• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups [W:165]

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

As usual HRW and the like have done a fairly poor job at war analysis and reporting. I'll repost from another thread:

That is totally unsubstantiated and weighs strongly against the facts that have been collected. The claim that we kill more innocents than terrorists is probably the least supported of all, and in fact drones probably have some of the greatest militant to civilian casualty ratios of any comparable weapon or tactic in our arsenal, they have been rather remarkable tools. The Long War Journal and the New America Foundation two of the more prominent think tanks and news outlets that cover drone strikes have created detailed and meticulous data on US drone strikes, with a specific focus on Pakistan. In particular the Long War Journal is critically acclaimed for its contacts among Pakistani and Waziri media. They both have estimates for militant lows and highs and civilian lows and highs, they break down as 1,600-2,800 and 150-190 respectively. This makes sense if you think about it because drones have the capacity to loiter on a target for an enormous period of time which over the past decade has vastly increased our capacity for observing and discerning militant and civilian targets and allowed us to deliver much smaller warheads to targets with an increased degree of confidence.

The notion that we are killing hundreds of civilians in drone strikes is a myth pushed along by elements of the Pakistani media, and a self-flagellating narrative. It is totally unsupported by the facts. This was particularly supported by the Associated Press which did wide ranging research and interviews inside FATA which massively discredited Pakistani media and civil society groups: AP IMPACT: New light on drone war's death toll - Boston.com

The Long War Journal - Charts on US Strikes in Pakistan
The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Moreover lets move to the next argument which involves their efficacy and their impact on civilians. The first and most salient point is that since so few civilians are killed it actually has had an incredibly reduced impact on the civilian population at large compared to lets say the Pakistani Army offensives which aimed to accomplish the same thing. In fact drone strikes are more opposed outside FATA than inside them eight times more supportive, and only a minority 48% think they are killing civilians frequently which is in stark contrast to the rest of the country ("Four Myths about Drone Strikes" by By Shehzad H. Qazi & Shoaib Jillani). Many journalists have substantiated this point in field research, with several Afghani/Pakistani native journalists working for FP going to Waziristan and reporting on the efficacy of drone strikes and the fact that many in the tribal belt actually support them as a superior means than the Pakistani military or air strikes.

Finally the most repeated claim, and the one with almost no evidence to support it is that we are merely creating new terrorists or militants. This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this (http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf).

To sum up my position I'll quote Zmarak Yousefzai, a US based Afghan and Pakistani national security expert writes: "Nevertheless, by yet another comparison of hypocrisy, those who are loudest about casualties from U.S. drone strikes have rarely protested the far higher numbers of civilian casualties as a result of Pakistan Army operations or Taliban violence in the Swat Valley and FATA. Silenced in this double standard are the varying motives of different parties as well as the voice of the Pashtun people in these tribal areas. At least one voice -- that of this native Pashtun -- is speaking out to say that there are serious downsides to these drone strikes, but they may be a necessary evil and the lone option to combat those who are responsible for the severe suffering of our people - like Malala Yousafzai."

Voice of a native son: Drones may be a necessary evil - by Zmarak Yousefzai | The AfPak Channel


Moreover the Pakistani government has very recently conceded that relatively few civilians have died in US drone strikes confirming what most military analysis and eyewitness reports have been saying all along.

"The Ministry of Defense released figures to lawmakers saying that 67 civilians were among 2,227 people killed in 317 drone strikes since 2008. The remainder of those killed were Islamist militants, the ministry said. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/world/asia/pakistan-drone-strikes.html?_r=0
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say - The Washington Post

"Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare.

In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack. "


Is it time to stop the drone attacks?




After we kill the last terrorist we can think about stopping drone attacks.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

What's "flippant" is thinking killing children and civilians in other countries will prevent people in other countries from wanting to kill children and civilians in ours.


Twisted, cyclical, costly, and deadly logic.

Drones are an effective way to dramatically reduce the number of children and civilians killed, which they have already done. There also remains no evidence that drone strikes have had a substantive impact on militant recruitment in any measurable way.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

And what? Send in the Marines? The B52's?

