These machines are, on the other hand, an amazing feat of modern technology. They do save our troops from having to go from the frying pan and into the fire. It would be nearly impossible for our men to go into terrorist camps, kill the leaders, and come out alive. We are simply spread out too far in our occupations of other countries to send more men into more locations. These drones can save lives and be very practical if you squint your eyes and stand on one foot.
However, Phillip Alston, a human right investigator for the United Nations, has said that targeted assassinations that "accidentally" (big oops) get civilians is most likely a violation of international law (who would've thought?!). Two counter-insurgency experts wrote in the New York Times in May that drone attacks "killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2%." According to them, 98% of the targets were innocent civilians. On the flip-side, Bill Roggio, the editor of Long War Journal, has maintained that only 10% of those killed were civilians. (1) CNN's report indicates that 760-1,000 people have been killed, only 20 being leaders of Al Queda. They believe that perhaps 260-320, or one-third, were civilians. A possible reason for these contadictory analyses is that not all militants are wearing uniforms but appear to be ordinary citizens. However, it's obvious that certain people would rather tone down the numbers to paint a rosier picture. In either case I think it's safe to assume that the cost of taking a life (militant or not) should be paid by having to live with that memory. The process of sending out machines to do your dirty work for you seems to violate war ethics by giveing people the ability to kill haphazardly without knowledge of who they are going to hit or what they even looked like. If we are going to try to justify murder in the name of national security and justice then we should at least be forced to hear our enemies' last words and see the look on their faces as they are about to be slaughtered.
"Can anything be more ridiculous than that a man has a right to kill me because he lives on the other side of the water, and because his ruler has quarrel with mine, although I have none with him?"~Blaise Pascal
1. CNN News "Pakistan drone war takes a toll on militants- and civilians" by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann October 29, 2009
1. CNN News "Pakistan drone war takes a toll on militants- and civilians" by Peter Bergen and Katherine Tiedemann October 29, 2009
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOn September 11, 2001, militants attacked our country. These militants did not attack a military base; they attacked innocent civilians at the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon and attempted to hit the White House.
ReplyDeleteOur men and women are now risking their lives and living thousands of miles away from their country and families in order to protect them. They did not ask for this war. Murder is killing someone without provocation. In no way is that the case for our troops.
The previous post made some interesting arguments concerning the ethics of using drones that sometimes accidentally kill civilians. However, who is to say that even if our people personally went into these dangerous situations that civilians would not accidentally be killed anyway? Drones are now able to effectively hit militants without further putting our men and women in harm's way. It is indeed terrible that innocent people die. However, it is the harsh reality of our sin-sick world.
Our troops do have to deal with Post Dramatic Stress Disorder and many other things due to their selfless sacrifice to our country. I am grateful for any technology that can make their job a bit easier.
Pooh-bah.
ReplyDeleteBoth of you have very good points, though your post,Abby, seems to be more emotional than practical. Both of you seem to have a real talent for writing!
ReplyDeleteI was wondering what you meant by the following sentence: "A poll conducted in August shows that only 9% of Pakistanis approved of the strikes while 2/3 remained in opposition." What about the other 24% of the people?
ReplyDeleteAbby and Song have very strong opinions on the ethics of using Drones, but what if we were to remove all our emotions from the pile? I think that although Drones are a nice idea they're still too dysfunctional to be used readily in a situation where the targets are in close proximity with the civilian population.
ReplyDeleteI have this belief that war is the greatest bane of being human. War is a form of chaos that we create when we want something that is not ours. Wars harm the minds of millions of people and leave a permanent scar on them, but if we begin to mindlessly kill people with machines then there will be no way to stop us from fighting all the time. If there is no mark on the mind then there will be no end to the slaughter.
An example: if I got really mad at Song and decided that i was going to kill her I would be permanently scarred because I killed a person and I knew that I did it. If I built a robot that did it for me, I still could live my life without ever witnessing a murder. I could then decide to kill Abby as well or Lady Liberty, and so by removing any reaction to my actions I could mindlessly, thoughtlessly kill anybody I like without giving a second thought.
