I Find Drone Strikes Intellectually Unsatisfying.

You don't know what you are talking about...I was attached to a field Drone platoon....

{...
When it came to “collateral damage,” there was no need to count because there was nothing to tote up or, at worst, such civilian casualties were “in the single digits.” That this was balderdash, that often when those drones unleashed their Hellfire missiles they were unsure who exactly was being targeted, that civilians were dying in relatively countable numbers — and that others were indeed counting them — mattered little, at least in this country until recently. Drone war was, after all, innovative and, as presented by two administrations, quite miraculous. In 2009, CIA Director Leon Panetta called it “the only game in town” when it came to al-Qaeda. And what a game it was. It needed no math, no metrics. As the Vietnam War had proved, counting was for losers — other than the usual media reports that so many “militants” had died in a strike or that some al-Qaeda “lieutenant” or “leader” had gone down for the count.

That era ended on April 23rd when President Obama entered the White House briefing room and apologized for the deaths of American aid worker Warren Weinstein and Italian aid worker Giovanni Lo Porto, two Western hostages of al-Qaeda. They had, the president confessed, been obliterated in a strike against a terrorist compound in Pakistan, though in his comments he managed not to mention the word “drone,” describing what happened vaguely as a “U.S. counterterrorism operation.” In other words, it turned out that the administration was capable of counting — at least to two.

And that brings us to the other meaning of “Who counts?” If you are an innocent American or Western civilian and a drone takes you out, you count. If you are an innocent Pakistani, Afghan, or Yemeni, you don’t. You didn’t count before the drone killed you and you don’t count as a corpse either. For you, no one apologizes, no one pays your relatives compensation for your unjust death, no one even acknowledges that you existed. This is modern American drone reality and the question of who counts and whom, if anyone, to count is part of the contested legacy of Washington’s never-ending war on terror.

Once upon a time, of course, enemy deaths were a badge of honor in war, but the American “body count,” which would become infamous in the Vietnam era, had always been a product of frustration, not pride. It originated in the early 1950s, in the “meat-grinder” days of the Korean War, after the fighting had bogged down in a grim stalemate and signs of victory were hard to come by. It reappeared relatively early in the Vietnam War years as American officials began searching for “metrics” that would somehow express victory in a country where taking territory in the traditional fashion meant little. As time went on, the brutality of that war increased, and the promised “light at the end of the tunnel” glowed ever more dimly, the metrics of victory only grew, and the pressure to produce that body count, which could be announced daily by U.S. press spokesmen to increasingly dubious journalists in Saigon did, too. Soon enough, those reporters began referring to the daily announcements of those figures as the “Five O’Clock Follies.”

On the ground, the pressure within the military to produce impressive body counts for those “Follies” resulted in what GIs called the “Mere Gook Rule.” (“If it’s dead and it’s Vietnamese, it’s VC [Viet Cong].”) And soon enough anything counted as a body. As William Calley, Jr., of My Lai massacre fame, testified, “At that time, everything went into a body count — VC, buffalo, pigs, cows. Something we did, you put it on your body count, sir… As long as it was high, that was all they wanted.”

When, however, victory proved illusory, that body count came to appear to ever more Americans on the home front like grim slaughter and a metric from hell. As a sign of success, increasingly detached from reality yet producing reality, it became a death-dealing Catch-22. As those bodies piled up and in the terminology of the times a “credibility gap” yawned between the metrics and reality, the body count became a symbol not just of a war of frustration, but of defeat itself. It came, especially after the news of the My Lai massacre finally broke in the U.S., to look both false and barbaric. Whose bodies were those anyway?

In the post-Vietnam era, not surprisingly, Washington would treat anything associated with the disaster that had been Vietnam as if it were radioactive. So when, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration’s top officials began planning their twenty-first-century wars in a state of exhilarated anticipation, they had no intention of reliving anything that reeked of Vietnam. There would be no body bags coming home in the glare of media attention, no body counts in the battle zones. They were ready to play an opposites game when it came to Vietnam. General Tommy Franks, who directed the Afghan invasion and then the one in Iraq, caught the mood perfectly in 2003 when he said, “We don’t do body counts
...}
 
{...
When it came to “collateral damage,” there was no need to count because there was nothing to tote up or, at worst, such civilian casualties were “in the single digits.” That this was balderdash, that often when those drones unleashed their Hellfire missiles they were unsure who exactly was being targeted, that civilians were dying in relatively countable numbers — and that others were indeed counting them — mattered little, at least in this country until recently. Drone war was, after all, innovative and, as presented by two administrations, quite miraculous. In 2009, CIA Director Leon Panetta called it “the only game in town” when it came to al-Qaeda. And what a game it was. It needed no math, no metrics. As the Vietnam War had proved, counting was for losers — other than the usual media reports that so many “militants” had died in a strike or that some al-Qaeda “lieutenant” or “leader” had gone down for the count.

