Slashdot Mirror
Drones, Computer Viruses and Blowback
Hugh Pickens writes "Michael Crowley writes that using drones rather than soldiers to kill bad guys is appealing for many reasons, including cost, relative precision and reduction of risk to American troops. But there's plenty of evidence that drones antagonize local populations and create more enemies over the long term than we kill in the short term. The failed 2010 Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, has said that about the U.S. drone campaign in Pakistan, and the Washington Post has described how drone strikes may be breeding sympathy for al-Qaeda in Yemen. 'It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically and it is unpopular only in other countries,' says Dennis Blair, director of national intelligence until May of 2010. 'Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.' Now there's another component to the new warfare that threatens blowback: cyberwar. Like drones, cyberweapons are relatively cheap and do their work without putting American troops in harm's way. The blowback comes when those viruses get loose and inflict unintended damage or provide templates to terrorists or enemy nations that some experts think could lead to disaster and argue that cyberweapons are like bioweapons, demanding international treaties to govern their use. 'We may indeed be at a critical moment in history, when the planet's prospects could be markedly improved by an international treaty on cyberweapons, and the cultivation of an attendant norm against cyberwar,' writes Richard Wright. 'The ideal nation to lead the world toward this goal would be the most powerful nation on earth, especially if that nation had a pretty clean record on the cyberweapons front. A few years ago, America seemed to fit that description. But it doesn't now.'"
The problem is that since WWII the groups we tend to fight ignore all treaties. So if we agree not to use "cyberweapons" and thus do not buld effective counter measures, we leave our stuff open to attack by groups who would not give a second thought to vilating a treaty, be it for cyber, biological, nuclear or chemical weapons.
This is just an extension of what people really object to: the US coming to their country and killing people. You were not invited, you kill civilians and there is no justice or consequences. You develop drones to make this even easier.
I'm not sure why US commentators can't see this. Imagine if every now and then a Pakistani drone blew up a random wedding or accidentally killed some people trying to do their weekly shopping in your neighbourhood. Wouldn't that annoy you?
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Because drones don't take any risk with themselves - no human pilot - but take BIG risks with the lives of people on the ground - collateral damage is very common in drone strikes - they are widely seen as a "Coward's Way of Fighting" in the countries in which they are used (Afghanistan, Pakistan et cetera). This in turn helps various "undesirable" organizations to recruit many new people, to fight the "Western Cowards killing our Countrymen with Aerial Toys". ----------> In short, drone strikes make the local population hate you, and help the enemy recruit new ground troops. That simply isn't a great formula to bet on over the long run...
Why did the chicken cross the road? Because Elon Musk put an AI chip in its head.
Sounds consistent with established U.S. foreign policy to me.
You are both right, it depends on the definition of overwhelming. You don't sent tanks and machine guns to put down a riot, because in doing so you will (and rightfully so) create enemies who don't care about their own lives anymore and whose only reason for existing from then on is to damage you in any way possible - as much and as frequently as possible. We call those people terrorists these days, but they are not necessarily interested in terror, just vengeance. You are much less likely to get that kind of result from sending an over-sized squad of policemen with rubber batons, so in that sense overwhelming force isn't necessarily so bad compared to sending an under-sized squad of policemen. Though it still can be, since the police (or any other group of humans) is inevitably going to behave in inexcusable ways if you make it so that they know they cannot get themselves into a bad situation no matter how much they provoke the people they have been sent to manage.
winning pakistanis approval might be the most noble goal, but so much of pakistan is so antagonistic to the usa's goals, nevermind the usa's methods, that earning scorn for our methods doesn't really amount to much, as we're already heavily scorned
i don't really understand an analysis of the usa's lack of moral loftiness when we are dealing with organizations within pakistan whose own methods make the usa's drones and cyberwarfare look like jaywalking. the goal is to defeat these organizations, not look like paragon of moral virtue
you might say that because we aren't acting as paragons of moral virtue we are losing public sympathy within pakistan. i am saying the public sympathy already was nonexistent and therefore disavowing something like drones and cyberwarfare wins us very little and loses us strategic abilities
i really don't understand an analysis of american actions that starts with the prerequisite that the usa always be morally lofty while engaged with enemies whose behavior is utterly amoral, within a populace that hates us no matter what we do while large sections of the society and body politic provide cover and cheer for the likes of lashkar-e-taiba
where is your analysis of their moral fibre?
