BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Click on the link to read the rest. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/30/world/middleeast/iraq-is-angered-by-us-drones-patrolling-its-skies.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all BAGHDAD — A month after the last American troops left Iraq, the State Department is operating a small fleet of surveillance drones here to help protect the United States Embassy and consulates, as well as American personnel. Senior Iraqi officials expressed outrage at the program, saying the unarmed aircraft are an affront to Iraqi sovereignty.The program was described by the department’s diplomatic security branch in a little-noticed section of its most recent annual report and outlined in broad terms in a two-page online prospectus for companies that might bid on a contract to manage the program. It foreshadows a possible expansion of unmanned drone operations into the diplomatic arm of the American government; until now they have been mainly the province of the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. American contractors say they have been told that the State Department is considering plans to field unarmed surveillance drones in a handful of other potentially “high-threat” countries, including Indonesia and Pakistan, and in Afghanistan after the bulk of American troops leave in the next two years. State Department officials say that no decisions have been made beyond the drone operations in Iraq. The drones are the latest example of the State Department’s efforts to take over functions in Iraq that the military used to perform. Some 5,000 private security contractors now protect the embassy’s 11,000-person staff, for example, and typically drive around in heavily armored military vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 If you want to get right down to it, they are an afront to Iraqi sovereignty. I mean, how would we feel about the Iraqis flying drones over their consulate here? Ain't happening. Still, the Amerocentric hypocrite in me says "drone away." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Yup, just like H_H said, we'd be pretty pissed if Iraq had drones in our air space. I wouldn't blame the Iraquis if they shot them down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Can Iraq guarantee the level safety of American diplomats like Iraqi diplomats would get when here? I get why they would be upset, but it's not exactly the same as 'what if Iraq was flying drones here!" We aren't flying drones around England or Germany or countries like that for a reason, we don't believe our peoples lives are in danger by simply being there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Can Iraq guarantee the level safety of American diplomats like Iraqi diplomats would get when here?I get why they would be upset, but it's not exactly the same as 'what if Iraq was flying drones here!" We aren't flying drones around England or Germany or countries like that for a reason, we don't believe our peoples lives are in danger by simply being there. We can guarantee their safety? I think we can "pretty much" guarantee it, sure. But "guarantee?" Nah. And while we may not have drones in those countries, I'm sure we have AWACS, or something similar over them regularly, and spies on the ground....as they do here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We can guarantee their safety? I think we can "pretty much" guarantee it, sure. But "guarantee?" Nah.And while we may not have drones in those countries, I'm sure we have AWACS, or something similar over them regularly, and spies on the ground....as they do here. I didn't mean we give them a literal "guarantee", I said a level of safety of it....a sort of understood expectation. I don't think you could expect anything near that in Iraq. I get why they're upset, but they obviously have to understand we aren't flying them just to prove we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I didn't mean we give them a literal "guarantee", I said a level of safety of it....a sort of understood expectation. I don't think you could expect anything near that in Iraq.I get why they're upset, but they obviously have to understand we aren't flying them just to prove we can. I misread. Sorry. I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 The one thing I should add, if Iraq came back and said "Fine, if you don't think your people are safe here....take them out. You aren't flying drones." Then I would be perfectly fine with that, wouldn't blame them at all. If I were an Iraqi I'd be way more angry about the marine that walked away with just a reduction in rank last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I just don't think that you need drones to watch an embassy. You and I both know that those drones are probably watching more than just the embassy. Our ambassadors would be much more secure with a personal detail in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I just don't think that you need drones to watch an embassy. You and I both know that those drones are probably watching more than just the embassy. Our ambassadors would be much more secure with a personal detail in my opinion. I would disagree with that, only because of the tactics used by the Iraqis. (Car bombs, roadside bombs, etc.) I think that stuff is easier to watch from the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I just don't think that you need drones to watch an embassy. You and I both know that those drones are probably watching more than just the embassy. Our ambassadors would be much more secure with a personal detail in my opinion. I'm assuming they aren't strictly watching an embassy. We have a lot of personnel there from the state department and others who are probably moving throughout. I do agree though, they're watching a lot more than just those people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I would disagree with that, only because of the tactics used by the Iraqis. (Car bombs, roadside bombs, etc.) I think that stuff is easier to watch from the air. I suppose that you're right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 Those senior officials can file the appropriate complaint with the appropriate officials If that is all they have to be outraged over things are better than reported there....the little matter of hundreds being killed might be more pressing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HailGreen28 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I thought we were still militarily supporting the Iraqis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan1993 Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I HATE the double standard here. Just think of what if Iran or Iraq had their drones above New York, LA, Chicago, whatever. We'd call it a act of war and have invaded their country by the end of the week. Yet we can do the same thing with no penalty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So when we said military operations were out of Iraq we lied again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I think HH is pretty much got this one covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 So when we said military operations were out of Iraq we lied again? Sure did ---------- Post added January-30th-2012 at 07:17 AM ---------- I HATE the double standard here. Just think of what if Iran or Iraq had their drones above New York, LA, Chicago, whatever. We'd call it a act of war and have invaded their country by the end of the week. Yet we can do the same thing with no penalty? Yep, thats our FP stance. Both parties embody it, perpetuate it, defend it and call anyone who calls foul a crackpot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 At 0.44 square kilometers it is nearly as large as Vatican City.[1] It also employs 15,000 people. (Look we have our own Vatican with i'm guessing enough Military personnel to protect against a Republican Guard attack). Silly peoples should just be glad were there to protect them from themselves during peacetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 I HATE the double standard here. Just think of what if Iran or Iraq had their drones above New York, LA, Chicago, whatever. We'd call it a act of war and have invaded their country by the end of the week. Yet we can do the same thing with no penalty? edit: double post? strange? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 We're really going a bit overboard with these drones now aren't we? I agree with the Iraqis. I don't really see the point of it anyway, unless we plan on sending people back into Iraq in response to something we see with the drones. Such blatent spying is pretty silly too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 the point is in moving and protecting our people....and a natural result of having such a large ,active presence there. unarmed drones are a issue where armored convoys and helicopters with gunners are normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 the point is in moving and protecting our people....and a natural result of having such a large ,active presence there.unarmed drones are a issue where armored convoys and helicopters with gunners are normal? I dont know, call me crazy, but maybe we should address what causes the "natural result" then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 civilians unwilling to risk their necks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted January 30, 2012 Share Posted January 30, 2012 civilians unwilling to risk their necks? They arent our civilians Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.