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

Drones strikes are great...

[GodfatherofSoul]

...it's when we miss that we cause problems.

Re:Drones strikes are great...

[cpu6502]

Don't worry. We'll just do like President Clark in Babylon 5: "Redefine the problem so it no longer exists. There are not homeless on Earth. They are simply..... displaced..... persons."

You see the U.S. drones did not miss the target..... everyone in the killzone is defined as an "enemy combatant" even if they weren't. Hence the president can claim zero civilian casualties in his speeches.

Re:Drones strikes are great...

[Sir_Sri]

That's how politics is sabotaging honest analysis and discussion of possible effectiveness, and a legitimate discussion of what needs to be improved for such technology to actually be useful.

Flying two stealth helicopters into Pakistan and shooting up a house full of people wasn't about to make them any happier than a drone strike would. But at least the helicopters make it seem like the US side was taking some human risks to achieve its goals, but if the Pakistanis had shot down the helicopters, or if it was the wrong building, someone not particularly high value or the like it would have played out very differently.

What the article is trying to analyse is whether or not targeted assassinations can actually be effective at tearing apart terror networks. It seems reasonably obvious that they can be, on the occasion that they're targeted on the right people, and then actually kill those people. Even if you kill innocent civilians at the same time, those angered to take arms against in retaliation don't have the practical experience or leadership role in an existing terrorist network to pick up where the dead guy left off. That's almost classic Clausewitz destroying their political and military organizational capabilities, and not being particularly concerned with the total mass of the enemy force, as long as it can't organize it's not a serious threat.

It's also pretty obvious, as you somewhat cynically point out, that claiming 'zero casualties' and so on are lies. Tracking the repercussions of those, and and long term consequences of drone strikes is going to be much messier. You might be able to tear down the Al Qaeda networks of suicide bombers and so on, but the next guy might be happy to use drones against you (or for other, less directly murderous purposes, like drug running).

Honestly, my biggest fear with drone strikes in the long run is more about what crazy people will do with the technology when it trickles down enough into the civilian world ( you can already get RC flying vehicles it's just cost prohibitive at the moment). Are you going to see the 'minutemen' or equivalent using drones to shoot people trying to (potentially illegally) cross into the US for example? How about Italians or Spaniards trying to sink immigrant ships off their southern coasts. That sort of thing could go badly real fast. Do you want rich people using drones to 'patrol' the area their estates and, because it's their right to defend their property, shooting anyone who might look like they're illegally trespassing? Sure, this might work for taking down Al Qaeda, but I'd be far more worried about whomever is next on the list (which could be a reborn version of Al Qaeda for all it matters).

Re:Drones strikes are great...

[khallow]

Are you going to see the 'minutemen' or equivalent using drones to shoot people trying to (potentially illegally) cross into the US for example? How about Italians or Spaniards trying to sink immigrant ships off their southern coasts. That sort of thing could go badly real fast. Do you want rich people using drones to 'patrol' the area their estates and, because it's their right to defend their property, shooting anyone who might look like they're illegally trespassing?

You have very ideologically peculiar concerns. It's far more likely that a lone nut uses one to shoot people on a highway or in a mall. "Minutemen" can just shoot people with guns, if that were their inclination. It doesn't seem to be. Nor do Spaniards and Italians seem xenophobic enough to shoot strangers on sight now, much less with military-grade drones. And rich people killing people who merely trespass? What planet do you come from? They risk jail by doing that. Far better to call the cops and throw the trespassers into jail for a while.

We might as well worry about ecoterrorists blowing up construction equipment or car lots. Or Luddites blowing up factories.

Re:Drones strikes are great...

[rtb61]

Your response is farcical. Take for example the reality of the largest terrorist organisations around at the moment crime gangs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs or even one particular group MS-13 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha. How come drone strikes are not used against that particular group, numbering 70,000 members and well known for terror attacks and retaliation against policing and those that cooperate with police. Not some faked up al-Qaeda with at most maybe 500 members. MS-13 is a real terror organisation, why is it ignored in comparison, is it because in some insane psychopathic capitalist world they are OK because they are motivated by profit and greed.

So why isn't the US, Mexican and various South American governments firing missiles at each at each other. Basically at any sounds like, looks like grouping of people that in resemble a gang member meeting to plan terrorist attacks (apparently as long as they are motivated by profit they are non-terror).

See the insanity, you have eco-terrorists trying to protect the environment, peace activist terrorists trying to prevent conflict, union terrorists trying to get better conditions for workers but where capitalistic greed for money is the root driver they are simply a 'gang'. A real problem and the administration is silent waffling on about brown people overseas instead and killing them a random, whilst losing parts of cities to gangs and those lost neighbourhoods growing in size all of the time.

Re:Drones strikes are great...

[s.petry]

I'm not pro-terrorist by any means, but you should really investigate both sides of the story and not just believe the propaganda machine. Many of these people see no option. They know they can't outgun the soldiers, but don't want to be conquered. You won't like hearing it, but that is exactly what most of them see and is happening. The US comes in, sets up sock puppets, takes all their goods, tells them they can't do things they normally do or need to do for their Religion, etc... US Soldiers for the most part fine, but when the US companies and their Private Security come in, fuck up their economy, trash their neighborhoods, bully them around, break the law and flaunt it, people get pissed off.

Are there some wackos there also? Sure, but in most cases it's not the wackos that are recruited.. it's Kids that can't get jobs, watch their familes get bullied around or killed, watch friends and neighbors get sick from all the DU rounds we leave in the area and never clean up (US Soldiers get screwed by that one also, do some reading.), etc.. etc...

The point is, there is plenty of blame to go around. At this point in time, I find the amount of ignorance staggering and inexcusable. There is simply no excuse to believe everything you are told, facts are _everywhere_! It's rare to find them on the Evening News, but they are there.

Headline != article

[tomhath]

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?

Re:Headline != article

[khallow]

Too bad the Geneva Convention disallows assassination of those who wage the wars.

Not true. Such leaders are valid military targets.

Re:Headline != article

[khallow]

Ok, the Fourth Geneva Convention seems to govern assassinations, murder etc. Here's article 3:

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.

Re:Headline != article

[dbIII]

Also after you've killed off the Colonels you're still left with a Major problem.

The French in Algeria found that the faster they executed suspected rebels the larger the rebellion got, and more capable organisers previously in the mainstream joined up and made the rebellion far more capable.
Extreme measures draw extreme responses and tend to cause problems at home as well (France again - attempted assassination of the President by ex-servicemen that carried out executions in Algeria).

Re:Headline != article

[a_hanso]

Also after you've killed off the Colonels you're still left with a Major problem.

And if you manage to deal with the Major problem, then you're down to dealing with the Private affairs of in-Sergeants. This kind of airborne Corporal punishment just does not work. It's General knowledge.

Strange arguments

[Pf0tzenpfritz]

Can drone strikes rid the world of terror groups? [...] 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.

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.

Re:Before you start throwing missiles

[Tailhook]

The atavist exploiting soft targets because the world fails to conform to his faith.

Re:Before you start throwing missiles

[Tastecicles]

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.

Why these academics are so blind

[Paul Fernhout]

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

Foolish, foolish

[Black Parrot]

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.

Re:Foolish, foolish

[Uberbah]

Not true. For example, after Gulf War I there was a lot of hostility from the Muslim world when the USA failed to kill Saddam Hussein. At that time the US was considered culpable for "abandoning our allies" and thus justified terrorist revenge.

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.

Re:But what about the kids of dead parents?

[jklovanc]

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?

Re:Before you start throwing missiles

[Genda]

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.