That era ended on April 23rd when President Obama entered the White House briefing room and apologized for the deaths of American aid worker Warren Weinstein and Italian aid worker Giovanni Lo Porto, two Western hostages of al-Qaeda. They had, the president confessed, been obliterated in a strike against a terrorist compound in Pakistan, though in his comments he managed not to mention the word “drone,” describing what happened vaguely as a “U.S. counterterrorism operation.” In other words, it turned out that the administration was capable of counting — at least to two.

And that brings us to the other meaning of “Who counts?” If you are an innocent American or Western civilian and a drone takes you out, you count. If you are an innocent Pakistani, Afghan, or Yemeni, you don’t. You didn’t count before the drone killed you and you don’t count as a corpse either. For you, no one apologizes, no one pays your relatives compensation for your unjust death, no one even acknowledges that you existed. This is modern American drone reality and the question of who counts and whom, if anyone, to count is part of the contested legacy of Washington’s never-ending war on terror.

Once upon a time, of course, enemy deaths were a badge of honor in war, but the American “body count,” which would become infamous in the Vietnam era, had always been a product of frustration, not pride. It originated in the early 1950s, in the “meat-grinder” days of the Korean War, after the fighting had bogged down in a grim stalemate and signs of victory were hard to come by. It reappeared relatively early in the Vietnam War years as American officials began searching for “metrics” that would somehow express victory in a country where taking territory in the traditional fashion meant little. As time went on, the brutality of that war increased, and the promised “light at the end of the tunnel” glowed ever more dimly, the metrics of victory only grew, and the pressure to produce that body count, which could be announced daily by U.S. press spokesmen to increasingly dubious journalists in Saigon did, too. Soon enough, those reporters began referring to the daily announcements of those figures as the “Five O’Clock Follies.”

On the ground, the pressure within the military to produce impressive body counts for those “Follies” resulted in what GIs called the “Mere Gook Rule.” (“If it’s dead and it’s Vietnamese, it’s VC [Viet Cong].”) And soon enough anything counted as a body. As William Calley, Jr., of My Lai massacre fame, testified, “At that time, everything went into a body count — VC, buffalo, pigs, cows. Something we did, you put it on your body count, sir… As long as it was high, that was all they wanted.”

When, however, victory proved illusory, that body count came to appear to ever more Americans on the home front like grim slaughter and a metric from hell. As a sign of success, increasingly detached from reality yet producing reality, it became a death-dealing Catch-22. As those bodies piled up and in the terminology of the times a “credibility gap” yawned between the metrics and reality, the body count became a symbol not just of a war of frustration, but of defeat itself. It came, especially after the news of the My Lai massacre finally broke in the U.S., to look both false and barbaric. Whose bodies were those anyway?

In the post-Vietnam era, not surprisingly, Washington would treat anything associated with the disaster that had been Vietnam as if it were radioactive. So when, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration’s top officials began planning their twenty-first-century wars in a state of exhilarated anticipation, they had no intention of reliving anything that reeked of Vietnam. There would be no body bags coming home in the glare of media attention, no body counts in the battle zones. They were ready to play an opposites game when it came to Vietnam. General Tommy Franks, who directed the Afghan invasion and then the one in Iraq, caught the mood perfectly in 2003 when he said, “We don’t do body counts
...}
If you want to or must take out a human target in a civilian area you can use an airstrike... artillery...or use troops.....two of those three options comes with a risk of multiple civilian casualties and the other could be phrased as a suicide mission....or you can fly in a drone.... which option appeals to you more?.....
 
Yes, I most certainly was entirely against the murder of Gen. Qasem Soleimani.
I just blame the Israelis more than I blame Trump for that unethical murder.
It was NOT an accomplished mission, and all it did was to alienate Iran even more.
Which we will pay for eventually.
It was totally and completely dishonorable.

You still obviously do not get it.
The point is not just that Soleimani should not have been murdered, since he had done nothing illegal, but that this illegal act eliminates any concept of "rule of law", and instead makes the entire world run under the values of "might makes right", so we are back under feudalism.
And we will pay for that and lose, not only because the rest of the world is larger than us and getting tired of us, but because ANYONE with a $200 drone can easily assassinate anyone in the US they would care to.
It does not require million dollar cruise missiles.
Good luck with that drone paranoia thing. For the record, I think the A-hole General was organizing and coordinating with the enemies of the United States and Iraq that he was supplying and directing, on foreign soil where he did not belong and conceitedly thought he could have the freedom of movement, and it is highly unlikely he was taking vacation time. I do not care if alienated Iraq or not, as I consider them a threat to all Middle East and Southwest Asian countries.

