# so what is redeeming about this drone strike stuff?? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 13, 2013, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151 "2013-02-13T04:33:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/61 "2013-02-14T06:23:45Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The idea of “Al-Qaeda” as a worldwide hierarchy of terrorism foot soldiers with all sorts of “cells” in various places is pure fiction. It never existed. It’s something out of a GI Joe comic book for people whose worldviews haven’t advanced beyond “killing the bad guys” to accept because they so desperately want to. “Al Qaeda” was 20 rich Saudi dissidents and three dipshits in a cave . . . It’s expanded a bit beyond that now. They’re using franchising marketing techniques. ---
**Author:** ![Carmady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f04885/32.png) [@Carmady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carmady)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/62 "2013-02-14T06:29:00Z")
I think the major reason some people support the drone strikes is that theoretically the drone strikes could work, if they were accurate, and the data available to the public is just not sufficient to analyze the issue competently. Without good data, we large rely on trust. And because of Obama’s other positions, and reputation, it seems to many that we could trust him not to kill indiscriminately. In fact, the attempting labeling of Obama as a Muslim by the far right probably makes him seem even less likely to kill Muslims indiscriminately. In short, only Nixon could go to China. (I have been convinced not to support the drone strikes, largely because of the lack of good data itself. Not drone striking should be the default.) ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/63 "2013-02-14T06:29:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > The 70-80% is on their front page. Can you show me where they claim militant-to-civilian ratio of 10-to-1? Either show it or admit you fibbed. > I am fairly comfortable with these actions happening on the planet in places where the authorities, whatever they are, for decades showed that they have no control over the militants, cannot or would not arrest them or do anything to stop them, and sometimes actively help them. Yes, I am comfortable with it. > > If the same situation was not in Pakistan, but somewhere else, closer to home, where the legal authorities would be, for years and years, after being given complete information on their activities, doing nothing or helping the terrorists, allowing them to proliferate and base themselves among civilian populations, I’d be supporting drone strikes there as well. i did link you to it, and directly quoted it twice now. it is a very common tactic of yours to try to shovel off the actual issue of a debate and get people tangled in your nitpicking of some minor fact, wording, or details. i linked you, and i quoted, and you clearly are not opening them and reading them or actually looking around for this stuff. so, i repeat the quote here and i won’t let you make it an issue any longer: > [@](#): > > On 14 July 2009, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution stated that although accurate data on the results of drone strikes is difficult to obtain, it seemed that ten civilians had died in the drone attacks for every \*\*militant \*\*killed. i don’t know how to be any more clear than that direct quotation. i’m sure you’ll find some bullshit thing to nitpick about it, but that’s because of your tactics. now, if _you_ want to start differentiating between “leaders” and “militants,” great! all you have have to do is explain the criteria for distinction. otherwise i think we should keep going as i have and consider the two types of people being killed either “militants” or “civilians.” and you are deliberately avoiding the Yemen issue. Pakistan is actually very cooperative, and so is Yemen. we have trained antiterrorism groups in these places under our thumb set up and put in place to go in and arrest and deal with these “militants” in ways that avoid blowing up the rest of a neighborhood. you are as well as XT creating this strawman where we “have no other option.” ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/64 "2013-02-14T06:33:57Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > I assume you mean Lanza, the recent spree killer. If so, the reality is that law enforcement can reach someone like Lanza, and they have the physical capability of arresting people like him. We can’t just arrest the militants we’re fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan. If we could, I’d prefer it over drone strikes. > > So you’re comparing two totally different scenarios. Trying to arrest militants in Pakistan is a failing strategy, but arresting murderers in America is a good strategy. if you’ll go back through and read, there are cases where we knew where people were in Yemen and had local forces ready to go get them, without incident, but decided to drone strike them anyway and ended up killing civilians. you are also neglecting the white paper memos, that say drone striking is ok so long as putting any men on the ground in those places posed any sort of danger. it is very ambiguous and vague, and as you might realize, visiting the border of Pakistan and really a lot of the Middle easy is fairly dangerous in general, so by wording it the way they have, drone striking remains outside policy and