EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Drones Are Weapons of Choice in Fighting Qaeda
A missile fired by an American drone killed at least four people late Sunday at the house of a militant commander in northwest Pakistan, the latest use of what intelligence officials have called their most effective weapon against Al Qaeda.
A predator drone like those used in missions over Afghanistan and Iraq prepared to be shipped from a General Atomics plant in Poway, Calif., where it was built. (Jim Wilson/The New York Times) And Pentagon officials say the remotely piloted planes, which can beam back live video for up to 22 hours, have done more than any other weapons system to track down insurgents and save American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The planes have become one of the military's favorite weapons despite many shortcomings resulting from the rush to get them into the field.
An explosion in demand for the drones is contributing to new thinking inside the Pentagon about how to develop and deploy new weapons systems.
Air Force officials acknowledge that more than a third of their unmanned Predator spy planes - which are 27 feet long, powered by a high-performance snowmobile engine, and cost $4.5 million apiece - have crashed, mostly in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Pilots, who fly them from trailers halfway around the world using joysticks and computer screens, say some of the controls are clunky. For example, the missile-firing button sits dangerously close to the switch that shuts off the plane's engines. Pilots are also in such short supply that the service recently put out a call for retirees to help.
But military leaders say they can easily live with all that.
Since the height of the cold war, the military has tended to chase the boldest and most technologically advanced solution to every threat, leading to long delays and cost overruns that result in rarely used fighter jets that cost $143 million apiece, and plans for a $3 billion destroyer that the Navy says it can no longer afford.
Now the Pentagon appears to be warming up to Voltaire's saying, "The perfect is the enemy of the good."
In speeches, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has urged his weapons buyers to rush out "75 percent solutions over a period of months" rather than waiting for "gold-plated" solutions.
And as the Obama administration prepares its first budget, officials say they plan to free up more money for simpler systems like drones that can pay dividends now, especially as fighting intensifies in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
A rare behind-the-scenes look at the use of the Predator shows both the difficulties and the rewards in pushing out weapons more quickly.
"I'll be really candid," said Col. Eric Mathewson, who directs the Air Force's task force on unmanned aerial systems. "We're on the ragged edge."
He said the service has been scrambling to train more pilots, who fly the drones via satellite links from the western United States, to keep up with a near-tripling of daily missions in the last two years.
Field commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan, where the Air Force is in charge of the Predators, say their ability to linger over an area for hours, streaming instant video warnings of insurgent activity, has been crucial to reducing threats from roadside bombs and identifying terrorist compounds. The C.I.A. is in charge of drone flights in Pakistan, where more than three dozen missiles strikes have been launched against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in recent months.
Considered a novelty a few years ago, the Air Force's fleet has grown to 195 Predators and 28 Reapers, a new and more heavily armed cousin of the Predator. Both models are made by General Atomics, a contractor based in San Diego. Including drones that the Army has used to counter roadside bombs and tiny hand-launched models that can help soldiers to peer past the next hill or building, the total number of military drones has soared to 5,500, from 167 in 2001.
The urgent need for more drones has meant bypassing usual procedures. Some of the 70 Predator crashes, for example, stemmed from decisions to deploy the planes before they had completed testing and to hold off replacing control stations to avoid interrupting the supply of intelligence.
"The context was to do just the absolute minimum needed to sustain the fight now, and accept the risks, while making fixes as you go along," Colonel Mathewson said.
It is easier, of course, for the military to take more risks with unmanned planes.
Complaints about civilian casualties, particularly from strikes in Pakistan, have stirred some concerns among human rights advocates. Military officials say the ability of drones to observe targets for lengthy periods makes strikes more accurate. They also said they do not fire if they think civilians are nearby.
The Predators were still undergoing basic testing when they were rushed into use in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s and then hastily armed with missiles after the September 2001 terrorist attacks.
But it was only after the military turned to new counterinsurgency techniques in early 2007, that demand for drones became almost insatiable. Since then, Air Force Lt. Gen. Gary North, the air-component commander for the combined forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, said the service has gone to "amazing lengths" to increase their use.
The Predators and Reapers are now flying 34 surveillance patrols each day in Iraq and Afghanistan, up from 12 in 2006. They are also transmitting 16,000 hours of video each month, some of it directly to troops on the ground.
The strains of these growing demands were evident on a recent visit to Davis-Monthan Air Force Base in Tucson, Ariz., one of four bases where Air National Guard units have been ordered to full-time duty to help alleviate crew shortages.
