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."
...it's when we miss that we cause problems.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
That a tactical nuke can disrupt a picnic... this is news?
FTA
these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate
The studies conclude that killing the leaders of terrorist groups hurts the groups.
UAVs are one tool available, as are Special Forces, and traditional military force. I suppose the conclusion of the headline is correct though, UAVs are an effective weapon. Who knew?
Nice. It's just that these things don't have much to do with each other and not much more with the study's topics. A terrorist organization "disintegrating" does not mean there won't be another one.
I can't help the feeling that any study about actual politics -especially the more questionable part of it- that will be presented to the public will be in favor of the status quo.
Oh, the beautiful gloss of greality!
Killing people in an organization usually makes the organization weaker. So, too, does the expenditure of resources. These are the premises on which war is based. Whether it is done with swords, machine guns, bioweapons, nukes, or drones.
The choice of weapon may alter the truth of that premise by altering the willingness of people to fund, to assist, to kill for, or to die for those organizations. It will also alter the cost per kill.
As a tool, drones obviously help to kill people. The question is whether they are cost-effective and what the psychological consequences are.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
They are also very effective in normal building demolition.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The atavist exploiting soft targets because the world fails to conform to his faith.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
...Ask yourself, then answer: who is the real terrorist?
The "real" terrorist is the one who uses terror (seemingly random attacks on the general population) for political ends. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The US Military is not. Neither is the Taliban.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disciplined_Minds
"Disciplined Minds is a book by physicist Jeff Schmidt published in 2000. The book describes how professionals are made; the methods of professional and graduate schools that turn eager entering students into disciplined managerial and intellectual workers that correctly perceive and apply the employer's doctrine and outlook. Schmidt uses the examples of law, medicine, and physics, and describes methods that students and professional workers can use to preserve their personalities and independent thought."
See also:
http://disciplinedminds.tripod.com/
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/16a.htm
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Best_and_the_Brightest
Those links explain in part how can such "smart" people totally ignore the potential for "blowback" from the violent actions they endorse (actions which include the slaughter of endless innocents, the violation of national sovereignty and probably international law, the setting of an example of ironic misuse of advanced technology that could otherwise bring material abundance to the entire world, and so on)... These links help show why these academics are willfully blind to the idea that they are endorsing polices that may be creating 100 new terrorist for every one they think they might have killed.
Never forget what one of our greatest Marine Major Generals said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
"War Is a Racket is the title of two works, a speech and a booklet, by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler. In them, Butler frankly discusses from his experience as a career military officer how business interests commercially benefit from warfare."
Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan were *supposed* to be expensive quagmires so somebody's buddies coudl get lucrative "defense" contracts. These conflicts were *supposed* to drive up oil prices so somebody's buddies would see the value of their domestic oil holdings increase. And so on...
See also:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marjorie-cohn/killer-drone-attacks-ille_b_1623065.html
"Christof Heyns, the current UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, expressed grave concern about the targeted killings, saying they may constitute war crimes. He called on the Obama administration to explain how its drone strikes comport with international law, specify the bases for decisions to kill rather than capture particular individuals, and whether the State in which the killing takes place has given consent. Heyns further asked for specification of the procedural safeguards in place, if any, to ensure in advance of drone killings that they comply with international law. He also wanted to know what measures the U.S. government takes after any such killing to ensure that its legal and factual analysis was accurate and, if not, the remedial measures it would take, including justice and reparations for victims and their families. Although Heyns' predecessor made similar requests, Heyns said the United States has not provided a satisfactory response.
Heyns also called on the U.S. government to make public the number of civilians collaterally killed as a result of drone attacks, and the measures in place to prevent such casualties. Once again, Heyns said the United States has not satisfactor
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Imagine what would happen if the US government or law enforcement agencies started making drone kills within our own borders, saying "we only target terrorists and drug lords; so sorry if we occasionally hit a church gathering or a country club".
After pausing to consider how that would make you feel, imagine how we're making people in other countries feel.
The problem with the Western Powers is that they're always wrapping themselves in the banner of moral "rights". If we exploit the natives and some of them react violently, we have a "right" to respond with overwhelming force. After all, "they started it".
