Wp: Former Defense Secretary Gates Warns Against Lure Of Drone Warfare

[twa]

The question, and answer, is for your benefit not mine. 

 

The ROE absolutely does change the fact.  You have no more authorization to kill someone in Khowst than you do in Killeen...until the requirements of lethal force are met. 

 

what are the ROE's here and why do they differ

 

You are still skipping and your kill mission meme is a tiresome evasion......,a threat has been identified and deadly force is authorized

the decision to kill has been made and authority delegated to determine threats (then some rear echelon ass can second guess later,but such is life)

[Larry]

And I am pointing out whether to is not the first decision, you begin with should you or the need to.......if you are civilized 

 

the question of risks and cost are secondary ones

 

And your assertion, that people make this decision to kill someone, without considering the risks and costs, until after they make that decision,  sure appears untrue, to me. 

 

How many people do you figure JFK had on HIS kill list? 

 

(Neither one of us knows, but I'm pretty confident that it was single digit.  And I would put the odds at better than 50-50 that it was zero.) 

 

How many people you suppose Nixon had?  Reagan? 

 

Heck, how many you figure W had?  A dozen, maybe? 

 

Suddenly, we've gone from zero or very few, to thousands. 

 

Now, either the world suddenly became a thousand times more dangerous, in the last 5 years or so, or else the standard of what's good enough to order the US military to assassinate somebody has dropped by quite a bit.  (And I think we both know which of those, it is.) 

 

Now, you REALLY want to try to assert that the reason WHY we're suddenly willing to assassinate thousands of people, when it used to be zero, ISN'T because we've got this nifty gizmo that lets us kill people with almost no risk of it coming back and biting us in the ***?  The knowledge that we are virtually guaranteed to have no casualties, no mess, not even a public anger? 

 

Sure looks to me like there's one heck of a statistical correlation between the arrival of armed drones, and a massive expansion in the government's willingness to kill people. 

[twa]

Larry you are misusing assassinate ,targeted killing of enemy combatants is not assassination,furthermore your first sentence ignores what I said.

 

you also ignore our history of targeted killing but we can do w/o another distraction.

 

you leave out the correlation between the broad AUMF and the diverse areas and focus on a single tool.....guess what,we are killing people every day w/o drones.

 

any idea how many casualties there are?

[Redskins Diehard]

what are the ROE's here and why do they differ

 

You are still skipping and your kill mission meme is a tiresome evasion......,a threat has been identified and deadly force is authorized

the decision to kill has been made and authority delegated to determine threats (then some rear echelon ass can second guess later,but such is life)

I don't know what happens in the rear echelon because I've never been there.  And I've never personally seen a "second guess" on the use of force at any level outside of the immediate command.  And those "challenges" were not that rigorous.  And EVERYONE knew EXACTLY what they had to say if they were ever involved in what could have been considered an "improper" use of lethal force.  It was simple....articulate a likely or identifiable threat.  There are some examples out there.  And if they make it into the public awareness then they are typically extremely egregious and absolutely worthy of qestioning. 

 

Do I think there was ever an intention at all to capture Bin Laden alive? No.  But everyone involved says the right things "kill or capture" and "we saw a gun".

 

I suppose you are right.  Deadly force is authorized.  It is authorized everywhere in this country.

[Kilmer17]

Of course the lists were smaller before. We had to risk out own soldiers in some cases. So of course those lists will expand. But it's not as if we're expanding them to include good people.

Not having to risk our own is a good thing. Especially if it allows us to take out more threats

[Larry]

Larry you are misusing assassinate ,targeted killing of enemy combatants is not assassination,furthermore your first sentence ignores what I said.

 

you also ignore our history of targeted killing but we can do w/o another distraction.

 

you leave out the correlation between the broad AUMF and the diverse areas and focus on a single tool.....guess what,we are killing people every day w/o drones.

 

any idea how many casualties there are?

 

And have been doing so, in wars, for centuries. 

 

How many people you suppose Nixon killed while they were driving down a street, in a country where we are not fighting? 

 

And, yeah, "I want you to kill X, wherever he is, whenever you get a shot" sure sounds like assassination, to me. 

 

Now, though, I do think you've got a point, that the AUMF was grotesquely broad.  Frankly, I'd love to see it clarified and restricted.  A lot.  But that's another matter. 

 

But I'll point out:  W had the same AUMF.  The same "well, things changed on 9/11".  But I don;t see reports that he conducted hundreds of kill missions in Pakistan, or any other country outside of Iraq/Afghanistan. 

