Harvard Study Suggests Drone Strikes Can Disrupt Terror Groups 429
An anonymous reader writes "Can drone strikes rid the world of terror groups? Many have argued that drones/UAVs seem to be a logical weapon of war: ground troops are not needed and strikes can be specifically targeted against terror-cell leaders (so-called 'decapitation strikes). Others have argued that such attacks only fuel more anger towards the United States and the West while also trampling on nations like Pakistan's sovereign rights and territory. Two recent studies published by Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government suggest 'On the basis of comprehensive analyses of data on multiple terrorist and insurgent organizations, these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate.' It seems then drones and UAVs will be a weapon of war for a long time to come."
In much the same way... (Score:4, Insightful)
That a tactical nuke can disrupt a picnic... this is news?
Headline != article (Score:5, Insightful)
FTA
these studies conclude that killing or capturing terrorist leaders can reduce the effectiveness of terrorist groups or even cause terrorist organizations to disintegrate
The studies conclude that killing the leaders of terrorist groups hurts the groups.
UAVs are one tool available, as are Special Forces, and traditional military force. I suppose the conclusion of the headline is correct though, UAVs are an effective weapon. Who knew?
Strange arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice. It's just that these things don't have much to do with each other and not much more with the study's topics. A terrorist organization "disintegrating" does not mean there won't be another one.
I can't help the feeling that any study about actual politics -especially the more questionable part of it- that will be presented to the public will be in favor of the status quo.
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry. We'll just do like President Clark in Babylon 5: "Redefine the problem so it no longer exists. There are not homeless on Earth. They are simply..... displaced..... persons."
You see the U.S. drones did not miss the target..... everyone in the killzone is defined as an "enemy combatant" even if they weren't. Hence the president can claim zero civilian casualties in his speeches.
Re:Before you start throwing missiles (Score:5, Insightful)
The atavist exploiting soft targets because the world fails to conform to his faith.
Re:Before you start throwing missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
...Ask yourself, then answer: who is the real terrorist?
The "real" terrorist is the one who uses terror (seemingly random attacks on the general population) for political ends. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. The US Military is not. Neither is the Taliban.
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's how politics is sabotaging honest analysis and discussion of possible effectiveness, and a legitimate discussion of what needs to be improved for such technology to actually be useful.
Flying two stealth helicopters into Pakistan and shooting up a house full of people wasn't about to make them any happier than a drone strike would. But at least the helicopters make it seem like the US side was taking some human risks to achieve its goals, but if the Pakistanis had shot down the helicopters, or if it was the wrong building, someone not particularly high value or the like it would have played out very differently.
What the article is trying to analyse is whether or not targeted assassinations can actually be effective at tearing apart terror networks. It seems reasonably obvious that they can be, on the occasion that they're targeted on the right people, and then actually kill those people. Even if you kill innocent civilians at the same time, those angered to take arms against in retaliation don't have the practical experience or leadership role in an existing terrorist network to pick up where the dead guy left off. That's almost classic Clausewitz destroying their political and military organizational capabilities, and not being particularly concerned with the total mass of the enemy force, as long as it can't organize it's not a serious threat.
It's also pretty obvious, as you somewhat cynically point out, that claiming 'zero casualties' and so on are lies. Tracking the repercussions of those, and and long term consequences of drone strikes is going to be much messier. You might be able to tear down the Al Qaeda networks of suicide bombers and so on, but the next guy might be happy to use drones against you (or for other, less directly murderous purposes, like drug running).
Honestly, my biggest fear with drone strikes in the long run is more about what crazy people will do with the technology when it trickles down enough into the civilian world ( you can already get RC flying vehicles it's just cost prohibitive at the moment). Are you going to see the 'minutemen' or equivalent using drones to shoot people trying to (potentially illegally) cross into the US for example? How about Italians or Spaniards trying to sink immigrant ships off their southern coasts. That sort of thing could go badly real fast. Do you want rich people using drones to 'patrol' the area their estates and, because it's their right to defend their property, shooting anyone who might look like they're illegally trespassing? Sure, this might work for taking down Al Qaeda, but I'd be far more worried about whomever is next on the list (which could be a reborn version of Al Qaeda for all it matters).