regulation because “any danger” is too much danger for men to go in. i really feel it prudent to re-clarify the major issue here: the CIA is using this drone stuff in a deliberate way to circumvent normal military action and due process. and i do not mean “normal military action like avoiding getting Johnny America killed by an IED by being there.” i mean military action like MILITARY drone strikes. i mean military action with oversight and committees and clear policy and rules. they are using this BECAUSE there are no rules and BECAUSE Holder and Brennan have control to create and cash in kill lists and it all falls outside normal law. the UN is looking into this stuff as potential war crimes. as i understand it, the reason the CIA is doing it and not the Pentagon is to be sure to skirt normal regulations of war and governance. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 6:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/65 "2013-02-14T06:56:51Z")
> [@Carmady](#): > > I think the major reason some people support the drone strikes is that theoretically the drone strikes could work, if they were accurate, and the data available to the public is just not sufficient to analyze the issue competently. > > Without good data, we large rely on trust. And because of Obama’s other positions, and reputation, it seems to many that we could trust him not to kill indiscriminately. In fact, the attempting labeling of Obama as a Muslim by the far right probably makes him seem even less likely to kill Muslims indiscriminately. > > In short, only Nixon could go to China. > > (I have been convinced not to support the drone strikes, largely because of the lack of good data itself. Not drone striking should be the default.) as much as i hoped it wouldn’t have to be stated so overtly, you’re right. no one is really upset about drones as a utility device. it’s not like we don’t like the drones in and of themselves. if they worked how they claimed to work and really killed only the bad guys–or hell, mostly bad guys with some low, tolerable level of collateral damage, then word. actually for a long time i heard about this and blew it off as conspiracy nuttery. i did what you said: i trusted Obama, because based on his other policies, he seemed like he’d probably make the right decision, here. but with swinging data showing either 90%-20% civilians being hit in these strikes and a lack of public statement by the administration, it’s rather impossible not to see the whole thing as clandestine means to assassinate people without much regulation or transparency. if conclusive data comes out that we are hitting more actual targets than not, ok, keep on it. if conclusive data comes out about how the define these militants and they are actual enemies of the state, ok. keep it up. but as it stands, there’s way too much data suggesting it’s a free-for-all. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/66 "2013-02-14T07:08:31Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > i did link you to it, and directly quoted it twice now. No, you did not “directly quote it”. You quoted Wikipedia, which misrepresented the numbers. Let’s go directly to the source: [http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/07/14-targeted-killings-byman](http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/07/14-targeted-killings-byman) By some accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens of lower-ranking and at least 10 **mid- and high-ranking leaders** from al Qaeda and the Taliban. Do you see the “mid- and high-ranking leaders” there? I even highlighted it for you. So, no, it is not “civilians to militants” ratio that the guy is claiming. It is “civilians to leaders”. And even that is a lie because it ignores non-leader militants killed, counting them as “civilians”. Do you even understand the difference? Do you think it is required of the drones that EVERY militant killed is a "mid- or high-ranking leader? Or a leader at all? Why is it a problem killing non-“leader” militants with the drones? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/67 "2013-02-14T07:18:41Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > No, you did not “directly quote it”. You quoted Wikipedia, which misrepresented the numbers. Let’s go directly to the source: > > [http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/07/14-targeted-killings-byman](http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2009/07/14-targeted-killings-byman) > > By some accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens of lower-ranking and at least 10 **mid- and high-ranking leaders** from al Qaeda and the Taliban. > > Do you see the “mid- and high-ranking leaders” there? I even highlighted it for you. So, no, it is not “civilians to militants” ratio that the guy is claiming. It is “civilians to leaders”. And even that is a lie because it ignores non-leader militants killed, counting them as “civilians”. > > Do you even understand the difference? Do you think it is required of the drones that EVERY militant killed is a "mid- or high-ranking leader? Or a leader at all? Why is it a problem killing non-“leader” militants with the drones? yeah Terr–TEN TOTAL. TEN. IN TOTAL. you’re really grabbing the stat that ONLY ten “leaders” in TOTAL have been killed…? because that makes the ratio of civilians-to-leaders way worst than 10 to 1. then he goes on to say: from the same article, in the first paragraph: > [@](#): > > That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died. he seems to be using these terms interchangeably. since he literally says exactly the term “militants,” will you please explain to me the rules for distinction? no. i do not understand the difference. please explain to me the criteria for defining someone as “mid or high ranking” vs just a militant at all, as per CIA determination of such things. heck, give me even Brooking’s definition. tell me how you clarify the distinction. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/68 "2013-02-14T07:41:22Z")