The Guard members, along with Air Force crews at a base in the Nevada desert, are 7,000 to 8,000 miles away from the planes they are flying. Most of the crews sit at 1990s-style computer banks filled with screens, inside dimly lit trailers. Many fly missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan on the same day.
On a recent day, at 1:15 p.m. in Tucson - 1:15 the next morning in Afghanistan - a pilot and sensor operator were staring at gray-toned video from the Predator's infrared camera, which can make even the darkest night scene surprisingly clear.
The crew was scanning a road, looking for - but not finding - signs of anyone planting improvised explosive devices or lying in wait for a convoy.
As the Predator circled at 16,000 feet, the dark band of a river and craggy hills came into view, along with ribbons of farmland.
"We spend 70 to 80 percent of our time doing this, just scanning roads," said the pilot, Matthew Morrison.
At other times, the crews monitor insurgent compounds and watch over troops in battle. "When you're on the radio with a guy on the ground, and he is out of breath and you can hear the weapons fire in the background, you are every bit as engaged as if you were actually there," Major Morrison said.
When Predators spot possible targets, officers monitoring video at command centers in Iraq and Afghanistan decide whether to order an attack.
Col. Gregg A. Davies, commander of the group that flies Predators for the Arizona Guard, said fighter planes with bigger bombs are often sent in to make the strikes. In all, the Air Force says, Predators and Reapers shot missiles on 244 of the 10,949 missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008.
Air Force officials said a few crew members have had a difficult time watching the strikes. And some pilots said it can be hard to transition from being a computer-screen warrior to dinner at home or their children's soccer games.
Another problem has been that few pilots wanted to give up flying fighter jets to operate drones. Given the shortages, the Air Force has temporarily blocked transfers out of the program. It also has begun training officers as drone pilots who have had little or no experience flying conventional planes.
Colonel Mathewson, director of the Air Force's task force on unmanned aerial systems, said that while upgrades have been made to control stations, the service plans to eventually shift to simpler and more intuitive ground systems that could allow one remote pilot to control several drones. Now, pilots say, it takes up to 17 steps - including entering data into pull-down windows - to fire a missile.
And even though 13 of the 70 Predator crashes have occurred over the last 18 months, officials said the accident rate has fallen as flying hours have shot up.
All told, 55 have been lost because of equipment failure, operator errors or weather. Four were shot down in Bosnia, Kosovo and Iraq; 11 were lost in combat situations, like running out of fuel while protecting troops under fire.
Given the demand for video intelligence, the Air Force is equipping 50 manned turbo-prop planes with similar cameras.
And it is developing new camera systems for Reapers that could vastly expand the intelligence each plane can collect.
P. W. Singer, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, said the Predators have already had "an incredible effect," though the remote control raised obvious questions about whether the military could become "more cavalier" about using force.
Still, he said, "these systems today are very much Model T Fords. These things will only get more advanced."
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllThe Rise of the Machines.
Crap. It is about making war "Convenient" so that more of them can be waged for no reason at all, and the moral cowards that support the murder of people the world over just because of skin color, and or religous and or economic beliefs can pat themselves on the back and tell themselves "we are better then THEM we value life"
It is about more taxes and endless wars to line the pockets of profiteers where a person who LOOKS like he might be a terrorist (He has a beard and is dressed in robes and his skin is swarthy) sees their life forfeit based upon the say so of some mental and moral delinquent in the Good old USA.
So benign, taking warfare and the execution of people to the realm of entertainment and FUN!. It so much EASIER to kill those brown folk now.
Note there no questioning how these drones can identify who is currently inside these buildings, via a person looking at a video camera 2000 miles away. Are there children in the homes..? Do they care?
Is a video image of a person enough to identify him as a "Terrorist" thus warranting execution?
This is not warfare. It is extrajudical murder. It is Project Phoenix all over again where US forces would go deep into the Jungles to execute civilian leaders, doctors and the like.
And those afghanis..cowards all. They will not come out and fight like REAL men.
I wonder if the model airplane stores have predator models in stock yet. Little replicas of these flying around in our backyards would be really fun to see.
Very interesting research on the malfunction statistics and the difficulties of pilot retention.
Pray tell, what is the "incredible effect" that the expanding deployment of Predator drone technology has produced in Afghanistan/Pakistan or in Iraq, according to the Brookings Institute spokesman?
