Drone attacks are the best way of dealing with terrorists

[cali]

or something like that. Except that's patently not true. Put aside the moral issues of drone attacks launched in a sovereign nation against that nation's express wishes, and the other pesky moral issue that are attendant to the drone strikes.

Drone strikes have no proven record of being effective. Indeed, how could they? But assume, for a moment, that 40% of the drone strikes hit men who were planning attacks on U.S. soldiers. Maybe that made U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan safer, maybe it didn't. In any case, the men planning attacks in tribal villages in Pakistan, are not planning attacks here in the U.S., and largely, they're planning attacks on Afghan soldiers.

We do know one thing: Drone strikes have created more men who have taken up arms. Drone strikes have alienated people and created hate of the U.S. Call them terrorists if you wish. I won't, but I won't argue with anyone who does.

Let's ignore Signature Strikes and Double Tapping for the moment. Let's, in fact, ignore our past drone use and talk about the future. We're withdrawing all U.S. troops from Afghanistan within the year, could someone who defends drone strikes in the Northwest Frontier and Afghanistan, please tell me why we should continue them?

Why should we prop up the Presidency of Hamid Karzai, whose corruption is almost laughable in its brazen magnitude? Why should we continue striking who knows who? And that's the way it works. We don't know who we're striking the majority of the time.

So what do you think?

[cali]

1. I've seem lots of duers express unreserved support for drone strikes

where are they?

[RC]

2. What are we even doing over there in the first place?

How would we feel if some other country started doing drone strikes against our international terrorists in this country?
Like when the marked "terrorist" is home for dinner, so they take out the neighborhood, just to be sure, just like we do. I notice we don't do drone strikes in China and Russia. Surely they have terrorists that don't like us too.

[Recursion]

3. My Afghani friends credit them with keeping them alive

Though from a military standpoint I'm skeptical. But I would probably support the droning of people who killed my family if I were in their situation.

It's an attempt to have a war without really having a war, which usually winds up being worse than just having the war.

[cali]

5. are your afghani friends soldiers? civilians?

and people who are droned probably support more attacks on those associated in any way with those who droned them. Not exactly a new cycle.

[Recursion]

6. civilians; ethnic and religious minorities

Shi'ite Hazaras. It certainly didn't take any US encouragement for Salafists to want to kill them.

[cali]

8. not just a religious schism, but also a tribal one when it comes to Hazaras and Pashtuns.

There are plenty of Afghans who condemn the U.S. drone strikes and feel they exasperate the killing.

[Recursion]

9. I mentioned my skepticism of the strikes in my first post

The larger problem is that the AfPak campaign lacks a concrete objective at this point.

[sabrina 1]

16. Isn't that strange, because it appears that some of the biggest demonstrations in Afghanistan

were AGAINST any US presence in their countries, and some of the demonstrations AFTER a drone attack, were among the largest.

Then there are the women of Afghanistan who have been speaking out for years against those deadly WMDs killing their women and children.

Do you have anything to show that Afghanis support our Drones falling on their country, other than those who are viewed as betrayers who collaborate with invaders?

[hobbit709]

4. To paraphrase William Tecumseh Sherman

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

[Lurks Often]

7. To answer the drone question, these questions need to be answered first

1. Should we still be in Afghanistan? I've not heard a good reason why we should stay.

2. If yes, to 1, then should we use the military to go after the terrorists? Yes

3. If yes to 1 & 2, then do the Rules of Engagement (ROE) need to be changed? Since I don't know the ROE, I can't give a definite answer, but I'm inclined to say they could be adjusted.

4. If yes to 1-3, what military options cause the LEAST damage and can be utilized in time against a mobile target. A missile fired from a drone will cause less damage then a 500 pound laser guided bomb, cruise missile or artillery shell simply because it has a much smaller warhead.

Innocent people ALWAYS die in war

[cali]

10. not remotely responsive to my op

[Recursion]

11. Drones have a way of making strikes too tempting

I have made that argument before: drones kill a lot fewer civilians than a barrage would. But the option in Pakistan isn't drones vs. a barrage, it's drones vs. nothing. And as long as we don't have identifiable military objectives, nothing may be better.

[cali]

12. when you reference barrage, are you referencing a barrage fired from the ground?

[Lurks Often]

14. Certainly a valid argument

although I am somewhat more cynical, I'm not entirely sure we wouldn't use a cruise missile or laser guided bomb in Pakistan if there were no drones.

[sabrina 1]

17. Why were we ever there? What right do we have to be in other people's countries?

They don't want us there, no one wants our WMDs in their countries. If the reason is because someone came over here and killed people in this country, then we were in the wrong place. We should have been in Saudi Arabia.

THEY know what the American people do not know, that we are in other people's countries, including Afghanistan for resources.

And to most of those people in all of those countries, we are the terrorists.

[polly7]

13. K&R. nt.

[jojog]

15. Could lead to this