Former Drone Pilots Denounce 'Morally Outrageous' Program

Jaybird180

Jaybird180

Final Approach
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
9,034
Location
Near DC
Display Name
Display name:
Jaybird180
Former Air Force airmen are speaking out against America's use of drone warfare, calling the military drone program "morally outrageous" and "one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world." ...
Combined, drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have killed 2,736 to 4,169 militants, according to the New America Foundation.

Meanwhile, those strikes have also killed hundreds of civilians. Estimates range from 488 to 1,071, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-drone-pilots-denounce-morally-outrageous-program-n472496

By my math, that's about a 25% collateral damage rate.
What do you guys think?
 
I think you'll find in most of the past "modern" wars... civilians to military casualties were about 2:1 ...
 
Combined, drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have killed 2,736 to 4,169 militants, according to the New America Foundation.
Click to expand...

Is that all? WTF are they doing over there looking for chicks taking off their hijab's. they need to add a couple more zeros to those estimates.

If they run after the first Hellfire hits they're terrorists. If they stand still, they're well trained terrorists.
 
I've been in the intelligence industry for 25+ years. I've seen the rise of the UAV utilization over the years. Indeed we used to laugh when we only had drones with surveillance capability (we had not yet figured out how to arm them) when some guys would surrender to the recon drones.

ChemGuy: If they're dressed in burka's and hijabs, you just don't lead them so much.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Former Air Force airmen are speaking out against America's use of drone warfare, calling the military drone program "morally outrageous" and "one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world." ...
Combined, drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have killed 2,736 to 4,169 militants, according to the New America Foundation.

Meanwhile, those strikes have also killed hundreds of civilians. Estimates range from 488 to 1,071, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-drone-pilots-denounce-morally-outrageous-program-n472496

By my math, that's about a 25% collateral damage rate.
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

That's really not that bad of a ratio. Far worse atrocities committed in past wars. Drones are far cheaper to operate in this role than manned FW as well.

Recommend the movie "Good Kill." While exaggerated, it gives a good picture of what went on in the UAV ops in OIF / OEF.
 
Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.
 
Shepherd said:
Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.
Click to expand...

While I agree with you; it's easier to feel this way when it's the other guy doing the dying.
 
Jaybird180 said:
By my math, that's about a 25% collateral damage rate.
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

I think that number is only relevant when compared to collateral damage rate from "conventional" warfare...is it higher or lower?

If it is higher....then they need more stringent guidelines to execute

If it is lower...then sounds like a better mousetrap.

The issues raised by the airmen sound like issues related to ANY service member that has a role in pulling the trigger and nothing unique to drone operation that would not apply to any other front line military.
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, drones were invented by the Germans in WW II. They were used by them against civilians intentionally, and so were manned bombers on both sides, in many cases.
 
Palmpilot said:
As I understand it, drones were invented by the Germans in WW II. They were used by them against civilians intentionally, and so were manned bombers on both sides, in many cases.
Click to expand...

The first drone was the Kettering Bug developed by Charles Kettering near the end of WW I. It never made it to combat.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettering_Bug

Cheers
 
Shepherd said:
Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.
Click to expand...

This is true.

However, think about this. Suppose tomorrow the Russians bombed a house in your town. They say terrorists involved in attacking their country were hiding out there and this is probably the case, however shrapnel from the blast also killed an innocent child who happened to be walking by at the time.

The Russians apologize, reiterate that they were targeting a terrorist who is our enemy as well. They give some money to help the family who's child they accidentally killed.

Then a couple days later they do the same thing in another town... maybe this time no innocents die. Then a few days later they do it again... and again... then one day they blow up the local hospital. They apologize profusely, they thought there were chemical weapons in there. The intelligence must have been bad they say. We are your allies, we are fighting a common enemy. Your government gave us permission they say. Indeed this is genuinely their goal, they don't want to hurt innocent people. They really do just want to stop the terrorists.

Would we care? Would we tolerate this? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't. I'm pretty sure just about any people wouldn't. It's absolutely amazing to me that we, as a nation, keep thinking that the people we do this to all the time are not only going to be fine with it, but want to be our partners and allies.

Our record in the middle east over just the past century has been terrible. We may have had good intentions some of the time at least but we have not done well by the people who live there by any means. I would never say they're justified in their attacks... there is no justification for mass murder of civilians obviously. However, at some point you have to step back and stop thinking about who is right or wrong and start dealing with what actually is happening.

Our intervention over there is not doing us any good. It is not keeping us safe, and it is counterproductive to us in almost every way.
 
