International, Justice, Media

Targeted Hype

-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger

We are so kind to ourselves. John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, repeats the Obama narrative that touts the “surgical” precision and minimization of collateral damage of “targeted killing” using drones. Minimal collateral damage would be zero, however, a study by NYU School of Law and Stanford Law School puts the number of civilians killed between 474 and 881, including 176 children.

The study calls Obama’s narrative “false.”

The NYU/Stanford study also reports on Obama’s despicable use of the “double tap”:

The US practice of striking one area multiple times, and evidence that it has killed rescuers, makes both community members and humanitarian workers afraid or unwilling to assist injured victims.

Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur and Professor of Human Rights Law, has said that if first responders “are indeed being intentionally targeted, there is no doubt about the law: those strikes are a war crime.”

Reaper drones carry the Hellfire II laser guided missile with a 20 pound warhead of high explosive, and two 500-pound GBU-12 laser-guided bombs. The GBU-12 has a blast radius of 200 meters, hardly surgical. These are the same weapons that are dropped from other platforms such as manned aircraft. Their precision is not enhanced when launched from drones.

The Hellfire missile has a Circular Error Probability (CEP), the distance from the aiming point that the missile will land 50% of the time, from 9 to 24 feet. he NYU/Stanford study cites a claim that the “double tap” may be a second strike required because the first one missed the target, although that is hardly a mitigating circumstance.

The NYU/Stanford study also notes that “the vast majority of the ‘militants’ targeted have been low-level insurgents.” The number of “high-level” targets is estimated at only 2%.

The Obama administration is using Bush-style tactics to cover up the killing of women and children. This includes over-hyping the accuracy of the weapons and redefining the term “militant” to include anyone who’s killed.

While drones can play an effective role as intelligence gathers and fire support on the battlefield, their inaccuracy makes them unsuitable for “targeted killing.” The probability of a drone strike killing women and children is so high that the drone can be reasonably considered a terror weapon and its use an act of terrorism. The media’s collusion on the Obama narrative enables the terrorism.

H/T: Glenn Greenwald, Kevin Drum, Daniel L. Byman (Brookings), TBIJ, Aviation International News, openDemocracy.

121 thoughts on “Targeted Hype”

  4. US troops in Afghanistan to get personal, portable killer drones
    Two-foot-long Switchblade designed to be simple to carry, fly use send to self-destructive attack
    By Kevin Fogarty
    June 15, 2012
    http://www.itworld.com/security/281350/us-troops-afghanistan-get-personal-portable-killer-drones

    Excerpt:
    This summer the Pentagon will send test samples of yet another generation of killer drones to Afghanistan – in the backpacks of U.S. soldiers.

    The Army will ship about 50 of the new, Switchblade mini-UAVs to Afghanistan during the next month or so, according to the Los Angeles Times.

    The Army will put the new drones in the hands of front-line U.S. special-forces units to give them a way to get a bird’s-eye-view of the battlefield, and attack snipers or other specific threats by diving on them and setting off the small warhead it carries.

    Switchblade is a precision-strike weapon that poses far less of a risk to civilians that strikes from Predator or Global Hawk drones, which carry 100-pound, laser-guided Hellfire missiles or 500-pound bombs, according to William I. Nichols, who headed the Army’s Switchblade development project at Redstone Arsenal near Huntsville, Ala., according to the LAT.

    The Pentagon is under orders to avoid civilian casualties from drone strikes, that have become a larger military and political problem for the White House, which has had to defend them against complaints from Pakistan and from anti-war groups.

    However, Switchblade’s greater value may be to ground troops, who chronically complain that the Air Force provides inadequate air cover for firefights on the ground.

    Air Force pilots who fly the drones that now make up a third of the U.S. military aircraft in Afghanistan tend to focus more on their own intelligence-gathering and strike missions than on supporting troops on the ground, as some U.S. troops have complained.

  5. As a member of a Human Rights group I have been disgusted with the media’s silence on this issue. Even the Human Rights groups in the US have been slow on reacting against this because they of course were initially ‘in love’ with Pres. Obama.
    I still can’t believe that our president was given the Nobel Peace Price. I have stopped to respect the committee who nominates the winner for this price almost to the point where I feel it’s a waste of time and money but then again, some on whom this prize was bestowed were fabulous and courageous human beings. There is much more that Pres. Obama does which goes under the radar which would have prompted howls from the left had it been under former Pres. Bush, like the detention of the Afghan prisoners in Parwan, Afghanistan.