Foolish, foolish (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine what would happen if the US government or law enforcement agencies started making drone kills within our own borders, saying "we only target terrorists and drug lords; so sorry if we occasionally hit a church gathering or a country club".
After pausing to consider how that would make you feel, imagine how we're making people in other countries feel.
The problem with the Western Powers is that they're always wrapping themselves in the banner of moral "rights". If we exploit the natives and some of them react violently, we have a "right" to respond with overwhelming force. After all, "they started it".
But this focus on presumed (and self-declared) rights is utterly incompatible with actually addressing the cause of the problem.
If we want peace with the Muslim world, we need to go home and quit treating them like subjects who are illegally camped on "our" oil supply.
International Terrorism: Image and Reality (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199112--02.htm [chomsky.info] ... ..."
"There are two ways to approach the study of terrorism. One may adopt a literal approach, taking the topic seriously, or a propagandistic approach, construing the concept of terrorism as a weapon to be exploited in the service of some system of power. In each case it is clear how to proceed. Pursuing the literal approach, we begin by determining what constitutes terrorism. We then seek instances of the phenomenon -- concentrating on the major examples, if we are serious -- and try to determine causes and remedies. The propagandistic approach dictates a different course. We begin with the thesis that terrorism is the responsibility of some officially designated enemy. We then designate terrorist acts as "terrorist" just in the cases where they can be attributed (whether plausibly or not) to the required source; otherwise they are to be ignored, suppressed, or termed "retaliation" or "self-defence."
It comes as no surprise that the propagandistic approach is adopted by governments generally, and by their instruments in totalitarian states. More interesting is the fact that the same is largely true of the media and scholarship in the Western industrial democracies, as has been documented in extensive detail.1 "We must recognize," Michael Stohl observes, "that by convention -- and it must be emphasized only by convention -- great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism," though it commonly involves "the threat and often the use of violence for what would be described as terroristic purposes were it not great powers who were pursuing the very same tactic."2 Only one qualification must be added: the term "great powers" must be restricted to favored states; in the Western conventions under discussion, the Soviet Union is granted no such rhetorical license, and indeed can be charged and convicted on the flimsiest of evidence.
The message is clear: no one has the right of self-defense against US terrorist attack. The US is a terrorist state by right. That is unchallengeable doctrine.
And:
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200205--02.htm [chomsky.info]
"The condemnations of terrorism are sound, but leave some questions unanswered. The first is: What do we mean by "terrorism"? Second: What is the proper response to the crime? Whatever the answer, it must at least satisfy a moral truism: If we propose some principle that is to be applied to antagonists, then we must agree -- in fact, strenuously insist -- that the principle apply to us as well. Those who do not rise even to this minimal level of integrity plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of right and wrong, good and evil."
Re:But what about the kids of dead parents? (Score:5, Insightful)
It would stop if people got past the "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" teachings of the Old Testament (I am not sure what the quran says about this but I bet there is a similar quote). People need to look at the specific people they are considering killing, see them as individuals and ask "Has this specific person wronged me or the people I an sworn to protect in such a way as to deserve death?". I believe in most cases the answer will be no; especially in generational conflicts. Maybe this will stop the "An American killed my father; you are an American prepare to die". Did the person being threatened do the killing? No, therefore that specific person does not deserve death. Perhaps that can change to "An American killed my father but you did not do it yourself therefore I will not kill you".
When we can get away from battles between factions and deconstruct it to what it really is, people killing people, maybe we can stop the cycle.