I asked these guys whether they would prefer to see their friends and kids killed. Seemingly they would, though they are too timid to admit it.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

What you're advocating won't stop the cycle, it will merely perpetuate it. Bombs, destruction, and death will breed only further bombs, destruction, and death.

The intellectual dishonesty of your argument is your false dichotomy where you pretend it's either violence or nothing.

That is a common refrain but it is almost never true. The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.

Seems to justify using nuclear weapons.
Been far too long since we've "tested" a good nuke on some actual humans hasn't it?

Lets try some out.

right?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say


A straw man. I'm not advocating testing weapons, or eviscerating humans for the sake of doing so. That would be despicable. What I'm saying is the self-evident point that the application of violence very frequently is the cause for the end of conflict. We could rattle off a litany of examples from the past half century most of which have not seen a recurrence of conflict. Hence my point.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

After we kill the last terrorist we can think about stopping drone attacks.

That will never happen. When you kill someone's father, brother, sister, child, friend accidently. The survivors do not care that it was an accident. Suddenly all that bull**** they used to hear from local extremist groups, starts to make sense. They too, now want to strike at the Americans.

Drone strikes are the greatest terrorist recruiting aid there is.

It is time for saner heads to prevail. The problem in America is that saner heads are 'Soft on Terror'. American foreign policy has never been one filled with foresight. Foresight doesn't win elections.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

After we kill the last terrorist we can think about stopping drone attacks.

Terrorize the innocent civilians until the terrorists are all killed. Excellent. Police should do random home inspections until all criminals are locked up.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

That will never happen. When you kill someone's father, brother, sister, child, friend accidently. The survivors do not care that it was an accident. Suddenly all that bull**** they used to hear from local extremist groups, starts to make sense. They too, now want to strike at the Americans.

Drone strikes are the greatest terrorist recruiting aid there is.

It is time for saner heads to prevail. The problem in America is that saner heads are 'Soft on Terror'. American foreign policy has never been one filled with foresight. Foresight doesn't win elections.

Utterly false. Numerous actual studies (studies not reports) have been fairly definitive on this question.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Utterly false. Numerous actual studies (studies not reports) have been fairly definitive on this question.

Please share. I have not seen them.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Please share. I have not seen them.

I posted an enormous post on the page before this to several of them. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I posted an enormous post on the page before this to several of them. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.

I did not read the other page, but thanks for the link.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I posted an enormous post on the page before this to several of them. Here is the most comprehensive study ever conducted on the impact of drone strike: http://patrickjohnston.info/materials/drones.pdf

This trope has become pervasive over the last decade, but it rarely has any evidence in fact and shows no understanding for the demographics of militant groups, their recruitment pools, or the situation they are involved in. A detailed study by the RAND corporation between 2004-2010 found that there was a negative correlation between drone strikes and militant recruitment. In other words there is no evidence at all that drone strikes or the lack thereof had an impact on recruitment and that other factors as is usual contributed to this.

The RAND study is taken as a superior standard and has wider currency in policy circles because it was based on quantitative research and had a replicatable methodology and concluded that there was a negative or non-existent correlation between drone strikes and recruitment efforts. As opposed to things like the Colombia Report was and is a report, not a study. It consisted of analysis and author insight based on cited accounts, I could cite a hundred of these right back for you.

A small issue with the paper you posted. It openly admits that social scientists have done little to analyze the situation. The paper is also during the time period of US occupation. It also correlates the effects of the drone strikes to the reprisal attacks without taking into account the military operations on the ground, or the effect of a standing militia. It attributed the curb in success and frequency to drone strikes. I am not saying it is wrong, but I think there is more to it.

It also doesn't take into account what is happening today. There has been a resurgence of AQ in Iraq after we have left. Drone strike them all you want, but we don't have boots on the ground and they are all of a sudden showing back up.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Terrorize the innocent civilians until the terrorists are all killed.
Excellent. Police should do random home inspections until all criminals are locked up.




Anyone who is hanging out with terrorists is not an innocent civilian.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Anyone who is hanging out with terrorists is not an innocent civilian.

If my neighbor is a criminal, I am a criminal?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

If my neighbor is a criminal, I am a criminal?