Jaybird180 said:
While I agree with you; it's easier to feel this way when it's the other guy doing the dying.
Click to expand...
According to Gen. Patton, " . . . no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
 
JOhnH said:
According to Gen. Patton, " . . . no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."
Click to expand...

Civilian collateral casualties serve only as a rallying cry for more retaliatory combat.
 
That's on the low side of what I read:

Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/

But that can't be right because I heard these newer drones are more accurate, more humane, have a lower carbon footprint, keep our troops safe, and end wars sooner. And all the locals walk the streets confidently knowing that the killer skydrones are keeping them safe. I can't wait for them to patrol domestic skies!

119
 
cowman said:
This is true.

However, think about this. Suppose tomorrow the Russians bombed a house in your town. They say terrorists involved in attacking their country were hiding out there and this is probably the case, however shrapnel from the blast also killed an innocent child who happened to be walking by at the time.

The Russians apologize, reiterate that they were targeting a terrorist who is our enemy as well. They give some money to help the family who's child they accidentally killed.

Then a couple days later they do the same thing in another town... maybe this time no innocents die. Then a few days later they do it again... and again... then one day they blow up the local hospital. They apologize profusely, they thought there were chemical weapons in there. The intelligence must have been bad they say. We are your allies, we are fighting a common enemy. Your government gave us permission they say. Indeed this is genuinely their goal, they don't want to hurt innocent people. They really do just want to stop the terrorists.

Would we care? Would we tolerate this? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't. I'm pretty sure just about any people wouldn't. It's absolutely amazing to me that we, as a nation, keep thinking that the people we do this to all the time are not only going to be fine with it, but want to be our partners and allies.

Our record in the middle east over just the past century has been terrible. We may have had good intentions some of the time at least but we have not done well by the people who live there by any means. I would never say they're justified in their attacks... there is no justification for mass murder of civilians obviously. However, at some point you have to step back and stop thinking about who is right or wrong and start dealing with what actually is happening.

Our intervention over there is not doing us any good. It is not keeping us safe, and it is counterproductive to us in almost every way.
Click to expand...

In which case we petition that that the US government cooperates with the Russians and the US military takes out our own. The thing is, if there's a terrorist living in my neighborhood, I'm probably (or at least someone who's innocent in the neighborhood knows) going to know about it. I tell the feds, and it's gets cleaned up real quick like.

If the government of the country they are living isn't going to do anything about it, then there are no civilian casualties.
 
ollopa said:
That's on the low side of what I read:

Obama-led drone strikes kill innocents 90% of the time
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/15/90-of-people-killed-by-us-drone-strikes-in-afghani/
Click to expand...

There's a different between 90% of the time, and 25% of those killed.

If you take out 100 people with each attack, and 90% of the time 30 are civilians, that's a 27% civilian casualty rate.

Or if 90% of the time only 1 civilian is killed, that's a less than 1% civilian casualty rates.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Former Air Force airmen are speaking out against America's use of drone warfare, calling the military drone program "morally outrageous" and "one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization around the world." ...
Combined, drone strikes on Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen have killed 2,736 to 4,169 militants, according to the New America Foundation.

Meanwhile, those strikes have also killed hundreds of civilians. Estimates range from 488 to 1,071, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-drone-pilots-denounce-morally-outrageous-program-n472496

By my math, that's about a 25% collateral damage rate.
What do you guys think?
Click to expand...


What do I think you ask ? Well I think if I had terrorists living in my neighborhood I'd have the brains to put two and two together and freaking MOVE !

Better still - I'd round up all the other "good" Muslims and take care of the situation and not wait for some foreign nation that my new neighbors have just ****ed off to come in and do it for me.

That's what I think. Now let's all hold hands and sing Kumbayah :rolleyes:
 
Government of the country is very loose interpretation. Put it this way, the president of Afghanistan isn't much more than the mayor of Kabul. They are tribal in that part of the world for the most part, with very little respect or regard for central governments. Such is why we've pretty much wasted our time, blood and treasure trying to stand up central authorities.

But having said that, in places like Raqqa, Daesh is the central government. They levy and collect taxes, collect the garbage and administer public affairs, such as they are. Even if residents are there at the point of a gun, they are supporting Daesh. As such, I personally have no issues of conscience with doing a Dresden like offensive.

They left their own sandbox to attack the west. The west can, and should turn their cities to rubble in return, IMHO. Drone strikes aren't sufficient, and collateral damage, while unfortunate, is the price of waging war.
 
EdFred said:
In which case we petition that that the US government cooperates with the Russians and the US military takes out our own. The thing is, if there's a terrorist living in my neighborhood, I'm probably (or at least someone who's innocent in the neighborhood knows) going to know about it. I tell the feds, and it's gets cleaned up real quick like.