  6. OK, I see what happened. It was one video in a queue, and the code picked up the next video. Trying a third time. This should do it.

  7. Not sure what happened, but the video above is another STOL aircraft, a Maule, which many pilots use as bush planes for obvious reasons. Let’s try again and see if this gets the Storch.

  8. One of the things that bothers me is the risk of interference with general aviation or commercial air traffic. Radio control model airplanes are limited to line of sight of the operator and a ceiling of 400 feet above ground level (AGL). Radio control model airplanes also have a weight limit, and if the hobbies has a model that goes over that limit, then there are waivers that must be obtained. All this is in the interest of safety to the operator, nearby structures and individuals.

    When a drone is operated by the military, friendly pilots in the area are vectored away from the drone, so there will be no airspace conflicts. A deputy sheriff “pilot” in the back of a mobile unit will not have that advantage. I can easily envision a news helicopter covering a car chase or hostage situation having a close encounter of the worst kind with a police drone. News helicopters are in contact with airspace control and are aware of each other. Drones are another matter.

    A drone is roughly the size of a Cessna, and hitting one would ruin your whole day. A Predator has a 47 foot wingspan, which is slightly larger than a Cessna 172, with its 36 foot wingspan. The Reaper, the second generation version of the Predator, has a 67 foot wingspan. Those being made available to the police will probably be half the size of the military version.

    I have talked to our local sheriff, and told him I believe they should have an “air force” for surveillance and other law enforcement functions that would work better by air. Helicopters are not cost effective, because they are a collection of several thousand parts that are constantly trying to fling themselves apart. Maintenance and operation of helicopters is expensive. I have suggested to local law enforcement they should consider using fixed wing aircraft for such purposes. The aircraft in the video below can be had for a little more than $50,000, which is not much more than one fully equipped patrol car. Maintenance is cheap, and a full annual inspection on this aircraft can be done in four or five hours, instead of four or five days. An aircraft that can fly 20 MPH would be as useful as a helicopter for law enforcement and safer for the public than a drone. This aircraft is a copy of the German Fiesler Storch, designed as an observation and liaison aircraft back in 1936. Visibility is fantastic. Top speed is around 100 MPH, and stalls at 16 MPH. In an emergency it could actually land safely in a space as small as a tennis court.

    This is not the only slow takeoff and landing (STOL) aircraft available. This is just one of the most efficient ones with the best visibility for the crew.

  10. The concept of “double tap” usually refers to engagements in quick succession (firing a missile, or dropping a precision guided bomb one after the other) in order to assure target destruction. Using a larger bomb could reduce the need for double-tap, but that causes more collateral damage and could be a payload issue for a UAV. The point is that the timing of a double-tap shouldn’t allow for first responders to arrive on the scene.
    There is no doubt that the UAV strategy has been hugely successful, and if it is making people nervous in Waziristan, then stop harboring terrorists; I am certain your losses will be greater if more conventional military force was applied to the neighborhood.

    It was the Obama administration that directed the FAA to make the US airspace UAV-friendly. It is definitely a bit scary to imagine being an airline passenger passing through skies populated by remote-controlled aircraft, but that seems to be the future. With respect to law enforcement, UAVs are going to be a massive enhancement to their capabilities, but at what cost to civil liberties I am not sure.

    And if you really want to get excited, think about the world as UAV technology proliferates and is put to use by military and law enforcement in “less developed” countries.

  11. Drone warfare’s deadly civilian toll: a very personal view
    I was minutes from ordering a drone strike on a Taliban insurgent – until I realised I was watching an Afghan child at play
    By James Jeffrey
    guardian.co.uk
    19 September 2012
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/19/drone-warfare-deadly-civilian-toll

    Excerpt:
    I find myself caught between the need to follow the drone debate and the need to avoid unpleasant memories it stirs. I used drones – unmanned aerial vehicles – during the nadir of my military career that was an operational tour in Afghanistan. I remember cuing up a US Predator strike before deciding the computer screen wasn’t depicting a Taliban insurgent burying an improvised explosive device in the road; rather, a child playing in the dirt.