Are we really supposed to believe that local insurgents and wannabe terrorists are cowering in their caves or houses in abject fear of Uncle Sam's aerial surveillance?
This is sort of like believing that buzzing high crime urban areas with police helicopters deters burglary, rape, and neighborhood drug dealing. The "incredible effect" seems to be much more in the eyes of the beholder, and in the eyese of the drone weapons contractors, than it is in the minds of those who are being targeted.
Bill from Saginaw
Such a thing would be called "extrajudicial execution" and it a major human rights violation, as it is in Afghanistan.
---USAn---
Government-Sponsored High-Tech Homicide: the gift that keeps on giving!
Or: Death from Above! It's not just napalm & cluster bombs any more!
· Yr Obd't Servant
"When you're on the radio with a guy on the ground, and he is out of breath and you can hear the weapons fire in the background, you are every bit as engaged as if you were actually there," Major Morrison said.
Is this what we've come to after three generations of television and video-gaming? Such a separation of mind, soul, and body? If only the remote operators could _smell_ the sweat and blood and filth, and risk their own flesh, and hear the cries of their enemies, that would be "every bit as engaged."
This reminds me of "Ender's Game," by Orson Scott Card.
The ill and sad thing about USA Warfare Politics is it is governed by the number Of USA invaders deaths. No deaths for USA killers equal very little homefront objection to the latest criminal war.
The drone pilots are " just as engaged" as the robokillers on site? Well I should think the possibility of being or not being killed should make a slight difference.
Obama needs to be forced to join the International Criminal Court.
If they do not fire if they think civilians are nearby, then why do they kill civilians 90% of the time in Pakistan drone attacks?
i remember how Saddam Hussein's alleged "killer drones" were hyped as one of the weapons of mass destruction that justified the invasion of Iraq. what a joke, compared to the killing and destruction of which america's military is capable AND (unlike Hussein's) for which they are routinely used in foreign wars of aggression
It is so obscenely criminal that young kids with joysticks are sitting in a Nevada desert killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan! It's the ultimate distancing of the murderer from the murdered.
actually using UAVs is a good development. finally, after 8 years, someone at the pentagon realized that terror works both ways. a more efficient way to use taxpayer money. hopefully the troop levels will now be reduced (yeah right!) and casualties will drop.
Nothing but a system of high tech murder.
my spider-sense is tingling...such a fine line between why and where these are used now, and why or where they might be used tomorrow...the technology curve rises as the industrial curve drops...what potential adversaries do I see in my future, and what potential allies? what weaponry and tactics will be employed? how to balance this activity with the need to focus on planetary health and the renewal of local food and water...
electricity is so critical to the current (no pun intended) world, isn't it?
How absolutely shallow most of those who govern us seem to be. Where are the words of "working toward World Peace," "cooperation among all nations," "a world of peace and plenty" for all? These phrases were slogans of times gone by, part of the vocabulary of officials and citizens alike for so many years.
The positive note after I read this essay was everyone's comments here on CD, angry toward and contemptuous against the new, rah-rah military policies of "impersonal destruction of human life by joystick-controlled drones."
Our vaunted morality as a nation seems to have fallen over a cliff and is picking up speed toward the abyss. Hearts and Minds are in a State of Disconnect.
/cm
"...you are every bit as engaged as if you were actually there," Major Morrison said.
well, except for the risk of death or injury to you (although there is carpal tunnel and eye-strain to worry about). And you can't hear or smell the death and destruction that you are dealing out. And you can go pick up the kids at soccer practice after work, perhaps buying a mocha soy latte with extra foam on the way there.
Other than that, you're as engaged as if you were there, killing and blowing things up in person.
There's a MSM military propaganda campaign in the works (when was there not). NYTimes, NPR, network/cable TV.... The war mongers are ascendent---where are the voices of Peace?
What a malicious, sinister article! What naked advocacy of remote murder outside of legal systems!!
Before we praise our new, magnificent killing machines, take just a moment to ponder some PROFOUND truths:
1. We have not declared war in Pakistan. As a foreign nation, we have no jurisdiction nor venue whatsoever there. Just as Pakistani officials have stated publicly.
2. The targets have received no trial. They have merely been accused verbally by military or other officials from other nations.
3. Almost always, innocent persons are killed when missiles rain down from the skies (often wives or children). What legal rights to those persons have?