600 reported civilians he is discussing against dozens of over-all militants in sum total makes it the 10-to-1 he discussed. seizing on only the “leader” stat would actually makes the ratio 60-civilians dead to each 1 “leader” target. so to repeat: i have been considering the stats to represent “militants” and “civilians,” as he \*\*verbatim \*\*is doing as well to establish such statements. as pointed out, Obama has defined “militants” as “any male of military age in a combat zone,” so you’re getting the statistic large end of the bargain. and the stats still don’t bode well for the efficacy. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/69 "2013-02-14T07:51:10Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > yeah Terr–TEN TOTAL. TEN. IN TOTAL. you’re really grabbing the stat that ONLY ten “leaders” in TOTAL have been killed…? because that makes the ratio of civilians-to-leaders way worst than 10 to 1. Sigh. You’re insisting in misrepresenting his article. According to him, 10 mid- and high-level leaders. “Dozens” of low-level “leaders”. Thus, together, 60 or so “leaders”. From that he gets his 10-to-1 ratio. Of “leaders” to “civilians”. Now, let’s say a “low-level leader” has 5-6 of his guys with him (hell, in the military even a squad leader has at least that many subordinates). There goes your 10-to-1 silliness. > [@](#): > > no. i do not understand the difference. please explain to me the criteria for defining someone as “mid or high ranking” vs just a militant at all, as per CIA determination of such things. A platoon or a squad leader vs. a grunt. Look, your own source, a virulently anti-drone web site, that you quoted, on its front page, shows that the percentage of militants killed is 70% to 80%. Apparently you don’t believe your own sources. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/70 "2013-02-14T08:07:47Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Sigh. You’re insisting in misrepresenting his article. According to him, 10 mid- and high-level leaders. “Dozens” of low-level “leaders”. Thus, together, 60 or so “leaders”. From that he gets his 10-to-1 ratio. Of “leaders” to “civilians”. Now, let’s say a “low-level leader” has 5-6 of his guys with him (hell, in the military even a squad leader has at least that many subordinates). There goes your 10-to-1 silliness. no sir, you picked this rabbit trail of a nitpick because i said “10-to-1 militants to civilian deaths.” you said “show where anyone said that or admit you fibbed.” i quote directly, again, Terr: > [@](#): > > That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died. …what’s it say, Terr, in exact english words–the exact verbatim thing i said that you insisted i made up? no one made it up. they just repeated it word-for-exact-word. i wonder what the point of his article was? \*\* > [@](#): > > Killing terrorist leaders is difficult, is often ineffective, and can easily backfire. Yet it is one of the United States’ few options for managing the threat posed by al Qaeda from its base in tribal Pakistan. \*\* …his first sentence says, in bold. now, Terr–what was my point of the 10-to-1 comment? …do you think it was to illustrate how ineffectual this drone program seems to be? yes, terr. that is why. so me and the author both use the exact same english words to make the exact same english point. you wanted to go off on this nitpick. tell me one more time, terr–was it fibbed or was it exactly word for word what the guy said–for the exact same reason, to make the exact same point…? i just want to be sure you’re satisfied on your nitpick. and when that is satisfied, tell me about these platoons and squadrons of terrorists. where are you pulling data that there exists platoons and squadrons of organized terrorist with singular platoon leaders? you just made that up from movies you saw and pretend that’s what’s going on. cite something backing up this claim. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/71 "2013-02-14T08:19:50Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > no sir, you picked this rabbit trail of a nitpick because i said “10-to-1 militants to civilian deaths.” you said “show where anyone said that or admit you fibbed.” > i quote directly, again, Terr: You quote directly a falsehood. He switches, midstream, from “leaders” to “militants”. Apparently he thinks his readers are too stupid to notice. Well, some are. > [@](#): > > where are you pulling data that there exists platoons and squadrons of organized terrorist with singular platoon leaders? Let me type it slowly so you may understand. The moron whose article you quoted tries to pretend that all these leaders just hang out by themselves. There are no non-leaders in their terrorist organizations. Everyone is a “leader”. So if 60 “leaders” are killed by the drones, the other 540 people killed MUST have been civilians. Because, of course, other than “leaders” there are no other militants. Right? Just how stupid do you have to be to believe that? ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/72 "2013-02-14T08:23:19Z")