Some may call drone strikes terrorism but I do not. In my mind the difference is intent. The intent of a drone strike is to eliminate the training and control structure of a organization whose main goal is to inflict damage on the Western World. This is very different than the intent of al-Qaeda which is to change policy by terrorizing people. The fact that drones sometimes miss and usually kill possibly innocent people does not change the intent. How many terrorist commanders are deliberately staying in civilian areas to try to protect themselves. Should we allow enemy commanders to use human shields? It is well known that the US will take out and al-Qaeda leader they find. It is up to the al-Qaeda leader to decide whose lives are put at risk by being close by. How many of the "innocent civilians" are actually supplying and supporting terrorists or possibly terrorists themselves?
Re:Before you start throwing missiles (Score:5, Insightful)
WOW, repeat after me... Too much coffee... I'm not going to even touch the bigotry... like there aren't several million peaceful and productive Muslim's in the U.S. living theirs lives and not bothering ANYBODY. So let's just address the corporate thing. Can't speak for the guy before you, but if you knew anything about the region and its people, you could pretty much trace this whole mess back through a century and a half of corporations (mostly British in the beginning) screwing up the cultural development of the middle east for industrial and colonial purposes. I can tell reading isn't your first choice of entertainment or information (sorry, FOX News doesn't count as a source of information)... Let's try this, ever see the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" you know, arguable one of the best film ever made? [wikipedia.org] Remember Larry is English? If you had any hint of history under your belt, you wouldn't even be making the statement above.
The entire mess with Islam, is a logical progression of disasters that blossoms fully with oil companies succeeded in exploiting the inhabitants of the middle-east. The social and religious impacts of sudden wealth, the conflicts arising from the invention of the State of Israel, and the protracted use of wealth by Saudi Arabia (our good buddies in the region) to export the most violent and radical of Islamic faiths around the world (and we let them, because they give us oil), has lead to the geopolitical landscape you see today. Both Gulf wars were about oil. The failed attempt to turn Iraq into an American satellite was about oil. Our current support of the infant democracy in Libya... is about, repeat after me... OIL. don't get me wrong. If we can do something genuinely decent, we absolutely will, as long as we can get the goodies while we're at it. So, let's recap. If you're talking about American foreign policy, and you can't see the exchange of currency or corporate interest, you're not looking hard enough. Thanks for playing, please take a parting gift on the way out.
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you going to see the 'minutemen' or equivalent using drones to shoot people trying to (potentially illegally) cross into the US for example? How about Italians or Spaniards trying to sink immigrant ships off their southern coasts. That sort of thing could go badly real fast. Do you want rich people using drones to 'patrol' the area their estates and, because it's their right to defend their property, shooting anyone who might look like they're illegally trespassing?
You have very ideologically peculiar concerns. It's far more likely that a lone nut uses one to shoot people on a highway or in a mall. "Minutemen" can just shoot people with guns, if that were their inclination. It doesn't seem to be. Nor do Spaniards and Italians seem xenophobic enough to shoot strangers on sight now, much less with military-grade drones. And rich people killing people who merely trespass? What planet do you come from? They risk jail by doing that. Far better to call the cops and throw the trespassers into jail for a while.
We might as well worry about ecoterrorists blowing up construction equipment or car lots. Or Luddites blowing up factories.
Re:Before you start throwing missiles (Score:4, Insightful)
around the time massive mineral resources are discovered in the mountains of Afghanistan, suddenly he is public enemy #1!?
Maybe, but it's also around the time he orchestrated a plot which ended in planes flying into the WTC and killing almost 4,000 people. I mean, if you're going to create some massive conspiracy to facilitate an invasion of a country, why would you choose the landlocked shithole with a long history of successfully resisting foreign occupations that is Afghanistan?
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, you're right. And right to question the drone strikes will kill them fast enough to outstrip their ability to recruit and train replacements.
It gets hard to judge in such a decentralized, "franchised" group.
While you can't deny that there haven't been any 9/11 style attacks in the US, I'm still really ambivalent about the methods being used.
Drones are a reasonable scaled response (Score:2, Insightful)
You attack with a conventional army I respond in kind.
You use guerrilla warfare, I use special ops.
Use terrorism? Right back at you with drones - you never know when it will strike.