i am not interested in hearing what the usa can do better to win over pakistanis. i am interested in hearing what pakistanis are willing to do to defeat the religious fanatics which will most certainly consume their country. if pakistanis cannot will themselves to see the usa is their ally in this struggle, then the let the chips fall where they may. there is no use wooing a society or a country where there is nothing to build upon in the first place. you cannot hide someone like bin laden in pakistan without tacit support within the establishment, and then jail the doctor for treason who revealed the mass murderer, and then expect to take seriously the idea that the usa's behavior is the problem here
you really have to wonder why pakistan is considered our ally when so much of their actions are that of an enemy. pakistan will be eaten alive form within by the likes of the religious fanatics, and pakistan currently seems to think that's not the most pressing problem. so i see no relationship to salvage. let the fake relationship fall, and i am not impressed by appeals to the lack of the usa's failure to be morally lofty. let us hear more of pakistan's failures, since that is the real story here
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So it's cowardly to remotely fly a drone and fire on people, but it's not cowardly to dress as a civilian, snipe at the enemy clearly outfitted as non-civilians, then when the enemy comes after them, hide their weapon and claim to just be a regular civilian?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
There's a school of thought that says "rules of war" are inherently stupid, that whenever we go to war we should kill as many people as possible by whatever means we have available, that prisoners should be treated harshly and civilians as disposable. When used in reference to our current wars, this usually goes along with some Internet Tough Guy posturing about how wimpy liberals don't understand that the world is full of bad guys who want to kill us, blah blah blah.
But the Iraqis who surrendered en masse in Desert Storm (you know, the Iraq war we actually won) did so in large part because they knew they'd be treated well when they did so. Yes, they were shell-shocked, but remember that the Iraqi army of the day was hardened by years of grueling WW1-style combat against Iran -- they could have kept fighting, and would have done so if they'd believed there was anything to be gained by doing so. I know; as a medic I had a good perspective on the guys on the other side (there were far more Iraqi wounded to treat than American or other Allied soldiers.) And in the more recent war, the insurgency picked up steam with every atrocity. A similar pattern was seen in Vietnam, and probably in every guerilla war in history. Big, technologically advanced occupying powers always think that they can use a steamroller to intimidate the populace into submission, and they're always wrong. Inevitably, they end up creating more enemies than they kill, until their only choice is either to go home or "make a desert and call it peace."
It's worth noting that Sherman, who popularized the phrase "war is hell" (and earlier made the more precise statement "war is cruelty, and you cannot refine it") and who is largely remembered today as the boogeyman who burned his way across the South, actually took care to minimize civilian casualties, made sure that displaced populations had the means to feed themselves, and was punctilious about the care of prisoners. Had the technology been available to him, I'm sure he would have been happy to use drones to find and destroy Johnston's army, but I'm equally sure he would have rejected out of hand the idea of using them against civilians. Smart guy, he was.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
History proves you completely wrong. Please learn some history before you post further. Not only that, but you comment is contrary to 100% of the world's military's doctrines.
Why does slashdot attract so many people who have no clue on the subject matter yet insist on sharing their ignorance with everyone?
Good points. A fundamental question after 9/11 was "Why do they hate us?" The knee jerk response was "They hate us because we are free and wealthy and they hate freedom and wealth". But a truer answer is more likely "They hate us because we fund their oppressors and so have contributed to their relative unfreedom and poverty".
The biggest issue with all this is that advanced technologies of abundance like robotics, networked computing, nanotechnology, nuclear, aerospace, biotech and so on must be used from a perspective of abundance. Such technologies, like Bucky Fuller talked about, could create universal abundance for all of humanity -- and then some, as we spread into the solar system and to the stars, But, people are often using such technologies of abundance from the perspective of scarcity and so they are adapting advanced technology to fight the last century's wars over perceived resource scarcity. Thus we have ironies like people creating nuclear missiles to fight over oil fields, rather than using advanced materials and knowledge about how the atom works to make clean cheap energy for everyone (whether via nuclear means or solar panels or hot or cold fusion or whatever). I wrote a related essay here:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
The same is happening with the misguided energy going into creating stuff like Stuxnet, especially given that what goes around comes around, and now everyone has access to Stuxnet as a prototype platform to build even worse stuff. Obama's escalations of the drone wars and the cyber wars just adds more ironies to his Nobel Peace Prize.
Still, ultimately, "war is a racket", and that racket sadly drives much of US foreign policy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
In general, everyone globally needs to totally rethink our collective economy and geopolitics for new 21st century realities. That will happen eventually because we can't survive the way we have been going on. It's only a question of how long until that change in mindset happens and how much suffering the world experences (including from nucelar war) until then. Here is another related website:
http://anwot.org/
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
but it's not cowardly to dress as a civilian, snipe at the enemy clearly outfitted as non-civilians, then when the enemy comes after them, hide their weapon and claim to just be a regular civilian?
