Harvard Study Suggests Drone Strikes Can Disrupt Terror Groups

An anonymous reader writes "Can drone strikes rid the world of terror groups? Many have argued that drones/UAVs seem to be a logical weapon of war: ground troops are not needed and strikes can be specifically targeted against terror-cell leaders (so-called 'decapitation strikes). Others have argued that such attacks only fuel more anger towards the United States and the West while also trampling on nations like Pakistan's sovereign rights and territory. Two recent studies published by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government suggest 'On the basis of comprehensive analyses of data on multiple terrorist and insurgent organizations, these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate.' It seems then drones and UAVs will be a weapon of war for a long time to come."

Comments

Before you start throwing missiles

[Tastecicles]

...Ask yourself, then answer: who is the real terrorist?

The man fighting to keep his family and his livelihood against corporate interests?
Or the man who wages war from a bombproof office, nine thousand miles away, that he might steal that which does not belong to him?

Al Queda was the brainchild of CIA and Reagan.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

American diplomats have been courting the Arabs since early 1800s. One of them inserted a clause:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

in the Treaty of Tripoly > and aggressively promoted secular America as an alternative to Christian Europe. When the world energy shifted from coal to oil, America was well positioned to get preferential treatment from the Arabs. American oil companies getting better deals than Dutch and Brit companies owes much to this ground laid by foresighted American diplomats

After World War II, Europe did not really want the displaced Jews to come back, and Jews also did not really want to go back to their homes in lands liberated from Nazi occupation. Half of them ended up in USA and the rest in a newly created Israel. That is the start of bad blood between the Arabs and the Americans. Still most Muslim tribes and nations were engaged in internecine warfare and they never unified to fight off the Americans or the Europeans.

In what can only be described as monumental lack of foresight, Reagan authorized CIA to arm the Muslim terrorists, teach Pakistanis how to fight proxy war using non uniformed combatants, to fight off the Russians in Afghanistan. Communism and central planning never had the ideological fervor or support among the Russians. That regime was ripe for collapse. But the Muslims are motivated by ideology and they have strong affinity. Like Prometheus bringing fire from the Gods, CIA taught the Muslims to unify, collect money, recruit volunteers and taught Pakistan to use them effective.

Re:Headline != article

[Alex Belits]

or the USSR.

You are a jingoistic moron of the highest degree possible.