4. Is it appropriate for American officials to label YOU a "dissident" and murder you by missile, or do YOU have the right to trial? How about the same accusations from foreign militaries?
Let's begin speaking out by the millions against these illegal assassinations arbitrarily committed by a foreign military power.
Thank you for articulating this. I feel the same but could not say it so well. I don't understand why our government is murdering people who have not been proven guilty of anything. Using these weapons shows so clearly how the new administration is carrying on Bush's insanity. Why can't they see the harm this perpetuates? How to get through to these blockheads? It's good you are speaking out. Your words help me know what to say and how to say it.
"US missiles kill 24 in Pakistan", by Bill Van Auken, March 14 2009
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m52628
QUOTE:
US missiles fired from a Predator drone aircraft killed at least 24 people in Pakistan's northwest tribal area of Kurram Thursday evening. The American military attack came in the midst of an intense political crisis that is calling into question the stability of the Pakistani government.
According to unnamed US and Pakistani security officials cited by major wire services, the target of the attack was a "training center" run by a local Taliban commander, and the victims, whose bodies local villagers dug from the rubble, were "mostly militants."
At least 50 others were wounded in the attacks, which involved four or five missiles that struck a residential building. It was the second such missile attack in the Kurram tribal region in less than a month. An attack on February 16 killed 31 people.
...
The attacks are part of a major escalation of the US military intervention in both Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan as part of the Obama administration's emerging strategy for the region.
The administration is expected to formally unveil this strategy as early as next week. According to Pentagon and White House officials who spoke to the Associated Press, the plan will place particular emphasis on Pakistan, ....
Even before the issuing of the report, Obama has ordered an additional 17,000 US troops into Afghanistan in response to .... ...
The inevitable result of such a buildup of US military forces will be a dramatic increase in the deaths of Afghan civilians, which already rose 40 percent in 2008 over the previous year.
...
In an appearance on PBS Television's "Charlie Rose Show," Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the strategy review would focus on "the safe haven in Pakistan, making sure that Afghanistan doesn't provide a capability in the long run or an environment in which Al Qaeda could return or the Taliban could return."
...
Within Afghanistan itself, Obama and other administration officials have floated the idea that Washington will try to bribe sections of the insurgency into collaborating with the occupation along the lines of the strategy employed in Iraq to win over Sunni militia elements who were paid by the US military. US officials have spoken of opening up talks with elements of the Taliban.
Taliban representatives have responded that they have no interest in any talks until all foreign forces are withdrawn from Afghanistan.
The British daily Telegraph, citing US official sources, reported that the proposal for such talks is linked to plans to dramatically escalate military violence in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The newspaper reported: "...officials consulted on the plans said the military conflict would be raised to new levels of intensity before talks could begin. 'There will be talks but the Taliban are going to experience a lot of pain first, on both sides of the border,' said one senior Western diplomat."
Both the Afghan and Pakistani governments have repeatedly complained that US air attacks and the civilian casualties they inflict in both countries have only served to increase support for the anti-occupation insurgencies while destabilizing the political situation in Pakistan. There are ample indications, however, that such protests from the Pakistani government are for public consumption, aimed at assuaging popular anger over the air strikes while the Pakistani state provides direct support for these attacks, including allowing the US to launch its drones from a base located inside Pakistan.
The latest missile attack is particularly provocative, given the escalating political crisis in Pakistan. Washington is signaling all sides that it will act with impunity in carrying out military actions on Pakistani soil while demanding that domestic political conflicts be subordinated to the US "war on terror."
US officials have intervened aggressively in a bid to force an end to the showdown between President Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and his political rival Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML).
...
END QUOTE
The rest of the article and all that's snipped or omitted in the above portion is worth reading. I just wanted to provide enough in juxtaposition to the NYT article of this CD page and to draw interest for Bill Van Auken's article.
It does not sound good at all the way the U.S., Obama administration, is acting with respect to the political crisis in Pakistan, in addition to the killing of many Pakistani citizens with all of these damn gunship drone or dronal gunship (whatever) operations being criminal, very, imo.
The Obama administration and its foreign policy advisers, etcetera, were very concerned, say, about a "scheduled March 16 arrival in Islamabad of a "Long March" organized by Pakistani lawyers and supported by the PML"; and Pakistani "security forces" had already "arrested at least 1,000 lawyers and politicians, while many demonstrators" had "been beaten".