I hope I have made my point.
Kalo
Lady Liberty- Thanks, but yes I did get pretty passionate about it. I feel that if we only apply pragmatism to militaristic situations, we will create an "ends justifies the means" policy. Plus, at the time of writing this I was also writing an essay on the War in Iraq for English so I was in anti-war mode!
ReplyDeleteJohn- in looking at the article I found it from it seemed to me that that 24% was the part of the population that didn't take the poll. Does that make sense?
Kalo- I like how you put it into practical terms. I guess that is what I was trying to say; that the drones give license to kill shamelessly without thought of guilt or consequence. But I think you're right, that aside from being ethically ok or not ok it would create an awful environment in the world.
How would it look if Russia started using drones to take out leaders in bordering Eastern European countries they deemed as a "threat"? Seeing as some of those countries are our allies (I think!), America would probably try to force Russia to stop. Then it would be similar to how our country is always promoting non(nuclear)proliferation when we are the only ones who have ever used atomic bombs in all of history! Perhaps I'm blowing this out of proportion, but as Kalo said, there could be political consequences aside from the moral.
Song- I have a question. How do You know that it was the Taliban,Al-Qaeda or any other militant groups that attacked on 9/11/01?
ReplyDeleteGeorge Washington- I am not sure of the intent of your question. Do know of any evidence that it wasn't?
ReplyDeleteIf I may, I would like to address the comments that oppose the use of drones because it does not leave a permanent mark on our men and women's minds.
1. Our President and Congress do not personally fight in the war. Most do not have a permanent scar left on their mind because they have seen someone die. However, they send American men and women to the battlefield to fight our enemies. Is this any different than our people sending drones on special missions to combat terrorists?
2. Even if our soldiers personally carried out these strikes against the militants, they would not hear the people's last words or look them in the eye. They would be up in a jet. At least this way our soldiers won't be shot down and killed.
Once again, war is a terrible, terrible thing. However, it is essential that we protect our country. We are not like Adolf Hitler who wanted to "take over the world." We are Americans, who fight only to protect our country and our freedoms.
As to non-proliferation policies and our own use of the atomic bomb, there is a major difference. The United States used the atomic bomb as a last resort in order to save many more lives and end the war quickly. Iran wants to wipe Israel and the United States off of the face of the earth. The same situation applies to the United States or Russia. Islamic extremists want to destroy America, something that was evidenced on 9/11. We use drones to protect our country from further attacks. Opposition of the Russian's use of drones would largely depend on the situation.
In closing, we do not constantly use drones to fight our battles for us. We use them in calculated airstrikes. Our men and women are sill present in Afghanistan "sacrific(ing) their lives and fortunes, that this nation might live... That the government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth."
May God continue to bless them in their service to our country.
George Washington- I had the same thought, I just thought it would be too messy to discuss here.
ReplyDeleteSong- There is A LOT of evidence to suggest that it wasn't. I think what he (or she?)was trying to ask was: how sure are you that they are targeting the right group?
The difference is that those men and women sign up to do this. They are agreeing to fight for a cause and possibly die for that cause, which is ironically similar to the terrorists themselves. I read a quote the other day that said, "The terrorist is the one with the small bomb." I think we would all do well to meditate on that statement. This is not Vietnam where young men were drafted to fight in a war they did not believe in.
That is a good point, which is why there is also a lot of debate on airstrikes and bombings as well; the topic is not so different.
But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that these policies have the opposite effect; Pakistanis are now even more dreadfully anti-American than before and our National Security is still at risk, only now we have stretched our resources rather than strengthening our defense at home.
The monetary cost of all of these "defense" wars alone puts our country at risk by furthuring our national debt (thus placing ourselves under the thumb of the foreign powers that we are indebted to) and hurting our world image. Everyone knows that America has fought for more than just "our country and our freedoms" as you put it, whether they like to admit it or not. There are other alternatives to war.