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:4, Insightful)
A small drone, with camera and scrambled controller that can carry a 2 ounce explosive, with a range of 1000 yards can be bought for under $1000, (some for under $300 - with less range and load capability). With such a device, which can be delivered to your door by UPS, can any person be immune from assassination by any other motivated person?
We are entering a period of vulnerability where terrorists can buy such drones and attack anyone. I wonder when the first such attack will occur?
Re:Headline != article (Score:5, Insightful)
The French in Algeria found that the faster they executed suspected rebels the larger the rebellion got, and more capable organisers previously in the mainstream joined up and made the rebellion far more capable.
Extreme measures draw extreme responses and tend to cause problems at home as well (France again - attempted assassination of the President by ex-servicemen that carried out executions in Algeria).
I wonder if.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not pro-terrorist by any means, but you should really investigate both sides of the story and not just believe the propaganda machine. Many of these people see no option. They know they can't outgun the soldiers, but don't want to be conquered. You won't like hearing it, but that is exactly what most of them see and is happening. The US comes in, sets up sock puppets, takes all their goods, tells them they can't do things they normally do or need to do for their Religion, etc... US Soldiers for the most part fine, but when the US companies and their Private Security come in, fuck up their economy, trash their neighborhoods, bully them around, break the law and flaunt it, people get pissed off.
Are there some wackos there also? Sure, but in most cases it's not the wackos that are recruited.. it's Kids that can't get jobs, watch their familes get bullied around or killed, watch friends and neighbors get sick from all the DU rounds we leave in the area and never clean up (US Soldiers get screwed by that one also, do some reading.), etc.. etc...
The point is, there is plenty of blame to go around. At this point in time, I find the amount of ignorance staggering and inexcusable. There is simply no excuse to believe everything you are told, facts are _everywhere_! It's rare to find them on the Evening News, but they are there.
Re:Drones strikes are great... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't really care about blame. I don't give a terrorist an iota of sympathy or credit for anything. You choose what you do to other people. Attacking women and children who are unrelated to the issue does not fix the problem. If you can't actually hit the objectives with the force you have, then you have lost and it is time to think about the best outcome for your people. In 50 years, it is very likely something could have been done to ensure the peaceful prosperity of the Palestinian people or those in any other depressed area.
I don't have a problem with people who want to be suicide bombers, only their choice of targets. If they are that committed to their cause, that is their choice. However, suicide bombers can be aimed at soldiers or objectives as much they can civilians. Yes, it is harder to get an impact that way against a prepared enemy, but it's not impossible. More to the point, they are actually fighting for a legitimate objective, as opposed to trying to terrorize people.
Half of the area of the Christian Roman Empire was conquered by Arabs in the 7th and 8th Century. Did those conquered start attacking women and children because of their "homeland" or culture? No. They dealt with it, many converted, and today many of their descendants are Palestinians who are now blowing things up in the name of Allah. This terrorist phenomenon has nothing to do with the inherent grievances of a conquered people, and everything to do with new methods of being able to control people by inducing feelings of hopelessness, fear and anger for bullshit constructs like "the Arab nation", or "Palestine" (which hasn't been an independent state since King Herod). \
There is nothing that ails Palestinians today that can't be corrected by simply trying to get the best possible deal for their people and giving up the political BS like "Jerusalem is the capital of Palestine" and crap like that. Secure a seaport, trade deals and sufficient contiguous land connections to make a nation work, and if it is important to you, set up visitation rights for holy areas. Renounce terrorism and firmly renounce the ridiculous idea of pushing the Jews back into the sea. Stop being used as a proxy for Iran and other countries so they can screw over Israel. That's it.
With the Arabs, they've lost three wars, had countless children killed or blown up. At some point you recognize that you lost, and that you're only making it worse for yourselves. They can start over, and hard as that could be, it's a lot brighter future than the hole that they are in right now. I am not saying that it wouldn't be difficult, but holy shit, what is better for your family, working to create a future for your people or blowing yourself into meat bits?