Indeed. Those Colonists have no sense of honor, sir, none at all. We ought to hire more Hessians to go over there and burn them all out. That will surely bring this absurd rebellion of theirs to its knees.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
The US is using targeted, small scale means to attack people we don't like. I won't claim it's perfect, or that we don't kill people we shouldn't.
But "overwhelming force"? Hardly. We're not leveling entire cities with fleets of a hundred bombers. We're not turning the entire nation into a glass parking lot. We're not even attacking the nation at large, but trying (again with admitted imperfection) to surgically attack specific elements within it. We're even trying to befriend and assist other segments of the population.
The US is capable of using far, far, far more overwhelming force than it is doing.
Respectfully, I couldn't disagree more. Strategy and, to some degree, tactics have not changed fundamentally since Alexander. Technology has altered the way that strategy is applied, and changed how tactics are implemented, but the fundamentals remain the same. Military doctrine, if by that you mean a sort of understanding of the role of various elements of the military and their proper application, tends to change as technology alters capability. Even so, it doesn't change that much.
Consider the role of armored cavalry (by which I mean everything from mounted knights to modern tanks). It has always played the traditional role of cavalry. It screens moving columns, light cavalry scouts ahead of a main army, heavier cavalry breaks defensive lines. Whether you're talking about lancers or tanks, the role is basically the same. It is as true today as it was four hundred years ago that cavalry is only effective when it support infantry. Equally true is that infantry is the basic unit of warfare. You've gotta have boots on the ground to occupy territory, and you have to occupy territory to control it. If you call asymmetrical warfare by it's more traditional name, i.e. guerrilla warfare, you will see that it hasn't changed much, either. Whether you're talking about American revolutionaries harassing British troops during the Revolutionary War, or insurgents in Iraq detonating IEDs, asymmetrical warfare is the only way a smaller, weaker combatant can fight against a stronger, larger combatant. And even then, the goal isn't to defeat the enemy, but to make occupation more trouble than it's worth.
The only real thing that changed after WWII was the geopolitical structure of the world, and even that wasn't something completely alien in the history of international relations. To claim that the only warfare left is asymmetric warfare is to propose that all future conflicts will be between a state and a non-state actor, or between two dramatically mismatched states. I think that such a viewpoint ignores the potential for interstate conflict between rivals in the near and distant futures.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
Is Obama sacrificing America's long-term security for short-term political gain?
Christ what an asswipe. So stopping terrorism is a now just something a sitting President does for "short term political gain" ?
I have two words for the author of the below quoted excerpt- prove it.
Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.
These tribesmen were not previously sympathetic to al Queda? Is that what you're saying? Or they were sympathetic but that sympathy has "increased"... as measured by by what previously existing measure of "sympathy" ? And no, the vividness with which you imagine such a thing being true doesn't count.
I love this bit of fucking loose-associational "causation"
Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.
Hmm let's see might something else transpired in Yemen to effect the number of active participants in AQAP since 2009-2010? Well there's this:
The 2011-2012 Yemeni revolution followed the initial stages of the Tunisian Revolution and occurred simultaneously with the Egyptian Revolution and other mass protests in the Arab world in early 2011. The uprising was initially against unemployment, economic conditions and corruption, as well as against the government's proposals to modify the constitution of Yemen. The protestors' demands then escalated to calls for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign.
And oh, fuck, he also forgot about the civil war the north and south had been fighting which finally culminated, in 2007, with a split of the country and the establishment of the South Yemen Movement.
Yeah events on that scale sure can bring factions out of the woodwork and release previously occupied energy and attention or previously suppressed hatreds .
Of course the article doesn't recommend any alternative, equally effective course of action and the author, Robert Wright, isn't going to take responsibility or even be associated with it if a terrorist plot materializes because we backed drone strikes off in Yemen....
Here's some more:
If the strikes have such a big downside, why has President Obama accelerated their use, first in Pakistan, then in Yemen?
The answer: These strikes do, in the short run, impede the operational capabilities of al Qaeda, and Obama is scared to death of the fallout from a single successful al Qaeda strike.
The foiled airliner bombing on Christmas of 2009, which originated in Yemen, apparently freaked him out big time. At a meeting in its aftermath, Obama was "simmering about how a 23-year-old bomber had penetrated billions of dollars worth of American security measures."
Just what sentiment would you like POTUS to display given these events? I mean, is this guy serious?
Like when we ignored the anti-ballistic missile shield treaty when Bush was president, or ignoring the U.N. treaties on torture under both Bush and Obama, or threatening to attack another country (Iran) under both Bush and Obama, to ignoring Geneva Conventions, to ignoring silly treaties on how wars may only be fought for defense or humanitarian reasons....