If the government of the country they are living isn't going to do anything about it, then there are no civilian casualties.
Click to expand...


Art VanDelay said:
What do I think you ask ? Well I think if I had terrorists living in my neighborhood I'd have the brains to put two and two together and freaking MOVE !

Better still - I'd round up all the other "good" Muslims and take care of the situation and not wait for some foreign nation that my new neighbors have just ****ed off to come in and do it for me.

That's what I think. Now let's all hold hands and sing Kumbayah :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And how would you know if you had terrorists living in your neighborhood?
 
Shepherd said:
Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.
Click to expand...

exactly. especially when those A-holes hide their soldiers in civilian populations and churches. I do feel sorry for the innocent civilians, but at this point, our enemy has to shoulder some of the blame.
 
Jaybird180 said:
While I agree with you; it's easier to feel this way when it's the other guy doing the dying.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Chose your sides carefully and refer to what Patton said. Also: If you don't want to get caught up in the destruction, get out of Dodge.
Finally, in the end it often comes down to pure unadulterated luck.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Ahhhhh,............like it would be difficult to tell ? Seriously is that real question ?
Click to expand...

It's a sarcastic question considering the Federal Government is having a hell of a time doing it. Maybe you should help them out.
 
Jaybird180 said:
And how would you know if you had terrorists living in your neighborhood?
Click to expand...

Well, I don't live in a neighborhood as I'm rural, but we all know each other on this 1-2 mile stretch of road. So, it would be pretty easy to know because, well, we all know each other.
 
Shepherd said:
Give me an f'ing break!
It's not moral, it's not ethical, it's not fair, it's war.
You kill them or they kill you. There are always civilian losses. Some may even be "innocent". But one thing is absolutely true. There is no way to fight a war and not have unwanted casualties.
Click to expand...
Quite a few civilians in the World Trade Center. Lest we forget. I agree with you even though it will not be popular with some.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
 
All's fair in love, war, rock concerts, and workplace Christmas parties.
 
Normal people work hard to not endanger innocents. These militant swine in the middle east are ******* and hide behind their woman and children. They use Mosques and hospitals to store and fire weapons. Collateral damage is their fault, they revel in it.
 
I like Hellfires. I mean, I REALLY like 'em.

So, let your country(or tribe with a flag) go to pot, become a cess pool and refuge for mercenaries and radical fools, watch them poke a super power in the eye, then wait on the inevetible response. . .works for me.

To my mind, they killed their own innocents, brought down the steel sh*t storm on their own people. Not being omnipotent, we make a mistake from time to time. A mistake. . nit a war crime, not a deliberate mass murder. . . Eff 'em.
 
Sundancer said:
I like Hellfires. I mean, I REALLY like 'em.



So, let your country(or tribe with a flag) go to pot, become a cess pool and refuge for mercenaries and radical fools, watch them poke a super power in the eye, then wait on the inevetible response. . .works for me.



To my mind, they killed their own innocents, brought down the steel sh*t storm on their own people. Not being omnipotent, we make a mistake from time to time. A mistake. . nit a war crime, not a deliberate mass murder. . . Eff 'em.
Click to expand...


Exactly.
 
Jaybird180 said:
It's a sarcastic question considering the Federal Government is having a hell of a time doing it. Maybe you should help them out.
Click to expand...

From your own numbers that you cite looks like they're doing fine. What would be your observation as to the type of responses your getting from other posts here as to just how much sleep the rest of us are losing over this ?
 
Jaybird180 said:
While I agree with you; it's easier to feel this way when it's the other guy doing the dying.
Click to expand...

Good thing we're on the right side, then. As others have said, the real problem is that the countries where this is happening don't take care of it themselves.

Why didn't Pakistan kill Bin Laden?
 
My opposition to the drone strikes has little to do with sympathy for the local people.... although that wouldn't hurt.

To paint a picture here... imagine the middle east as a big tree and that tree is full of big hornet's nest(terrorist groups). What we are doing is trying to take down the hornet's nests by throwing rocks at them. In this case million dollar rocks I might just add.

We've been stung... so we huck some more rocks at the hornet's nests. They all get stirred up, we get stung again and every time we do this, we are surprised by it for some reason. We huck more rocks... we take down a nest or two, pat ourselves on the back and go home. But taking down the nest doesn't kill all the hornets, they just build a new nest somewhere else on the tree and we're back to square one.