Seems Zardari is proving to be even worse and more despised than Musharaf was, as Bill Van Auken says about how the Pakistanis feel about Zardari.
The Obama admin. is definitely seeming to be an escalation "team" or outfit.
Why? After all, the Taliban wouldn't attack the U.S. if the U.S. would stop criminally forcing war on AFghanistan (and Pakistan). So why?
Natural resources and keeping China and Russia in "their respective places" vis-a-vis the imperialist West's ambitions in the East or Far East; and Africa, where both Ru. and China have been doing business and a lot more fairly than the U.S. has ever done ... like anywhere. The U.S. "elites", that is.
Full spectrum dominance; and (U.S.) "war [is] a racket". FSD is super-racket or super'ised or super-sized racket; global racket.
There's nothing legitimate about the war on Afghanistan to begin with, so there's also nothing legitimate about the present U.S.-NATO war against groups in Pakistan. But the U.S. wars for racket. We're always back to that fact.
'We' only value the lives of our own. Heck our leaders only pay lip service to the soldiers, they care not.
Where is the honor in killing via video? There is no morality in this.
Drones are the best way to 'save American lives in Iraq and Afghanistan'. I have a better way, get Americans the hell out of these places. But we all know there is no profit in that plan.
I believe in the sixth commandment "Do not kill". I do not support any of the current wars. With that said I do not see why the pols and generals do not just use nerve gas to kill everybody in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then the oil and pipeline workers could have free reign.
Is the use of drones really "war?" There are no soldiers or airmen involved, only high technology.
There is too much margin for error in locating targets, as evidenced by the number of civilians that are killed.
Take the money spent on these random killing machines and use it to help the wounded troops and their families, who according to the American Legion, aren't getting the help they need.
Americans have a tendency to play with their joysticks far too much.
The whole notion of armed planes flying around a sovereign country firing missiles at will at targets on the ground regardless of civilian casualties is farcical.
Imagine America's reaction if a group of terrorists started flying armed ultra-lights around Washington or New York or San Francisco!
Go home, Yanks!
www.dangerouscreation.com
Uhm, when the "Reaper" is outfitted with on-board weapons, my humble suggestion is that it be then called "Grim Reaper"...
________________
There's a glory in the morning because the earth turns 'round and a promise in the evening when the sun goes down
It's a terrible fact, that the United States have become more aggressive than the leaders we used to condemn. As some have said, the Joy Stick, and drones, appear to be a game, as in an arcade, but the ones that die are real humans. How many are little children? The Axis of deadly evil, are now the Holy Israel, the noble British, and the Christian United States. The very ones that we condemned for the killings, and torture, others did, we are now doing. And as much as others deny the fact, it escalated after Bush lied to invade Iraq. All for the greed of land, oil, and power.
drone hit #75448: wedding party
drone hit #75449: spice merchant
drone hit #75450: medical clinic
drone hit #75451: compost heap
drone hit #75452: children's playground
drone hit #75453: spiritual sanctuary
drone hit #75454: seed store
"which are 27 feet long, powered by a high-performance snowmobile engine, and cost $4.5 million apiece"
You don't understand. Each drone costs $10k. The other $4490k per drone is the cost of mass ignorance, apathy, and civic irresponsibility. God Bless The United States of America!
Which families benefited from the contract to install the high-powered lighting in the drone mill? Which boys and girls get their Christmas stockings filled thanks to the concrete pouring contract for the floor of the drone mill? We just want to know they are safe from the drones' hellfire missiles, that's all.
A familiar question on the use of the military is: Without the deterrence of military superiority, how else can we defend ourselves, how else can we deter the empire-seekers? Leftists seem so caught up in their own talking points that they fail to even address this concern directly, this being perhaps the main "legitimate" concern of those who consent to the "super-militarization" of the USA.
Some people tend to harbor empire ambitions. Opposing militaries can effectively deter empire ambitions. So why the leftist whining? We have a solid basis here for the military. Wrong. You have to check your own empire ambitions. You have to draw a clear line between defensive and offensive military enterprise and USans have failed terribly in this way. USans have failed to embrace diplomatic approaches that minimize the threats. And USans have failed to promote general well-being in this world, and in fact promote disorder.
These are the relevant facts from the universalist point of view. If one disagrees then it becomes a contest between views, universalist versus individualist, the rule of law versus the rule of the sword, universal justice versus "might makes right", the public interests versus elite interests. Militarist USans ought to think about these things, because outside the USA and perhaps pockets of Middle East, about 90% of the people in this world embrace the universalist view, the rule of law, the public interests.