no, TERR. the point is the only people considered significant enough for CIA-justified drone-killing are “high level” leader-type targets. CIA justifies it by saying they are going after HIGH VALUE TARGETS. you have no basis in what you are saying that is founded in reality. you are assuming it. HE is collating data from families of the dead, DIRECTLY. so no foot soldiers or goons should be targeted. so again, why do you insist on differentiation between “leader” targets or “militants?” by the nature of what we are doing, _only_ high value targets should be killed in this way. it’s gone from saying civilians and family had to die because these people are in their homes, hiding out, to you pretending in your heard they are in their secret lair surrounded by goons who are the other dead people. which one is it? and give me any information to support the claim you are making that these other people are their underlings or minions. show me where anyone is claiming to take out a 600-throng horde of bad guys in some major strike. all of these are individual targets or very small groups. read up on it. you act like they have some base and we hit it. like i said before, it’s just militants or civilians. and like i said before, the quote is exactly 10 to 1. and like my point the whole time: it doesn’t seem very effectual, not by any of the stats, not enough to leverage that kind of collateral damage and make it justified. so since this is the quagmire way you like to debate, and since i proved the quote was exact and direct, what point do you have for the nitpick? so to kick the dead horse: he uses the terms interchangeably because they simply mean the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/73 "2013-02-14T08:29:44Z")
> [@Dr.Colossus](#): > > no, TERR. the point is the only people considered significant enough for CIA-justified drone-killing are “high level” leader-type targets. CIA justifies it by saying they are going after HIGH VALUE TARGETS. And they do. What you’re pretending is that those “HIGH VALUE TARGETS” do not have ANY grunt-level militants around them, and EVERYONE that is killed next to them is a “civilian”. Which is absurd, and you know it. But you keep insisting on that stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/74 "2013-02-14T08:32:30Z")
what’s so ironic about you is if it’s Benghazi, the CIA and the president is a clusterfuckup of incompetence. if it’s killing brown folk you don’t like, they have pin-point precision, extremely precise intelligence and only kill only the worse people around. you have extremely selective ideological stances that step all over each other in order to support your political dogmas. i’m fairly certain what you actual think is dying by a US missile means you deserved it in some way. but i am very glad to see your faith in our president is restored…apparently. ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Colossus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dr.colossus/32/9423_2.png) [@Dr.Colossus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Colossus)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/75 "2013-02-14T08:35:56Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > And they do. What you’re pretending is that those “HIGH VALUE TARGETS” do not have ANY grunt-level militants around them, and EVERYONE that is killed next to them is a “civilian”. Which is absurd, and you know it. But you keep insisting on that stupidity. i’m not pretending anything–i’m simply going off of what is reported. if you have something specifically contradictory to cite, feel free. we have cited people’s names and families and stories. there are tons of various outlets reporting on such things. meanwhile the CIA will not divulge _any_ stats or hard numbers. so what is happening is people like me hear the actual families of dead people tell their story and i lend it some credence. people like you ignore their story, pretend they are badguys, and in spite of no data from the government, presume not just that they are running a highly effectual and clean campaign, but have a kind of clear vision and competence you’ll turn right around and swear they lack next time it suits your dogmatic position. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/76 "2013-02-14T15:08:29Z")
[QUOTE=dontbesojumpy] it is fairly obvious you have not been reading the posts in this thread. i will still address this all directly again, but FYI everything i’m about to answer here i have already said two or three times already. as for the stats, i already posted them: [/QUOTE] To me, it’s fairly obvious that you are being disingenuous and aren’t debating in good faith, shifting the goal posts constantly. Let’s look at your ‘stats’. From your link to Huffpo (a site you have to admit is not exactly unbiased on this issue, yet you toss out as if it’s the final word): > [@](#): > > Increasingly, drone strikes in Pakistan do not target al Qaeda members. According to Peter Bergen and Megan Braun at NAF, “under Bush, al Qaeda members accounted for 25% of all drone targets compared to 40% for Taliban targets. Under Obama, only 8% of targets were al Qaeda compared to just over 50% for Taliban targets.” Al Qaeda and the Taliban overlap in Pakistan but do not share the same objectives. The goal of the Pakistani Taliban is, first and foremost, to take over Pakistan and establish a state governed by Islamic law. Fighting the United