While I see your point on the atomic bombs, I think most people would agree that of course we can understand our own reasons for "necessary" combat or bombings. Even if another country had the best reasons for using nuclear power on another country, America would still tell them not to further their nuclear policy. It is not just using nukes but developing nuclear capabilities that America tries to control. My point was that if we say that it is justified to use drones, other countries will eventually too and our country will look hypocritcal (yet again) if and when we oppose them.
And you still did not address Kalo's argument (as I interpreted it at least) that when you have the capability to kill one person without thinking twice, you will branch out and kill many more without thinking twice. I think that his example was very realistic because it takes the psychology of human nature into account.
It is not a "calculated" airstrike when it misses its target and kills innocent men, women and children. In addition, though I do not like to think of it, every great empire, nation, and country falls eventually. I personally believe that this drone business added to America's other international offenses is only speeding up the process of our demise, but that is just me and I am not asking you to adopt that stance.
And for the record, I am not in favor of putting our troops in danger. You can support the troops without supporting the war; drones or no drones.
I heard a good "allegory",if that is what you call it.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. is like a "bully" who picks on the smaller countries every chance they get then,after
bearing it for awhile,they finally decide to hit the bully back, who then goes after that smaller country to "get them back". I think that really explains the situation with Iraq,Afganistan,Iran and Pakistan.
Kalo, I really appreciate your viewpoint on this sensitive subject. We should not be able to rule out our consciences and avoid the consequences of taking the life of another human being.
ReplyDeleteAbby, I agree with you here. I admire your ability to bring your point accross.
Song- there is a LOT of evidence to support that it wasn't the Taliban or any other militant groups. Now,I want some evidence that it was them.
ReplyDeleteI think you all know that one of the ten commandments says "Thou shalt not kill."
ReplyDeleteI think that it is still killing to use robots to kill the people.
Here is some evidence that neither AlQuada or Taliban were the ones that attacked on 9/11
ReplyDeleteCol. George Nelson USAF (ret.), who has 30 years of experience identifying aircraft and aircraft parts stated, “The plane that hit the south tower on 9/11 was not United Airlines (UA) flight 175”. After reviewing numerous video clips and photographs of the 9/11 attacks, he concluded, “That was not a commercial airliner. The planes were substituted.” ( www.thepowerhour.com/news2/replay_aug8_2005.htm ) This shocking conclusion is also being echoed by other military officers and commercial airline pilots.
Glen Standish, an airline pilot for over 20 years stated, “The plane seen in various video clips of the attack could not have been UA flight 175, due to the extra equipment that appears to be attached to the bottom of the fuselage”.
A mysterious “flash” is also seen in the clips that indicate possible incendiary events took place before the planes entered the towers.
Nila Sagadevin, a seasoned airline pilot of over 20 years, examined photos of the engine that was found at the Trade Center site. He stated, “The engine found at the Trade Center was a CFM-56, which is not utilized on a Boeing 767”, confirming that the south tower was not hit by flight 175, but by another plane that had taken its place.
Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, US Army (ret.), an expert in photo analysis, reviewed the photos taken at the Pentagon before the collapse and concluded, “The plane does not fit in that hole!” indicating that the damage was inconsistent with a 757 strike.
This explosive information not only brings into question the official story of the September 11th attacks, but also the real motives behind the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the War on Terror, the beneficiaries of government contracts, and the resulting legislation like the USA Patriot Act that was passed without review by Congress after the 9/11 attacks.
Because an increasing number of military personnel, civilian pilots, physicists, educators and law enforcement officials are now questioning the official story of hijackers responsible for the attacks on September 11th, 2001, there is a call for the re-opening of an investigation into the 911 attacks. ( www.reopen911.org )
The video clips and photographs examined are included in the controversial documentary, “911 In Plane Site” a Power Hour production. ( www.911inplanesite.com ) for more information go to www.thepowerhour.com
John- That sounds about right in really simplified terms. What we often forget is that America is a very new country in the large scheme of things; if it weren't for France's aid during the Revolutionary War we most likely would not be independent today. It is easy to forget when looking at America's current position in the world.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous, I don't think it would be wise to debate such a hot and sensitive subject here so I will not be a part of it. But I heard that the New York petition he/she referenced to ( the one that calls for the investigation of the 9/11) has been dismissed even though they have 17,057 signatures.