But this focus on presumed (and self-declared) rights is utterly incompatible with actually addressing the cause of the problem.
If we want peace with the Muslim world, we need to go home and quit treating them like subjects who are illegally camped on "our" oil supply.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm ... ..."
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
The message is clear: no one has the right of self-defense against US terrorist attack. The US is a terrorist state by right. That is unchallengeable doctrine.
And:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm
"The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
It would stop if people got past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament (I am not sure what the quran says about this but I bet there is a similar quote). People need to look at the specific people they are considering killing, see them as individuals and ask "Has this specific person wronged me or the people I an sworn to protect in such a way as to deserve death?". I believe in most cases the answer will be no; especially in generational conflicts. Maybe this will stop the "An American killed my father; you are an American prepare to die". Did the person being threatened do the killing? No, therefore that specific person does not deserve death. Perhaps that can change to "An American killed my father but you did not do it yourself therefore I will not kill you".
When we can get away from battles between factions and deconstruct it to what it really is, people killing people, maybe we can stop the cycle.
Some may call drone strikes terrorism but I do not. In my mind the difference is intent. The intent of a drone strike is to eliminate the training and control structure of a organization whose main goal is to inflict damage on the Western World. This is very different than the intent of al-Qaeda which is to change policy by terrorizing people. The fact that drones sometimes miss and usually kill possibly innocent people does not change the intent. How many terrorist commanders are deliberately staying in civilian areas to try to protect themselves. Should we allow enemy commanders to use human shields? It is well known that the US will take out and al-Qaeda leader they find. It is up to the al-Qaeda leader to decide whose lives are put at risk by being close by. How many of the "innocent civilians" are actually supplying and supporting terrorists or possibly terrorists themselves?
I just want to ask one very stupid question: name one human activity which drone strikes do not disrupt?
WOW, repeat after me... Too much coffee... I'm not going to even touch the bigotry... like there aren't several million peaceful and productive Muslim's in the U.S. living theirs lives and not bothering ANYBODY. So let's just address the corporate thing. Can't speak for the guy before you, but if you knew anything about the region and its people, you could pretty much trace this whole mess back through a century and a half of corporations (mostly British in the beginning) screwing up the cultural development of the middle east for industrial and colonial purposes. I can tell reading isn't your first choice of entertainment or information (sorry, FOX News doesn't count as a source of information)... Let's try this, ever see the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" you know, arguable one of the best film ever made? Remember Larry is English? If you had any hint of history under your belt, you wouldn't even be making the statement above.
The entire mess with Islam, is a logical progression of disasters that blossoms fully with oil companies succeeded in exploiting the inhabitants of the middle-east. The social and religious impacts of sudden wealth, the conflicts arising from the invention of the State of Israel, and the protracted use of wealth by Saudi Arabia (our good buddies in the region) to export the most violent and radical of Islamic faiths around the world (and we let them, because they give us oil), has lead to the geopolitical landscape you see today. Both Gulf wars were about oil. The failed attempt to turn Iraq into an American satellite was about oil. Our current support of the infant democracy in Libya... is about, repeat after me... OIL. don't get me wrong. If we can do something genuinely decent, we absolutely will, as long as we can get the goodies while we're at it. So, let's recap. If you're talking about American foreign policy, and you can't see the exchange of currency or corporate interest, you're not looking hard enough. Thanks for playing, please take a parting gift on the way out.
wait a tick, bombing weddings with drones for political coin is terrorism. that would be the US government.
executing people for not following the law, that's just ruthless theocracy
around the time massive mineral resources are discovered in the mountains of Afghanistan, suddenly he is public enemy #1!?
Maybe, but it's also around the time he orchestrated a plot which ended in planes flying into the WTC and killing almost 4,000 people. I mean, if you're going to create some massive conspiracy to facilitate an invasion of a country, why would you choose the landlocked shithole with a long history of successfully resisting foreign occupations that is Afghanistan?
-- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
I see that you quote Ward Churchill and use the word, "facts" in the same post. That's pointless. He's not called "Walking Eagle" for nothing.