 

W and Obama had the same AUMF.  But one of them had the drones.  And he's the one who decided that killing hundreds or thousands of people walking down the street (or whatever they were doing), hundreds or thousands of miles from any fighting, sometimes based simply on speeches that they had given. 

[Redskins Diehard]

Of course the lists were smaller before. We had to risk out own soldiers in some cases. So of course those lists will expand. But it's not as if we're expanding them to include good people.

Not having to risk our own is a good thing. Especially if it allows us to take out more threats

I wonder how familiar you are with what is required to be put "on the list". 

[twa]

I don't know what happens in the rear echelon because I've never been there.  And I've never personally seen a "second guess" on the use of force at any level outside of the immediate command.  And those "challenges" were not that rigorous.  And EVERYONE knew EXACTLY what they had to say if they were ever involved in what could have been considered an "improper" use of lethal force.  It was simple....articulate a likely or identifiable threat.  There are some examples out there.  And if they make it into the public awareness then they are typically extremely egregious and absolutely worthy of qestioning. 

 

Do I think there was ever an intention at all to capture Bin Laden alive? No.  But everyone involved says the right things "kill or capture" and "we saw a gun".

 

I suppose you are right.  Deadly force is authorized.  It is authorized everywhere in this country.

 

people are second guessing Obama left and right, he has been authorized to both kill and target.....and he is saying exactly what you say.

 

are they extremely egregious?

[Kilmer17]

I wonder how familiar you are with what is required to be put "on the list".

Again. My comments start under the premise that they are on the list. Arguing how the list works is a different debate altogether.

[Larry]

----------

 

Do I think there was ever an intention at all to capture Bin Laden alive? No.  But everyone involved says the right things "kill or capture" and "we saw a gun".

Actually, this armchair QB disagrees.

I suspect that the mission was to capture. (Even if maybe the rules were, if there's any resistance, then err on the side of protecting your guys.)

My main reason for assuming this, is my assumption that if we just wanted to kill him, we could have just blown up the building.

----------

Of course the lists were smaller before. We had to risk out own soldiers in some cases. So of course those lists will expand. But it's not as if we're expanding them to include good people.

The first is an assertion that several people have been making. That the decision to kill is made without any weighing of risks or costs, and that only after that decision is made do we consider methods.

In fact, I'm pretty certain that you are one of the people playing the "let's pretend that the decision to kill has already been made, and now we're considering the choice of weapons".

The second is a matter of unsupported opinion. And is off topic. The topic was the former SecDef warning that the apparent sterility and invulnerability of this gosh-wow weapon system, can lead to a huge expansion in the willingness to use it. An assertion which, I assert, we have already seen happen.

[Redskins Diehard]

----------

Actually, this armchair QB disagrees.

I suspect that the mission was to capture. (Even if maybe the rules were, if there's any resistance, then err on the side of protecting your guys.)

My main reason for assuming this, is my assumption that if we just wanted to kill him, we could have just blown up the building.

blowing up the building denies, or potentially denies, the opportunity for positive identification. we had to know we got him.

no way he was coming out of their alive. if we wanted him alive we would have gotten him alive.

[Kilmer17]

I'm not pretending it. I'm advocating it.

Again, we aren't adding "good guys" to these lists.

Being able to kill without danger to our own isn't just a good thing. It's a great thing. Expanding the kill list is a fantastic thing.

[Redskins Diehard]

Again. My comments start under the premise that they are on the list. Arguing how the list works is a different debate altogether.

I got from your last post that you acknowledge this technology allows us to expand the list. but the following assumption that the expanded list is only bad people introduces the requirement to understand how the list works.

[twa]

 

 

, hundreds or thousands of miles from any fighting, sometimes based simply on speeches that they had given. 

 

 

depends on what you consider fighting and the last part overlooks much..

 

 

 

no way he was coming out of their alive. if we wanted him alive we would have gotten him alive.

 

probably so,but it is undiplomatic for leadership to admit 

and as you mentioned before ,a raid rather needed

[Larry]

Again, we aren't adding "good guys" to these lists.

"Good Guy" is a really nebulous standard.

I think it's a fact that you've agreed to that the sheer number on the list has increased, probably a thousand fold.

 

Being able to kill without danger to our own isn't just a good thing. It's a great thing.

 

But it does have some risks.  It certainly CAN be seductive. 

 

Expanding the kill list is a fantastic thing.

