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...

[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.

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?

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: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?