Slashdot Mirror
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."
what political ends? Please specify.
Check your history: al Qaeda did not exist before the Russians invaded Afghanistan. It is a list of names used by the CIA as contacts and cash funnels for the Mujahideen in the area - the name was devised by the CIA, not the names on the list. bin Laden was an ALLY back then (as nothing more than a name on that list), simply as a foil for the Communist regime.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Too bad the Geneva Convention disallows assassination of those who wage the wars.
Not true. Such leaders are valid military targets.
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions: (1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
A leader wouldn't qualify as "persons taking no active part in the hostilities" if they were as the original post stated "waging war".
Nor does he qualify as a "protected person" (unless he's captured or the like, which effectively takes him out of the war) for which virtually the rest of the treaty outlines allowed and disallowed treatment.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.
In addition, the latter paragraph brings up an important nuance which holds throughout the Conventions. Groups or countries which don't observe the Geneva Conventions and any civilian populations associated with them aren't (aside from a very limited extent) protected by the Geneva Conventions. For example, even if it were illegal to assassinate leaders of observant groups to the Conventions, Al Qaeda isn't one such group and hence, wouldn't enjoy that particular protection of the Conventions.
Keep in mind that the US had just fought the Second World War. My take is that they wouldn't have agreed to a treaty that would have hamstrung it against similar brutal, ruthless foes as say Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, or the USSR.
From the US point of view, if you respect the Geneva Conventions, then the US fights relatively fair. If you don't, then the US has the option to total war your ass, bomb your civilian populations with conventional or nuclear devices, and do most of the fun and games that marked the two world wars.
Horseshit. We got "hostility from the Muslim world" because:
1. We encouraged the Kurds and Shiites to rise up against Saddam, then left them to be slaughtered by Saddam's forces.
2. We killed half a million Iraqi children via sanctions.
3. We set up military bases allll over the region.
4. We talk a lot about supporting "rights" and "freedom" (see: Libya) yet are perfectly happy to support brutal dictatorships if they "support out interests". See: Saudi Arabia, Egypt.
5. Blank-check support for Israel's apartheid regime and land theft.