States comes in at a distant second, which raises questions about a strategy that predominantly targets this group. So, the thrust of this article doesn’t demonstrate the ridiculous ratio you are claiming…it’s basically saying that we are killing mostly rank and file soldiers, though acknowledged we get high ranking terrorists and militants from time to time: > [@](#): > > Proponents argue that drones in particular should be an effective weapon of decapitation, because drones can linger for extended periods of time, watching and waiting for their prey to emerge, and then use precision-guided munitions to eliminate the target while minimizing collateral damage to bystanders. Indeed, drone strikes have killed high-ranking al Qaeda officials, most recently Abdel Rehman al-Hussainan, the organization’s number-two man, who died in an attack in North Waziristan in December. My own point is that they do less harm, which the author here seems to agree with (thanks for providing this cite btw…very helpful to my side of the argument :p): > [@](#): > > Second, killing civilians can inadvertently aid the terrorist cause. Somewhere between 10 percent and 26 percent of all drone deaths in Pakistan are noncombatants. In historical terms these figures are relatively low for air campaigns, but every civilian death has the potential to generate terrorist recruits. In Yemen, for example, a soldier left his unit after a U.S. drone strike killed his nephew, telling a reporter, “I would fight even the devil to exact revenge for my nephew.” Note, also, that here the author of YOUR article is saying that the range of non-combatant deaths is 10-26 percent…which is a bit different than you were claiming, wouldn’t you say? Quickly looking at your other (obviously biased) site, we see this: > [@](#): > > CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013 > Total US strikes: 364 > Obama strikes: 312 > Total reported killed: 2,640-3,474 > Civilians reported killed: 473-893 > Children reported killed: 176 > Total reported injured: 1,270-1,433 Even assuming these figures are correct, my back of the envelop calculation shows that we are talking about no more than 25% ‘Civilians reported killed’, and my guess is that many of the ‘civilians’ reported here were simply grunt soldiers being misreported for a variety of reasons. Even if we are talking about 100% accuracy here, however, your cite does not demonstrate what you claim it does. You are misrepresenting it and overstating your case by doing so. Looking at the other figures, they are all similar (in fact, in almost all the others the percentage goes down quite a bit). > [@](#): > > you should really take the time to read the NYT article posted by Kinthalis. Sorry, I don’t see a NYT article linked by Kinthalis. I see one from I Made French Toast For You, which would be great right now as I’m starving. However, skimming it I don’t see anything that backs up what you are saying. In fact, it seems to be quite the opposite (mostly it’s a human interest type piece, light on facts and heavy on tears): > [@](#): > > Several former top military and intelligence officials — including Stanley A. McChrystal, the retired general who led the Joint Special Operations Command, which has responsibility for the military’s drone strikes, and Michael V. Hayden, the former C.I.A. director — have raised concerns that the drone wars in Pakistan and Yemen are increasingly targeting low-level militants who do not pose a direct threat to the United States. So, like the HuffPo article, the authors main beef here is that we are basically targeting mainly low level grunts (probably because we see them a lot more and they are easier to target…see a bunch of guys with AK’s and RPG’s moping about in a truck somewhere they shouldn’t be an it’s pretty easy to figure out they aren’t a boy scout group). They aren’t, however, backing up your own assertions, sadly. Or, if they are, you need to do your own freaking research and start quoting from your own links the things you see that you feel are backing you up, because this is the LAST wild goose chase ‘go look at this link and figure out where it says what I say it says’ exercise. > [@](#): > > what evidence is there that we would have occupational fighting forces in Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan or other non-current war nations? Is straw on sale this week? I never said we’d be occupying those areas. Have you ever heard of this now thing called an ‘air craft carrier’ or ‘and air plane’? We also have these things, used quite often in the past called ‘cruise missiles’. Ever heard of a SEAL or other special forces spotter team? I know that most people in the public are unaware of them, but they are out there and they have been used quite often before and even after drones happened to come along. You should look them up some time. > [@](#): > > the whole point of the drone war is because we would not be taking actual military action against these places. Ah…and you can demonstrate this how, exactly? We never took ‘actual military action’ against any country or group before we had drones? I’m sure there would be a lot of surprised people if you could historically demonstrate that. Feel free. > [@](#): > > i have not yet seen a single shred of any evidence indicating we would be using alternative “typical” war methods in place of these drone strikes. No? Ask the Libyan’s if Reagan ever use more conventional means to attack into a sovereign nation that don’t involve drones. You