"... We WILL DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF KILLING.
We are building an information-based military to do that killing."
cited from: U.S. MAJOR RALPH PETERS, "Constant Conflict," published in "Parameters" (Summer 1997), pp. 4-14.
Some more military gems from that same article:
"We have entered an age of constant conflict. […] Those of us who can sort, digest, synthesize, and apply relevant knowledge soar, professionally, financially, politically, militarily, and socially. We, the winners, are a minority.
For the world masses, devastated by information, they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is 'nasty, brutish . . . and short-circuited.' […] We are entering a new American century, in which we will become still wealthier, culturally more lethal, and increasingly powerful. We will excite hatreds without precedent. […]
He who warns of the "clash of civilizations" is incontestably right … […] More men and women will enjoy health and prosperity than ever before, yet more will live in poverty or tumult, if only because of the ferocity of demographics. There will be more democracy -- that deft liberal form of imperialism -- and greater popular refusal of democracy. One of the defining bifurcations of the future will be the conflict between information masters and information victims. […]
Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. […]
Our cultural empire has the addicted -- men and women everywhere -- clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment. […]
The films most despised by the intellectual elite -- those that feature extreme violence and to-the-victors-the-spoils sex -- are our most popular cultural weapon … . They feature a hero, a villain, a woman to be defended or won -- and violence and sex. Complain until doomsday; it sells. The enduring popularity abroad of the shopworn Rambo series tells us far more about humanity than does a library full of scholarly analysis. […]
We use technology to expand our wealth, power, and opportunities. The rest get high on pop culture. If religion is the opium of the people, video is their crack cocaine. […]
As more and more human beings are overwhelmed by information, or dispossessed by the effects of information-based technologies, there will be more violence. […]
The have-nots will hate and strive to attack the haves. And we in the United States will continue to be perceived as the ultimate haves. States will struggle for advantage or revenge as their societies boil. Beyond traditional crime, terrorism will be the most common form of violence, but transnational criminality, civil strife, secessions, border conflicts, and conventional wars will continue to plague the world, albeit with the 'lesser' conflicts statistically dominant. In defense of its interests, its citizens, its allies, or its clients, the United States will be required to intervene in some of these contests. We will win militarily whenever we have the guts for it.
There will be no peace. At any given moment for the rest of our lifetimes, there will be multiple conflicts in mutating forms around the globe. Violent conflict will dominate the headlines, but cultural and economic struggles will be steadier and ultimately more decisive. The de facto role of the US armed forces will be to keep the world safe for our economy and open to our cultural assault. To those ends, we will do a fair amount of killing.
We are building an information-based military to do that killing. […]
The informational dexterity of our average middle-class kid is terrifying to anyone born before 1970. Our computer kids function at a level foreign elites barely manage, and this has as much to do with television commercials, CD-ROMs, and grotesque video games as it does with the classroom. We are outgrowing our 19th-century model education system as surely as we have outgrown the manned bomber. In the meantime, our children are undergoing a process of Darwinian selection in coping with the information deluge that is drowning many of their parents. These kids are going to make mean techno-warriors. […]
Hollywood is "preparing the battlefield," and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade. […] [T]he image of US power and the US military around the world is not only a deterrent, but a psychological warfare tool that is constantly at work in the minds of real or potential opponents. […] Everybody is afraid of us. They really believe we can do all the stuff in the movies. If the Trojans "saw" Athena guiding the Greeks in battle, then the Iraqis saw Luke Skywalker precede McCaffrey's tanks. Our unconscious alliance of culture with killing power is a combat multiplier no government, including our own, could design or afford. We are magic. And we're going to keep it that way. […]
The advent of this new information age has opened a fresh chapter in the human struggle for, and with, freedom. It will be a bloody chapter, with plenty of computer-smashing and head-bashing. […]
The next century will indeed be American, but it will also be troubled. We will find ourselves in constant conflict, much of it violent."
Fuck, it's true. That article is from "Parameters" - US Army War College Quarterly. As sick as it gets.
Yes, "Constant Conflict" was published in the in the Summer 1997 issue of the army War College's scholarly journal "Parameters". It was the peak of the heady Clinton capitalist-triumphalism era. At the same time NYT Billionaire pundit Thomas Friedman (regarded as a "liberal") wrote this:
“McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
So much for blaming US militarism on Bush.