 

 

You and I appear to have a differing opinion on how fantastic killing people is. 

 

I certainly don;t have a problem with the idea that sometimes it's necessary. 

 

I don't think it's conceivable for an instant, that suddenly, it's thousands of times more necessary, than it was, five years ago. 

 

To me, the sheer number of times it's been used, makes it really hard for me to believe that it's all that discriminatory. 

 

I don't have a problem killing Osama. 

 

I don't have a problem believing that there might be a dozen Osamas in the world. 

 

I do have a problem believing that there are thousands of them. 

[The Sisko]

And have been doing so, in wars, for centuries.

How many people you suppose Nixon killed while they were driving down a street, in a country where we are not fighting?

And, yeah, "I want you to kill X, wherever he is, whenever you get a shot" sure sounds like assassination, to me.

And how many people do you think Nixon would have had killed if he'd had drones available? I'm sure there would have been some. Having a tool available brings it into the decision making process.

I do find it interesting that when it's the Israelis openly pursuing a policy of assassination, with and without drones for years, nobody bats an eye but when we do it there's a bunch of hand wringing. Certainly our volume is higher, but I don't see much of any other difference. The players and war are pretty much the same one they've been fighting since the advent of terrorism in the 70s.

One last thing that I don't think has been mentioned yet. Drones probably would have come into use at some point, regardless but were certainly driven to a large degree by the nature of this conflict. Taking away the propaganda and negotiating value of the enemy having U.S. casualties and POWs is huge. The usual POW experience is bad enough but when it includes being trotted out on video to read statements and possibly beheaded, that's a hell of an argument for not putting our guys at risk, aside from the obvious value of preserving your own. Additionally the ability to strike an enemy anywhere, anytime has enormous value in sapping his will to fight. AQ hates the drones because they're powerless against them. I think this eventually results in deterring the use of terrorist tactics, at least somewhat. All of that makes the alleged Pandora's box syndrome some associate with drones worth it in my book.

[Jumbo]

 

when I'm debating it first must be decided do they need killing

 

 

Well, it's a problematic question for me at times. You know how inclusive I like to be. 

[Kilmer17]

Kill em all!

[Jumbo]

 

 

[Redskins Diehard]

I didn't expect to see we are finally doing what the Israelis are doing except on a larger scale in a post defending our policy. Maybe I did but maybe from one of the posters I associated with a neocon reputation.

khalid sheikh Muhammad. Osama bin Laden. al-libi. uday. qusay. Saddam.

[LadySkinsFan]

Analogy concerning the use of drones:

 

If it was okay to drop nuclear bombs on Japan, then it's okay to use drones.  It means the saving of US lives in both cases.

 

My personal feelings are that war is wrong and should be abandoned as a means of settling differences (e.g., religious beliefs) or for acquiring assets and resources without paying for them (e.g., oil).  Unfortunately, until human beings grow up and start sitting down to hash out solutions, there will continue to be war.

[chipwhich]

Unfortunately, until human beings grow up and start sitting down to hash out solutions, there will continue to be war.

 

Well that will never happen, and there will always be war.

 

If human beings grew up and acted civilized we wouldn't have violence in our cities, murders, robberies.

Unfortunately we are all not drones who think and do what we are told.

Conflicts will always exist.

[twa]

the best way to reduce drone strikes away from the battlefield is for the host countries to control their population areas.

 

we gain permission thru their assertions they do not control that area or are incapable of intervening thereby reducing sovereignty...

[Redskins Diehard]

the best way to reduce drone strikes away from the battlefield is for the host countries to control their population areas.

we gain permission thru their assertions they do not control that area or are incapable of intervening thereby reducing sovereignty...

oh, that's how we do it. sure

[gbear]

Ladyskinsfan, 

I think the problem with nuke analogy is the 2 nukes ended the war.  

 

How many years have we been using how many drone strikes?  Does the expansion of targets indicate we might be making a problem bigger rather than smaller as I assume we mean to do when we kill?  I always thought the "war to end all wars" mentality to be a vital to our nations emotional health.  Who wants to hear their loved ones died in war 1013 of 2000 or hear they just killed a guy so he can be replaced by three more?  I wouldn't want to live with either truth.

 

Are we to be no different from all the other empires of the past which survived only as long as there was an enemy to fight whom they could beat?

 

If the drones are only expanding the number of fights in which we engage, then I think the use of force has seduced us in its apparent ease of usage to solve problems.  I took this to be the main point of Sec. Gates' comments.