might be surprised by all of the historical examples of the US doing this if we felt it necessary. You might want to do some of your own research on the various plans to whack ObL BEFORE 9/11, and what we would have done if we had confirmation he was in a specific place, even if there were civilians around. > [@](#): > > that is the whole point: it’s a CIA (NOT MILITARY) program that circumvents typical military hangups (again, read what i posted above. the CIA can drone strike a kill list target unilaterally without that nation’s approval. Horseshit. Do you have a cite demonstrating that it’s the CIA, solely, who is providing these drone strikes, and that they are doing it without oversight and ‘unilaterally’?? Please provide a link AND a quote backing up your claim. > [@](#): > > Military drone strikes require full cooperation with the nation in question). Again, cite, quote, thanks in advance. > [@](#): > > the drone war is a CIA thing, not a Pentagon thing. :dubious: > [@](#): > > weird. i keep flipping through the news and i haven’t even once heard anyone discuss directly how tragic it is these kids and women and innocent people are dying. Newtown was front page headline everything for weeks. Dead Yemenese or Pakistani kids don’t get any air time. none. there are no Pakistani dead kid commemorative services, or ribbons, or dedication webpages, or facebook posts, or anything else. so the only amount of “tragic” anyone around here is willing to grant it is “yeah that sucks but it’s kind of part of the whole deal.” Do you understand what a ‘strawman’ argument is? I ask, because you don’t seem too, and instead are going off on a tangent here about anecdotal impressions you are getting from the news you are watching, which really has nothing to do with the point I was making. > [@](#): > > you have it entirely wrong. an honest analogy would be something along the lines of: NO one was shot in Newtown. The government had been monitoring Landa for a long time, drones hovering his hometown for weeks leading up to it. he never actually did the shooting, but we confirmed he was planning it, so we drone-strike him. he dies, but so do all the kids in the newtown elementary school, because they just were collateral exploded humans caught in the necessary method of blowing the fuck out of Landa. 😛 I’m sorry, but there is no point even addressing this ridiculous analogy. You build a strawman, then try and create an analogy to go along with it between a guy that went crazy and shot a bunch of kids to an air strike that inadvertently missed it’s target and accidentally killed some kids. There is no comparison between the two things, except that both are tragedies. > [@](#): > > now. do you think we’d all just lump that into “c’est la vie?” just part of the deal? necessary evil of war? It means ‘such is life’. And yes, it is. People die every day. Most of them are tragedies. Can you do anything about it? No. Many more kids die in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in Yemen, Somalia do to disease, malnutrition and myriad other things than die in drone strikes. Doesn’t make either more or less tragic. You can claim that we wouldn’t be fighting there if we didn’t have drones, but the reality is that we are, at this point in history, committed to fighting terrorists over in their backyards instead of in our own. You can debate whether this is a good idea or not, but the reality is that we are there, and we are fighting, and I don’t see that as winding down any time soon. And as long as this fact remains, innocents are going to die. It’s a fact of life and it’s reality, no matter how much you try and handwave it away or appeal to emotion. > [@](#): > > “the war happened?” pray, tell: what war happened in Somalia? what war is in Yemen? do you think “every brown-people country not near me” gets to be lumped into the Iraq or Afghanistan war? if we are at war with one of those two place, we have carte blanche to “be at war” with any islamic nation? We are at ‘war’ with terrorists. Have you noticed that no formal declaration of ‘war’ has been given for ANY of the nations we are fighting in? Pakistan, where a large number of people have been killed (more than Somalia and Yemen combined) is actually a quasi-ally. So, your ridiculous attempt to twist my words really just makes you look, again, pretty silly. If we are launching missiles, if we are shooting guns, those are ‘war’ like acts. And we are at ‘war’ with the terrorists and militants in all of those countries, since that’s where a lot of them are hiding out, under the skirts and shields of the local population. I love the ‘ever brown-people country not near me’ line you keep trotting out here. It has nothing to do with ‘brown-people’, nor does it have anything to do with Islam, per se…it has to do with people who are terrorists and who have demonstrated pretty conclusively that if given the chance they will attack us, our allies or our interests either here or abroad. Those are the people we are at ‘war’ with, and we are fighting them where they are. Again, if you want to debate the wisdom of this, that’s one thing, but you are trying to pull in all sorts of misdirection and horseshit to shift the goal posts and muddy the waters instead of actually addressing the question you ACTUALLY asked in your OP. > [@](#): > > again, read the article above. we killed a civilian governor–a very pro american and well-liked innocent person in Yemen drone striking a medium level A Q guy who wasn’t