---USAn---
"Those of us who can sort, digest, synthesize, and apply relevant knowledge soar, professionally, financially, politically, militarily, and socially. We, the winners, are a minority.
For the world masses, devastated by information, they cannot manage or effectively interpret, life is 'nasty, brutish . . . and short-circuited."
The UberMenschen are in charge here.
Joe
If they want to take out the world's leading terrorist, the address is 10141 Daria Place, Dallas, Texas.
As claimed, drones being the most effective weapon against ALQAIDA and all
such insurgencies in the world, be used extensively to eliminate anti US
uprising, even without the approval of the states of effected areas, just
because dialoge and deplomacy were the weapons of stone age.
drones are the preffered weapon of choice, because they have no conscience.
Plus remote controlled effing predators are a cowardly way to "fight". perfect expression of true u.s. values for this century.
we are a nation of crybabies and cowards.
commondreams has GOT to stop reprinting pentagon propaganda laced as it is with so much military speak, that hideous, detached, big word crap they can put out distances them, and their so called minds from everything they are doing, even when they talk about living troops "engaging" (one of their favorite words for "kill")
their "enemies"
thanks to all your fine postings today- you have done a good job of speaking sanity to madness, and drilling so many holes in this hateful story.
Thank you so much for speaking up! I couldn't agree more.
"...some pilots said it can be hard to transition from being a computer-screen warrior to dinner at home or their children's soccer games."
Poor guys. Pity them, give them therapy. Hard to have dinner with the kids after killing a bunch of kids half-ways across the world by remote control. What a burden to live with, for those poor killer guys. As if there was similarity between their kids and their kids. Such an easy misunderstanding to make...
As if there was _any_ connection between those people who are killed in Afghanistan fighting for their liberty and against foreign invaders and the people who attacked the US in 2001. Which ever Afghani would in his right mind want to provoke the largest super power to fight another war when things just started to quiet down a bit. The only people who could ever ``benefit'' from 9/11 are the weapon and oil industry.
To them I'd like to say: What use is it if your bankaccount got a few billion more when your planet is much worse place to live in? You can live on a healthy planet, not on a stack of dollars, especially when you already have much more than you will ever need.
I suspect that most strikes never kills "bad guys".
Targets for the US means able-bodied males 14-50 years old, regardless of whether they are true "enemy combatants". With this definition, strikes will always be successful.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
Did any of these predators get bin Laden yet? Maybe they should try a villa in another Mid East country.
I do not think they got Bin Laden but they seem to be very proficient at killing Al Qaeda's "Number 2 man".
I wonder if it a glitch in the Software in that they can only recognize the number 2.
These drones can't know who they are killing. Just another expensive war toy for the boys to masturbate over. Diabolical and nightmarish. The ops crowd is addicted to their video game wars and the manufacturers are more than happy to provide these super X boxes.
Adults - those with a developed approach to life - take away the toys and send the kids to their rooms. They know not what they do.
We pay the price in money, tunnel vision and lost soul now. We will pay the price in well-earned hatred later.
Joe
I argue that these drones are not actually saving American lives, on the contrary they threaten American lives.
When we develop these over whelming 'Shock and Awe' unmanned weapons, we put in motion numerous conditions which will eventually come back to haunt us;
1. Our opponents will develop, copy, steal, our very own technologies and turn them against us. Look at China stealing the blue prints to the US's most miniaturized nuclear warheads in 1999... giving the Chinese a possible quantum leap in their missile capabilities, increasing the possible number of nuclear warheads that one of their missiles can carry from 3 to 15 once they reproduce our design, for which they already have our blueprints.
2. Radicalizing blowback of both victim and world opinion. Do we really need to isolate ourselves any further? Do we really want to foment such hatred of our technological abilities?
3. Attacking our unsophisticated opponent with the most sophisticated unmanned drones leaves our opponent with few options left, amongst which are counter striking with nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons- by terrorist means or nation state ability.
Developing these technologies might appear to make us safer today, but it only endangers us more tomorrow. It's a cycle of violence that must be stopped if we humans are to survive the next 100 years. Haven't we come close enough to ending life on earth during the last arms race? Do we really need a Cold War Part II? If we frame every adversary as a terrorist aren't we framing ourselves as an eventual victim?
We need a moratorium on all technologies that have any military application. We need transparency. We need diplomacy. We need to tear down the MIC!