It's a stupid strategy. It's the same crap we did for years before 9/11 just scaled up... look what happened there. Then, after 9/11 we went in hardcore. We stopped fooling around with hucking cruise missiles and sent the military in. We took down all those hornet's nests..... and all the hornets again just built new ones. It was a good try, but it didn't work out.

At this point I think it's time to either just stay away from that tree and leave the hornets alone... or burn down the whole tree and possibly start WWIII in the process. I'm partial to the walking away thing, it's a lot cheaper and easier.
 
cowman said:
My opposition to the drone strikes has little to do with sympathy for the local people.... although that wouldn't hurt.

To paint a picture here... imagine the middle east as a big tree and that tree is full of big hornet's nest(terrorist groups). What we are doing is trying to take down the hornet's nests by throwing rocks at them. In this case million dollar rocks I might just add.

We've been stung... so we huck some more rocks at the hornet's nests. They all get stirred up, we get stung again and every time we do this, we are surprised by it for some reason. We huck more rocks... we take down a nest or two, pat ourselves on the back and go home. But taking down the nest doesn't kill all the hornets, they just build a new nest somewhere else on the tree and we're back to square one.

It's a stupid strategy. It's the same crap we did for years before 9/11 just scaled up... look what happened there. Then, after 9/11 we went in hardcore. We stopped fooling around with hucking cruise missiles and sent the military in. We took down all those hornet's nests..... and all the hornets again just built new ones. It was a good try, but it didn't work out.

At this point I think it's time to either just stay away from that tree and leave the hornets alone... or burn down the whole tree and possibly start WWIII in the process. I'm partial to the walking away thing, it's a lot cheaper and easier.
Click to expand...
Analogy is always shaky, or at least suspect - but allow me to pitch one, in the the same mold, as well; ignore the snakes in the attic, 'cause it's nasty and dangerous to deal with them. Retreat to the lower levels of the house, until you're living in the basement. Hope they don't come down.

It may be that a long, simmering, semi-effective strategy of containment, a'la the current one, with variations, is the unsatisfying, but best option. Like weed control, or dealing with a chronic, but manageble medical condition.

Not sure we should be looking for the cheapest, easiest, or safest solution. Then again, I have new grand kids.

For senior management, it's a business, and Islam is a tool to help fill the ranks. Lost your job as a Republican Guard big shot in 2003? Mosey on over to Syria, pick up a few bucks, take advantage of the ignorant, fanatic, or naive. . .
 
EdFred said:
There's a different between 90% of the time, and 25% of those killed.

If you take out 100 people with each attack, and 90% of the time 30 are civilians, that's a 27% civilian casualty rate.

Or if 90% of the time only 1 civilian is killed, that's a less than 1% civilian casualty rates.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Click to expand...

Oh My God! There's a difference between the headline and the article content too, if you'd bother to RTFA:

During one five-month period of the operation, according to the documents, nearly 90 percent of the people killed in airstrikes were not the intended targets.
Click to expand...

Why do I even bother posting links.
 
cowman said:
My opposition to the drone strikes has little to do with sympathy for the local people.... although that wouldn't hurt.

To paint a picture here... imagine the middle east as a big tree and that tree is full of big hornet's nest(terrorist groups). What we are doing is trying to take down the hornet's nests by throwing rocks at them. In this case million dollar rocks I might just add.

We've been stung... so we huck some more rocks at the hornet's nests. They all get stirred up, we get stung again and every time we do this, we are surprised by it for some reason. We huck more rocks... we take down a nest or two, pat ourselves on the back and go home. But taking down the nest doesn't kill all the hornets, they just build a new nest somewhere else on the tree and we're back to square one.

It's a stupid strategy. It's the same crap we did for years before 9/11 just scaled up... look what happened there. Then, after 9/11 we went in hardcore. We stopped fooling around with hucking cruise missiles and sent the military in. We took down all those hornet's nests..... and all the hornets again just built new ones. It was a good try, but it didn't work out.

At this point I think it's time to either just stay away from that tree and leave the hornets alone... or burn down the whole tree and possibly start WWIII in the process. I'm partial to the walking away thing, it's a lot cheaper and easier.
Click to expand...

I agree. We were throwing rocks at the hornet's nests long before 9/11 either directly by our own actions or by supporting Israel. Since 9/11, we have only made things worse. Although I believe that 9/11 was a horrendous act and we needed to hunt down the so called mastermind of the operation, I believe that our continued forays into that part of the world will only bring us more grief. I do not agree with the terrorists acts but I do understand why they hate us. The best thing to do is to leave that part of the world to its own demise. Both Bush & Obama have made us less safe with their actions. Unfortunately most of the current candidates are engaging in sabre ratting type talk and I see no hope for an end to it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top