in hiding. he was on government payroll and working with officials in Yemen at the time. we knew his address and he actually slept there and everything. and the Yemen Elite tactical anti-terror WHO WE TRAINED TO DEAL WITH BAD GUYS LIKE HIM all stand around scratching their head as to why we felt it necessary to drone strike him and kill bystanders when they are dead-ready to go nab people like him. it’s their whole job. Perhaps you should read them instead, and then actually quote the relevant parts. See, I did read them, and they don’t say what you say they say, by and large, and I’m not going to play this game again. If you have something specific you feel backs up one of your statements or assertions, feel free to QUOTE THE FUCKING THING…don’t simply direct me to read an article and try and figure out what supposed data makes your vague and often ridiculous case for you. > [@](#): > > drone striking has become such an overly used method that we just won’t do junk like subdue and process people. Horseshit. Even your own cites don’t demonstrate this. Look at the total number of attacks via drone in your Bureau of Investigative Journal cite (again, clearly not an unbiased site here). In the country with the MOST drone strikes, we are talking a 'Total US strikes: 364 ’ in the 2003-2013 time period. Seriously man, read your own fucking cites and then try and absorb what they are saying before making completely off the wall and ridiculous statements such as this one I’m quoting here. 364 total strikes in 10 years is ‘an overly used method that we just won’t do junk like subdue and process people’?? 😛 > [@](#): > > you want to talk about strawmen–you have spun this fictional narrative where we are at war with nations we entirely are not at war with. you have falsely created this scenario where it’s either we are at actual war with men on the ground in these places, and they are REALLY BAD PEOPLE who are shooting at us first. read the articles, read the stats. that is not the case. we are blowing up low level nobodies in places where we have spend gobs of time and resources and money on training the locals to apprehend and deal with such “bad guys.” rather than allow that to happen, we’re not just bombing everyone out of existence. and their families, and friends and nearby or errant strangers. Lol, you just make up yet another strawman. Straw must be on sale. I never said we were at war with any nation. But, feel free to quote me doing so and win a big prize. I’ve merely pointed out reality…and the reality is we ARE over there and we ARE fighting. You can and have repeatedly tried to handwave this seemingly solid fact away, while spinning your own fantasy that we’d be over there but not doing anything if we didn’t have the evil drones available (since, you know, we’ve had the massive 364 strikes in 10 years!!), but this is your own disconnect from the real world. I’m just the messenger, pointing this out to you…well, probably not to you, since I doubt you will get any of this, but perhaps some lurker will take note. Hope springs eternal after all. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/77 "2013-02-14T16:15:05Z")
> [@dontbesojumpy](#): > > “the war happened?” pray, tell: what war happened in Somalia? what war is in Yemen? do you think “every brown-people country not near me” gets to be lumped into the Iraq or Afghanistan war? if we are at war with one of those two place, we have carte blanche to “be at war” with any islamic nation? This war: [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) September 14, 2001. > [@](#): > > Preamble > > Joint Resolution > > To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States. > > Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, > > Section 1 - Short Title > > This joint resolution may be cited as the ‘Authorization for Use of Military Force’. > > Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces > > (a) IN GENERAL- **That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.** > > (b) War Powers Resolution Requirements- > (1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution. (2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. Bolding mine. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/78 "2013-02-14T16:55:41Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > This war: > > [Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists) > > September 14, 2001. Indeed. I said it before but I’ll say it again, drone strikes in general aren’t the problem, this “war” and the way it is prosecuted is. [QUOTE=Condescending Robot] Basically, we have a low-ideas, touchy-feely president, who encourages personal loyalty to the emotions he inspires rather than moral reasoning, so Obama voters support the drone murder policy because they have no frame of ethical reference outside of “Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it.” [/QUOTE] I know a lot of Obama voters and not a single person has supported his human rights abuses in support of this “war”. Dick Cheney just said it was a “[good policy](http://news.yahoo.com/cheney-calls-us-drone-strikes-good-policy-125750969--politics.html)” though. He’s made some good strides re: gay rights and the economy, but in a lot of ways, Obama is just “Bush III”, unfortunately. