Agreed. If I had my OP to do over, I would’ve left it out. (Not that I don’t think the strikes are cowardly - they certainly are. But it has nothing to do with the morality of the resulting actions.)
You didn’t explicitly, but again, it’s related to the cowardice tangent which I have agreed to drop.
I skimmed it (will read more later - looks interesting).
But based on that paper, they claim that drone strikes killed from 2,562 - 3,325 people. Of those killed, from 474-881 were civilians (including some 176 children).
So 70-80% of those dead were enemy combatants / terrorists or other types of non-civilians. I would hazard a guess that that is a far superior ratio than any of the carpet bombing we engaged in during WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, or the invasion of Iraq.
Now - if you wish to argue that is still too many - that is fair. One thing that is still debated is “how many innocents” is too much. Some would say 1, others might take a different place on the scale.
EVERYONE who died in the assault on the World Trade Center was a civilian. The attack on the Pentagon could be considered an attack on a military target however.
Using an aircraft full of business travelers and people going on vacation.
And, according to the same paper only 2%, 2 fucking percent, of those killed are “high value” targets.
Whoooppiee!!! We’re better than carpet bombing!!! Yipppeeee!!!
The goal isn’t to be better than carpet bombing. The goal is to be better than any other alternatives. Like waiting until those enemies are away from civilians before bombing. Or sending in troops. Or getting more “high value” targets.
I certainly would take a different place on the scale. But the fact is I think the only true answer to the issue is “We don’t know”. Our government tells us one thing, other papers, like this one, tell us other things. But I know I’m not comfortable with a 70% to 30% ratio of bad guys to innocents.
Again, we shouldn’t be taking pride in being better than terrorists.
High value targets is by definition a smaller group that “targets.” If they said all the targets were high value I suspect people would say they were playing games with terminology (since people say that anyway).
And yet, to the best of my knowledge, the US is only nation who carries out these extra-territorial drone strikes while simultaneously proclaiming:
Moving on…
Please don’t make me quote Mein Kampf at you. I really don’t want that in my browser history. As for bin Laden, from section 7:
“The Islamic Nation that was able to dismiss and destroy the previous evil Empires like yourself; the Nation that rejects your attacks, wishes to remove your evils, and is prepared to fight you. You are well aware that the Islamic Nation, from the very core of its soul, despises your haughtiness and arrogance.”
I don’t see the hypocrisy here. There is no bullshit about “human rights”.
You don’t think the US pushes the rest of the world around? Really? Come on, man.
<aside>Still, all in all, this is a lot better than that other thread.</aside>
Why do you keep citing bullshit as an argument for your position? Our side produces plenty of bullshit too, but nothing the bin Laden did was justified or even unjustified retribution. It was part of his quest for power. He did not care how many of us or his own people he killed in his lust for power.
I agree. Again, we’re kinda arguing in the dark here, simply because we don’t have enough information. But I admit to be concerned that our government is apparently better at killing children (5%) than killing “high value targets” (2%).
It’s exactly same logic as yours:
Sicks Ate: “I’m not sure what part you don’t understand about ‘Your family is not going to be killed by terrorists.’ They aren’t. They simply…aren’t. They’re more likely to drown. Or get hit by lightning. Or suffer an aortic dissection.”
Terr: “I’m not sure what part you don’t understand about ‘Your family is not going to be killed by drones.’ They aren’t. They simply…aren’t. They’re more likely to drown. Or get hit by lightning. Or suffer an aortic dissection.”
Both statements are equally (statistically) justified. And both are irrelevant.
It’s not the only country that kills people outside its borders directly or indirectly. Is this about drone strikes specifically, or counterintelligence and counterterrorism and proxy war in general?
Then don’t make me quote Hitler and Bin Laden lying about their intentions.
Oops! Munich Agreement, Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Do I need to say any more about the honesty of Hitler’s government than that? And as for Bin Laden:
"Neither I had any knowledge of these attacks nor I consider the killing of innocent women, children, and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children, and other people. Such a practice is forbidden ever in the course of a battle. … I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks, the common American people have been killed. "
-late September 2011.
This still isn’t an argument, but if you’re going to ask loaded questions and answer them for me, at least it’ll save me some time.
If you had some evidence that the drone operators were going ONLY for “high value targets”, you’d have some kind of a point.
War is not a way to prove how big your balls are. That’s how we wind up in stupid wars taking down dictators who are not a threat to us.
War should be an act of last resort. If it is, then you have already satisfied the basic morality question*, now your just haggling over price. How many of your own soldiers do you put in danger to protect the lives of non-combatants who are in the war zone? How much money do you spend to conduct direct strikes instead of less accurate strikes?
*Is it moral for us to decide to go to war, knowing that thousands of people will wind up dead as a result?
Given the ratio from the paper, we are keeping the ratio enemy / civilian 74 - 81%. Still sucks to be a civilian in that group, but the majority of the deaths are the bad guys as we have defined them.
What ratio ARE you comfortable with, and what are you measuring that against? The reason I brought up carpet bombing is that is how we used to attack our enemies. If our modern technology is letting us improve that ratio - I consider that a good thing.
And yes, I will take pride in being better than a terrorist.
You are unconcerned by the ratio of children killed by drone attacks? See, to me, the fact that there are more children killed than high profile targets makes me consider that maybe we are either doing too many drone attacks at non-high profile targets or that we’re not very good at limiting civilian casualties.
US hitting terrorist targets while they are hiding among civilians and achieving 4:1 terrorist to civilian kill ratio shows fairly amazing precision. Israelis manage 6:1, but they have a lot more experience and, I bet, way better intelligence sources.
How about two innocent children? Is that worth one American soldier’s life? Three? Four? What is the ratio of “Dead Pakistani Children” to “American soldier” that you are comfortable with?
I understand that isn’t an easy question to answer. But it’s not a question that should just be waved away with “sucks to be a civilian”.
I kinda think “better than a terrorist” or “not carpet bombing” is too low a bar to hold our government to. YMMV.
How many bad guys did I also kill? When I send in the troops, do I kill all of them or do some get away when they hear the choppers? How many opportunities do I miss because I can’t keep choppers of special forces units floating around across several nations waiting for the intelligence agencies to ID a target for me? How many of those choppers get shot down while hovering, waiting for enemy identification?
We sent in special forces on Bin Laden because it was hardened and it had papers, etc. that we wanted. We STILL lost one chopper, and a guy posted on Twitter.
It is much easier to use Drones for surveillance and the occasional strike, and much more effective.
Now to answer your question - I don’t know. If I can kill 1,000 terrorists and 1 child, without killing one soldier - I will. As you start sliding along that scale I will get more and more uncomfortable I admit.
Most of the people killed are children or ‘high profile targets’, whatever that means. What if all the rest are enemy combatants killing the local population? Your argument falls apart because you aren’t addressing the results of the operation, just focusing on the flaws. Would you let 100 innocent people die at the hands of terrorists because stopping them might result in the death of 1 innocent?
I keep citing bullshit, because my debating opponents make comments like this:
Do the statements of the US Department of State mean anything, or am I to assume that all its treatments of morality are just so much bullshit?