    After returning from Afghanistan at the end of 2009, I left the British army in 2010. I wanted to put as much distance as I could between myself and the UK, leaving to study in America (where I still reside). By doing so, I inadvertently placed myself in the country that is spearheading development in drone technology and use, highlighted by each report of a drone strike and the usual attendant civilian casualties.

    Political theorist Hannah Arendt described the history of warfare in the 20th century as the growing incapacity of the army to fulfil its basic function: defending the civilian population. My experiences in Afghanistan brought this issue to a head, leaving me unable to avoid the realization that my role as a soldier had changed, in Arendt’s words, from “that of protector into that of a belated and essentially futile avenger”. Our collective actions in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 were, and remain, futile vengeance – with drones the latest technological advance to empower that flawed strategy.

    Drones are becoming the preferred instruments of vengeance, and their core purpose is analogous to the changing relationship between civil society and warfare, in which the latter is conducted remotely and at a safe distance so that implementing death and murder becomes increasingly palatable.

    Hyperbole? But I was there. I sat in my camouflaged combats and I took the rules of engagement and ethical warfare classes. And frankly, I don’t buy much, if any, of it now – especially concerning drones. Their effectiveness is without question, but there’s terrible fallout from their rampant use.

    Both Pakistan and Yemen are arguably less stable and more hostile to the west as a result of President Obama’s increased reliance on drones. When surveying the poisoned legacy left to the Iraqi people, and what will be left to the Afghan people, it’s beyond depressing to hear of the hawks circling around other theatres like Pakistan and Yemen, stoking the flames of interventionism.

    I fear the folly in which I took part will never end, and society will be irreversibly enmeshed in what George Orwell’s 1984 warned of: constant wars against the Other, in order to forge false unity and fealty to the state.

  12. Elaine,

    This is one of the areas I miss anon nurse for….. She could give you the apparent inside skinny about these types of operations….. But you are doing a fine job…… Wonderful in fact….

  14. SWM, Understood now.

    AY, I agree using the WHO was not kosher[pun somewhat intended]. However, it did help save innocent lives. This is a war and as Churchill said, “The first casualty of was is truth.”

  16. Nick,

    I do not think that the WHO should be used as a CIA covert operation…….that undermines the credibility of the entire purpose….. And yes…. The WHO leaders were pretty upset that they were duped….

  17. AY,

    “Unfortunately people support even invasive things until they are the victims of the invasion of things they take for granted…”

    I believe that is true of many people.

  18. Congress must rein in military drones
    By L. Michael Hager, co-founder and former director general, International Development Law Organization, Rome, Italy. – 09/28/12
    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/259183-congress-must-rein-in-military-drones

    Excerpt:
    Beyond the immediate death and destruction of the drone attacks is the constant fear that 24/7 drone surveillance creates among the villagers in North Waziristan. As one of the residents told report interviewers “Strikes are always on our minds. That is why people don’t go out to schools, because they are afraid that they may be the next ones to be hit.” According to the report, “Drones hover twenty-four hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles and public spaces without warning. Their presence terrorizes men, women and children, giving rise to anxieties among civilian communities.” Not surprisingly, the report later concludes that drone attacks help terrorist groups attract new recruits.

    The LUD questions the legality of the drone strikes. Unless the Pakistani government has consented (doubtful based on current evidence), they clearly violate national sovereignty. Nor would a claim of self-defense satisfy international law standards under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which requires “armed attack” for such justification. If the actions qualify as “armed conflict,” they would run afoul several provisions of the international humanitarian law. Absent “armed conflict,” the limits of international human rights law would apply. US drone policy may also violate US domestic law, which prohibits assassination and limits executive power.

    Living Under Drones is a wake up call for Congress and the president. The LUD report says that US drone policy needs serious “rethinking.” Americans alarmed by the targeted killings (akin to actions of a mob hit squad) and the collateral deaths, injuries and property losses suffered by innocent civilians, would go further. Congress should prohibit CIA deployment of drones in civilian areas and fix standards for drone use that comply with both international and domestic law.

  19. Elaine,

    Unfortunately people support even invasive things until they are the victims of the invasion of things they take for granted….. Until then you can’t convince them their views are questionable……

  20. Nick, I guess I wasn’t clear. I mean the constant humm of the drones produces fear.

Comments are closed.