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/79 "2013-02-14T17:00:30Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > The idea of “Al-Qaeda” as a worldwide hierarchy of terrorism foot soldiers with all sorts of “cells” in various places is pure fiction. It never existed. It’s something out of a GI Joe comic book for people whose worldviews haven’t advanced beyond “killing the bad guys” to accept because they so desperately want to. “Al Qaeda” was 20 rich Saudi dissidents and three dipshits in a cave who occasionally wired disgruntled Indonesians the money to buy bomb supplies. That’s it. That’s the only thing your “terror network” ever was. That’s what’s justified turning the U.S. into a flying death machine for civilians. And now it’s about 10 of those dissidents and the dudes in the cave are long dead, but we have to keep bombing brown people in Asia because we can’t admit that the U.S. played right into bin Laden’s strategy for asymmetric warfare. And every tribesman in Mali or Jordan or the Philippines with a turban and a grudge now gets labeled “Al Qaeda” the moment they make the news cycle, to perpetuate the fiction of this real-life SPECTRE being a serious thing that actually exists. > > Bin Laden and the Taliban guys could never do any direct damage to the U.S. on a meaningful scale. They could barely figure out how to keep their goddamn goats alive. He was as surprised as anyone when the planes actually brought the towers down. He hoped they would kill a few hundred on impact, and that was it. He knew about as much about structural engineering as the 9/11 truthers do. The goal was to provoke the U.S. to lose its mind in response, overreact, get bogged down in multiple unwinnable wars with no defined conditions of victory and end up pissing off the entire Muslim world with occupations and war crimes to the point that Islamist fundamentalist politics would be handed a million supporters on a silver platter by America for every American it could possibly kill directly. And boy did you yokels fall for it. Thanks to the drone program, the recruitment drive will go on indefinitely, and thanks to the U.S. doing everything bin Laden wanted it to do, the entire Muslim world is falling to fundamentalist regimes one country at a time (Obama trying to play off the ongoing dominoes of military coups and subsequent theocracies as some sort of positive “Arab Spring” is just patching the wound that the Bush-Obama foreign policy, which is as seamless and indistinguishable as it is disastrous, has opened). I disagree. Al-Qaeda was a worldwide network with cells. Capable of: USA - Bombing the the World Trade Center; 6 killed, injury 1,000 Kenya - Bombing US Embassy; many killed and injured Tanzania - Bombing US Embassy; many killed and injured Yemen - Bombed a US Naval Destroyer; 17 sailors killed, double injured USA - Commercial planes into both WTC’s, Pentagon, field; thousands killed UK - subway/bus bombing; 50ish dead; hundreds injured Afghanistan - suicide bombing; 7 CIA agents killed, and a cousin to the King of Jordan. That’s major attacks on our biggest city, US Embassies, Dept of Defense HQ, a Navy Destroyer, and a CIA base. That’s sophisticated stuff. There are dozens more and there’s also foiled/screwed up attacks (millennium, another US Naval vessel, ect.) . There’s no denying the attacks and dead bodies happened. Al Qaeda owned a cargo plane to ferry people/supplies around (pre-USS Cole). Al Qaeda was set up with safe houses, finance groups, scouts, bomb makers, front businesses/charities to funnel money, and suicide grunts to carry out attacks. All able to contact with another. So then it’s a matter of are the attacks unrelated (as I’m guessing you believe), or coordinated by the Al Qaeda network. Sources While there are countless books detailing the Al Qaeda network. The two I’ve found the most unbiased and informative are (1) the 9/11 Commission Report and (2) The Black Banners by Ali Soufan (former FBI Agent with a genius level of knowledge re: Al Qaeda). I can provide cites from those sources if you want them (but not quickly). ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [February 14, 2013, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151/80 "2013-02-14T17:51:44Z")
But “the Al Qaeda network” is just anyone who reads the Quran before they go blow something up. They then become “Al Qaeda” because both the U.S. and bin Laden benefitted from that narrative. Did any of these people in Mali, etc, have any connection to the rest of the so-called “network” before the incidents? Were they instructed, trained, supplied, or given targets by them, or is “All Qaeda” just a magic word for “anyone who commits violence in the name of Islam” which has now been expanded to “anyone who gets hit by an American bomb”? You list things that happened from 1993 to 2001, most of which were directly organized by Bin Laden and his cave buddies. Suspiciously absent is any verification for the Bush/Obama comic book conception of the world–that “Al Qaeda” is a quasi-military organization that gives orders to chapters in dozens of countries, and that groups “Al Qaeda in Iraq” or “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” have anything whatsoever to do with the people who carried out 9/11 beyond realizing that they can get on the news if they use the magic name. > [@DrCube](#): > > I know a lot of Obama voters and not a single person has supported his human rights abuses in support of this “war”. This is easily the most absurd claim made yet in a thread that is always chock-full of them. NO Obama voters support Obama’s foreign policy? What? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-what-is-redeeming-about-this-drone-strike-stuff/650151.md?page=5)