A criminal? We're talking about terrorists that have killed many innocent people and have every intention of continuing. And they are beyond the reach of any police force. If your neighbor is that, then you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry, but we've got hundreds to save and you've failed to police your own neighborhood. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I think it is time for the human rights watch to actually stand for human rights by taking into account the business terrorists and their supporters are engaged in.

You are wrongly assuming that everyone killed is guilty.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

A small issue with the paper you posted. It openly admits that social scientists have done little to analyze the situation. The paper is also during the time period of US occupation. It also correlates the effects of the drone strikes to the reprisal attacks without taking into account the military operations on the ground, or the effect of a standing militia. It attributed the curb in success and frequency to drone strikes. I am not saying it is wrong, but I think there is more to it.

It also doesn't take into account what is happening today. There has been a resurgence of AQ in Iraq after we have left. Drone strike them all you want, but we don't have boots on the ground and they are all of a sudden showing back up.

I'm not sure what you are referring to. We still have a very large troop contingent in Afghanistan and we never had soldiers in Pakistan. This concerns Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. Perhaps you confused that?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Most terrorist attacks and most civilian deaths by terrorists happen outside the USofA, and happen to citizens who are not of US origin.

Let those countries deal with their own terrorists.

We've dealt with those who attacked the US on 9/11 and those who orchestrated it.

Time to get out. Time to come home.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Most terrorist attacks and most civilian deaths by terrorists happen outside the USofA, and happen to citizens who are not of US origin.

Let those countries deal with their own terrorists.

We've dealt with those who attacked the US on 9/11 and those who orchestrated it.

Time to get out. Time to come home.

Amen!
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

A straw man. I'm not advocating testing weapons, or eviscerating humans for the sake of doing so. That would be despicable. What I'm saying is the self-evident point that the application of violence very frequently is the cause for the end of conflict. We could rattle off a litany of examples from the past half century most of which have not seen a recurrence of conflict. Hence my point.


How'd that work for the US against Vietnam?
How's it worked after how many years in Afghanistan and Iraq?
How well did it work for the Russians in Afghanistan?
How well has it worked when fighting drugs in the US?

How many American soldiers must die to attempt to rid the world of terrorists?

How much American money must be spent on fighting windmills in the Middle East?

How many years should we keep this charade going?

Are you like McCain? 100 more years if needed?

If your neighbor is blasting loud music, do you attempt to silence them with louder music?

At what point does the cost of the "war on terror" become too expensive for you and make you reconsider who you attempt to solve the overall problem?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

How'd that work for the US against Vietnam?
How's it worked after how many years in Afghanistan and Iraq?
How well did it work for the Russians in Afghanistan?
How well has it worked when fighting drugs in the US?

How many American soldiers must die to attempt to rid the world of terrorists?

How much American money must be spent on fighting windmills in the Middle East?

How many years should we keep this charade going?

Are you like McCain? 100 more years if needed?

If your neighbor is blasting loud music, do you attempt to silence them with louder music?

At what point does the cost of the "war on terror" become too expensive for you and make you reconsider who you attempt to solve the overall problem?

This is very silly. Obviously you can create a tally of wars that have defined endings and wars that do not, but at the end of the day more conflicts have been concluded than not. Moreover your examples work against you! In Vietnam the application of violence by the North Vietnamese resulted in the defeat of South Vietnam and the restoration of peace in the country. Was it a desired outcome? I'd say not, but it was a definite outcome. Likewise for Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Just as many times if not many more we have prevailed such as in Korea, the Gulf War, etc.

The simple point is that violence does not simply breed violence, it also often ends violence.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Most terrorist attacks and most civilian deaths by terrorists happen outside the USofA, and happen to citizens who are not of US origin.

Let those countries deal with their own terrorists.

We've dealt with those who attacked the US on 9/11 and those who orchestrated it.

Time to get out. Time to come home.


What a small minded and isolationist vision. The death of a Briton, an Indian, or a South Korean diminishes me as well. Perhaps not as much as my fellow American, but it stings. I want to build a better world, not construct a Festung America.
 
Back
Top Bottom