not interested in the legality of it. Just stop it. All of it. We have broken Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Niger, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, etc, etc for over a century or two or four (ALL of Africa) and we can't fix it, we never owned them and we don't now, just because we've broken them more recently.

Leave them alone.

And join AA.

Can we fix Haiti? Can we - FRANCE?! - pay them back the ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY YEARS of 'reparations' they paid for daring to emancipate themselves? Can we go somewhere and only fix it? Make amends?

Sorry, useless I know.

Can we fix the half of UK kids in deprivation? As long as the Americans don't start launching perfectly legal drone strikes on Small Heath.

[ 11. February 2018, 10:53: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
'm not interested in the legality of it. Just stop it. All of it. We have broken Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Niger, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, etc, etc for over a century or two or four (ALL of Africa) and we can't fix it, we never owned them and we don't now, just because we've broken them more recently.

Leave them alone.

And join AA.

To be fair, Syria broke itself, but otherwise this is bang on. The problem is not the use of any particular weapon. The problem is we thought we could fix the Middle East after 9/11 and actually, as the young people say, we have no clue.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

America has fixed the Middle East.
Fixed it to it’s own advantage. Hey, that’s what Empires do, Britons of people should know that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
'm not interested in the legality of it. Just stop it. All of it. We have broken Syria, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Niger, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc, etc, etc for over a century or two or four (ALL of Africa) and we can't fix it, we never owned them and we don't now, just because we've broken them more recently.

Leave them alone.

And join AA.
To be fair, Syria broke itself, but otherwise this is bang on. The problem is not the use of any particular weapon. The problem is we thought we could fix the Middle East after 9/11 and actually, as the young people say, we have no clue.

Syria broke itself? How? Without Petrodollars financing the Sunni insurgency? Without the CIA fomenting the Arab Spring prior to that? Without the Sunni insurgency over Sykes-Picot next door caused by Shia sectarianism? All the way back to the Greek destruction of Persia? Really Callan!

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Oh, I think the Ba'ath Party were pretty hard at work from the early 1960s onwards, Martin.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

The Shia Assads always win, even against foreign interference. Russia ALWAYS guarantees that. 50 years is nothing in the great long game.

[ 11. February 2018, 21:59: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

The breaking of Syria was a mix of factors, surely? And internal power fights can't all be laid at the door of external interference.

Heck, I know the argument. When there weren't US boots on the ground, the CIA was busy using whatever it could find to destabilise regimes that hated the US. But emnity existed for reasons that had naff all to do with the US, everything to do with old and new feuds.

The US focusing hatred upon itself by the use of drones is relatively new.

I was watching Bill Maher last night, heard a claim that the numbers of deaths from Trump sanctioned drone strikes already exceeds those during Obama's two terms. Any data to support that?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

We disgracefully ignored the Sunni/Shia divide when we drew up the map for the Middle East, post-Ottoman.

We continue to ignore it today, despite the fact that it is weaponised by us.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Heck, I know the argument. When there weren't US boots on the ground, the CIA was busy using whatever it could find to destabilise regimes that hated the US. But emnity existed for reasons that had naff all to do with the US, everything to do with old and new feuds.

Sure, but the creation of venues for the playing out of sectarian struggles (Iraq) had a huge impact on the level of enmity.

The sectarian struggles in Baghdad loomed very large in the minds of people in the region, as did the aftermath of ISIS and the eradication of minority groups.

This created more enemies for the US, while not necessarily creating any allies.

Besides, it's a bit rich for billions in money and arms to salafist rebel groups to be labelled 'non intervention'.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I didn't make it clear, chris. My comments related specifically to Syria, and the difference of opinion between Martin60 and Callan.

I don't like either the fostering of client states or the destabilising of other countries' client states. But there is a lot of that going on, and not just by the US

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I didn't make it clear, chris. My comments related specifically to Syria, and the difference of opinion between Martin60 and Callan.

Yes, I realised that. My post still stands. I don't think the idea that the destabilisation of Iraq had knock-on effects on Syria was a particularly controversial one.

The sectarian nature of the ensuing chaos had a large impact in the ME. There are plenty of 'secularists' who found themselves siding with Iran purely for self preservation.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
I don't think the idea that the destabilisation of Iraq had knock-on effects on Syria was a particularly controversial one.

Agreed.

I'd read this and looked at the Ba-athist coup and the very long running state of emergency from the mid 1960's onwards. I think that supports Callan's assertion that Syria played a substantial role in breaking itself, well before Iraq1, Iraq2 and consequences. Iraq2 and consequences certainly added to the fractured state which was already there.

[ 12. February 2018, 12:10: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

I'd read this and looked at the Ba-athist coup and the very long running state of emergency from the mid 1960's onwards.

In common with a lot of parts of the middle east.

quote:

I think that supports Callan's assertion that Syria played a substantial role in breaking itself, well before Iraq1, Iraq2 and consequences. Iraq2 and consequences certainly added to the fractured state which was already there.

I'm comforted that we can thus absolve ourselves of responsibility. Certainly creating a failed state next door, and funding jihadists in Syria are only second order causes.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

Where instability was caused by existing internal differences, that is not our direct fault. I think we can argue that indifference to suffering, wherever it occurs, is a general moral failing.

Where instability has been caused by our actions, or our actions have fostered instability for our own purposes, that's our direct fault.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Having thought about this I think the UK bears the blame (or part of the blame) for Sykes-Picot. But, that said, I think the Assad dynasty and Sunni Jihadists shouldn't be allowed to use that as a moral 'get out of jail' card for what is actually happening in Syria now. And, to quote those great analysts of Geo-political realities, Boney M. "Oh, those Russians!"

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Callan:

I think the Assad dynasty and Sunni Jihadists shouldn't be allowed to use that as a moral 'get out of jail' card for what is actually happening in Syria now.

The country next door is in chaos. There are 1.2 million refugees in Syria (population 17m), furthermore the level of the conflict could not be sustained unless the jihadists were constantly being supplied from elsewhere (they'd have literally run out of ammo after a few weeks at most).

The Assad regime is horrible - but in the absence of a better alternative are really the only thing preventing the eradication of minority populations in Syria - so understandably they see it as an existential battle, and the US hasn't shown itself to be particularly adept at handling sectarian regime changes.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We disgracefully ignored the Sunni/Shia divide when we drew up the map for the Middle East, post-Ottoman.

We continue to ignore it today, despite the fact that it is weaponised by us.

What would you have us do? Draw a different set of lines on the map and tell everyone there to follow them?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
We disgracefully ignored the Sunni/Shia divide when we drew up the map for the Middle East, post-Ottoman.

We continue to ignore it today, despite the fact that it is weaponised by us.
What would you have us do? Draw a different set of lines on the map and tell everyone there to follow them?

Allow the people there to draw their own lines? Oh yeah, and not fuck them up in the first place.

[ 12. February 2018, 17:01: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

What she said.

It wasn't our call then. And I'm surprised you still think it is now.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

In other news, the Iranian drone which Israel shot down is now thought to be a reverse engineeered copy of a lost CIA reconnaissance drone (no offensive capability).

On borders of Middle Eastern Countries, if they are UN Members their present borders are internationally recognised and can only be changed by formal agreement by the UN.

However wrongly based historically and there are plenty of good arguments about that, the borders cannot be changed unilaterally.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

I don't disagree with Callan really. I just look at the history of Iran for instance and find it innocent. And then I just keep on going. Where should I stop?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0