I am no fan of our last President on many accounts, but I did and do support this action authorized by President Donald John Trump, as do all Republicans, most independents and many Democrats. A correct action is a correct action, no matter who makes it.
 
If you want to or must take out a human target in a civilian area you can use an airstrike... artillery...or use troops.....two of those three options comes with a risk of multiple civilian casualties and the other could be phrased as a suicide mission....or you can fly in a drone.... which option appeals to you more?.....

It is almost never right to take out individuals at all!
For example, we deliberately targeted Admiral Yamamoto in WWII, and that was illegal and stupid, adding half a year to the war at least.
It is easy to take out anyone if it really becomes necessary.
Like the way Mossad assassinates hundreds of people all the time.
For example, Gerald Bull was killed when he got out of his elevator in Belgium.
You simply use a revolver with a silencer.
 
Good luck with that drone paranoia thing. For the record, I think the A-hole General was organizing and coordinating with the enemies of the United States and Iraq that he was supplying and directing, on foreign soil where he did not belong and conceitedly thought he could have the freedom of movement, and it is highly unlikely he was taking vacation time. I do not care if alienated Iraq or not, as I consider them a threat to all Middle East and Southwest Asian countries.

I am no fan of our last President on many accounts, but I did and do support this action authorized by President Donald John Trump, as do all Republicans, most independents and many Democrats. A correct action is a correct action, no matter who makes it.

You are badly misinformed.
It is NOT paranoia to point out that the US is vastly more susceptible to drone attacks than any other country.
Politicians in the US make many more public appearances, and any $200 drone can easily carry enough explosives or toxins to kill any target.
And no, Soleimani was not at all an enemy of the US people in any way. It was just Israel that wanted him killed.
Once you start assassinating people with drones, how are you going to stop it?
 
You are badly misinformed.
It is NOT paranoia to point out that the US is vastly more susceptible to drone attacks than any other country.
Politicians in the US make many more public appearances, and any $200 drone can easily carry enough explosives or toxins to kill any target.
And no, Soleimani was not at all an enemy of the US people in any way. It was just Israel that wanted him killed.
Once you start assassinating people with drones, how are you going to stop it?
Eh, keep them out of war zones in foreign countries and home where they belong?
 
Eh, keep them out of war zones in foreign countries and home where they belong?

No, keep them in war zones, but only use them for recon.
Weaponizing drones is just asking for trouble.
The whole rest of the world considers drones to be acts of terrorism, and obviously they are right.
And we will have to pay for our arrogance eventually.
 
No, keep them in war zones, but only use them for recon.
Weaponizing drones is just asking for trouble.
The whole rest of the world considers drones to be acts of terrorism, and obviously they are right.
And we will have to pay for our arrogance eventually.
I was referring to A-hole Iranian Genitals, that should stay home in their own country.
 
While I support the drone strike today that killed the ISIS-k "planner" and I really don't like endangering our military people, I find killing our enemies with a drone strike intellectually unsatisfying.

Someone suggested that I should've said "intellectually" instead of "emotionally"
I prefer MOABS that take out all terrorists along with any suspected ones in the entire vicinity....Dropped from miles above has always appealed to me.
 
Just finished watching 24: Live Another Day (2014) on a DVD set from the library. The plot, in part, focused on drone strikes that kill innocent civilians. In the bonus materials, the shows producers argued that Jack Bauer would be against drone strikes, preferring to gather intelligence and conduct strikes “on the ground.”

But that is probably a cinematic bias: You can’t have an action hero if all the action is done by a machine. For a while, the whole idea of the heroic fighter diminished after World War I, when the populace realized there was nothing glorious about battle when you never saw your enemy and you were likely to die an anonymous death by machine gun fire, artillery or poison gas.
 
..it has it's uses.....it's a fine weapon in the arsenal ......if the civilians are near the the target, tough shit.....
 
"... for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust."- Mathew 5:45

If terrorist scum like to hide among women and children, it's the terrorists' fault they get killed as a result. Being feral vermin, they don't really care who gets killed, so they hide behind women and children. Good Democrats like this, since they get to pretend they care about the 'innocents n stuff'; meanwhile they demand mass murders of babies by the tens of millions and support commie regimes that murder hundreds of millions, and are planning to murder millions of Americans as soon as they can get away with conducting pogroms here in the U.S..
 
WW2 bombing campaigns were the 20th century equivalent of drone strikes. Were they intellectually satisfying in retrospect?
 

Forum List

Back
Top