Go watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", (yes its fictionalized, but surprisingly accurate in its portrayal of the historical events) we spent over a billion dollars arming "The Mujaheddin" to smack Russia upside the head (and line the pockets of our war industries), and all we had to do, to ensure a lasting stability in the region was follow up with 10-20 million dollars to provide schools and infrastructure for the displaces Afghani freedom fighters. The people of Afghanistan would have been forever in our debt and with modern schools the country would have transformed over night into a democratic ally. Instead, we said "Fsck Off" Saudi Arabia provided support and religious schools through the Bin Laden family and indoctrinated a generation of Afghani leaders into the strictest and most radical of Muslim orthodoxies. Travel 25 years, and we have the world as it exists today. You do know, the only planes flying on 9/11 were the planes transporting the Bin Laden family out of the country, and that they are very close friends of the entire Bush family? Does nobody even bother to fact check any more? Jeez. They just bald faced lie to us, and for the most-part, the nation just swallows, rubs its collective tummies and asks for more... really sad.
Your argument is not very far from bullshit either, the CAPS LOCK notwithstanding.
First, there was a lot of violence and evil done post-WWII. Some of it was bona fide terrorism -- the Sekigun in Japan, the Red Brigades in Italy and the Red Army Faction in West Germany, for example. The victors did not shy from shameful behaviour either. The Soviets had the whole of East Germany to unleash their revenge upon (and that was after the occupation and the plunder that it brought was technically over), and France got large chunks of Germany post WWI, parts that got less than a generous treatment.
Second, the psychology of the terrorists (aka freedom-fighters) is quite different from that of the people of a nation that lost a war. A lot has to do with the perceived morality of the outcome. A substantial educational and propaganda effort went into reshaping the values of the people of the nations that lost the wars, especially WWII. Nothing on that scale or with similar effectiveness has happened in the Middle East. The West lost the hearts and minds despite the initial shock and awe.
Finally, the populations of all enemies in the great wars of the 20th century had some common ground - even Imperial Japan has embraced a lot of Western values since it began to modernize in the late 1800s. The situation in all those conflict areas where the drones kill is quite different. In many places you could rightfully ask even if they are states in the modern sense. It is quite a stretch to compare Afghanistan to Germany, Japan or France.
In Algeria the French started killing rebels, then anyone they pulled off the street that looked like they might be a rebel. They racked up a huge body count much larger than their initial, probably accurate, estimate of members of the rebellion. Instead of reducing the rebellion they were inflaming it.
In the end the entire operation backfired to the extent that military personal involved in the executions and torture decided that the French President had betrayed them, and they were good at assassinations, so why not try to kill him off too? The attempt failed and the attempted assassins were arrested, but how's that for an example of "what could possibly go wrong" when you have state sanctioned death squads in a modern democratic state?
"Kill Decision" by Daniel Suarez is about the possibility that drones will be developed as more of an autonomous vehicle. And humans won't be required to authorize the strike.
Invalid Checksum. Retrying.
Actually you added "seeming random" to the definition of terrorism. The definition of terrorism is "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims." Our political aims are to disable and weaken Al Qaeda. We use remote control airplanes to fire precision high explosive missiles at targets to assassinate particular people we think need to die. Very often these attack kill LOTS of non-combatants. The only difference I can see between this and driving a truck bomb into the embassy of a nation that is occupying your home is that when we do we don't have to send our people to their deaths, and our weapons are much more high tech and work better. Oh and our government subscribes to an idea they call "American Exceptionalism" which means the rules apply to everyone except us. So when we blow up a wedding party to get that Al Qaeda guy and kill 20 other men, women, and children at a wedding, it was collateral damage, but when they drive a car full of explosives into a crowd of men who are graduating from training to fight for an occupying force it is terrorism.
Both are despicable in the extreme, but my tax dollars pay to blow up the wedding party so that's the one that really pisses me off, because I contributed to that atrocity and I feel powerless to do anything about it. I mean I voted for the hope/change guy and now I've lost hope because there's been no real change.
-- QED
I wonder if the study took into account that dropping bombs onto wedding parties radicalizes a whole generation to despise us as the cowardly evil power that hides half a planet away and drops bombs from remote control airplanes on their families.
-- QED
The Blitz disrupted England pretty heavily, but it didn't win the war for Germany did it? In fact it just taught the Brits just how important it was that they defeat the Nazis.
-- QED