Here is the petition website if anyone is interested: http://www.justicefor911.org/
Sorry if this is long. I will attempt to address many of the comments.
ReplyDeleteAbby-
I still hold to the underlying point that I was trying to make in the last post. However, you are right. Our soldiers are fighting for something that they believe in. The difference between them and terrorists is that our military is fighting to protect their homeland from further attacks. They are defending their country and fighting for freedom. Also, they are targeting militants that are a threat. Al Qaeda and the Taliban work to destroy freedom. They also target innocent civilians in an attempt to get their own way.
I understand your point concerning Pakistani support. I don’t believe their view would change if our men and women personally went into these dangerous situations instead of sending drones. I do believe that the Pakistan military really needs to work on targeting these terrorists as well.
Although it is true that these wars have cost money, I would say that you can’t put a price on freedom. As to our national debt, I would suggest cutting government programs rather than scaling back these wars. Also, America doesn’t have a “great image” with many countries anyway because of our stand for right. However, we do have allies fighting with us in Afghanistan. Would you mind listing examples of when America has fought for more than “our country and our freedoms”? I am interested to hear your thoughts.
“If” is the keyword. I propose that we cross that bridge when we get there.
Kalo does indeed have a point. However, we are not using drones for all of our “dirty work.” Our men and women are still present in Afghanistan fighting. If we only used drones, then this would be a very real concern. However, this is presently not the case.
I don’t know exactly how reliable and accurate the drones are. As you mentioned in your first post, there are conflicting reports on their effectiveness. I trust our military to make wise choices in this case. However, there have been stories in probably every war about missed targets and the killing of innocent civilians. It’s a hard and sad part of war.
In addressing your last comment, it is true that France helped America to win the War for Independence. However, I also believe in the providence of God. If France had not helped, God would have made another way.
John of Gaunt-
I would like to respectfully state that I don’t view the United States as a “bully.” The war that Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and Iran are waging (in Iran’s case, threatening) is not because America is a “bully,” but because of their religious beliefs. Islamic extremists hate Israel because they are “infidels.” America stands by Israel and is a Christian nation, thus we, too, are “infidels.” According to the Koran, infidels must be destroyed. Also, they believe that they can speed up the coming of their “Messiah” be creating chaos in the world. This all contributes to the present conflicts.
John Bunyan-
God’s Word does indeed command, “Thou shalt not kill.” However, this refers to murder. It does not pertain to a time of war. God Himself led the Israelites into battle with Jericho, Ai, the Philistines, the Syrians and many others. In some cases He even commanded them to kill and drive out everyone from the land. God is a God of mercy, but He is also a God of justice. He spares those who trust in Him, but He does demand payment for sin. This is evidenced in salvation. God is merciful and grants life to those who trust in His Son. However, He was just by sending His Son to die on the cross and pay the punishment for sin.
Song-
ReplyDeleteWhere in the Bible does it say that "Thou shalt not kill" actually means thou shalt not murder?
I have read through it several times and have not found one place where it says anything like that.
It does say that if you hate your brother(or sister) than it is the same as murdering them.(that is not talking about just our close family it includes every man,woman and child on this earth.)It also says that you are supposed to love your enemies and bless them that curse you.
Here is another question to swirl around in your head for a little while.
If you are so 'pro-war' than why don't you go yourself?
Let me try to answer some of your questions/comments.
ReplyDeleteSong asked Abby for some examples of when the U.S. fought for somthing besides our country and freedoms, how about Vietnam or WWI?
You said somthing about the U.S. standing for Israel. now I have a question, how can the U.S. be for them when they have been giving land to the muslems to "make peace"between them?
John Bunyan-
ReplyDeleteFirst, I would like to thank you for the comment concerning when Christ talked about loving our enemies and praying for those who “despitefully use you and persecute you.” It has challenged me to pray for the Islamic extremists who are blinded to the truth.
However, I don’t believe that God intends for us to allow others to kill innocent people. For example, in the recent attack on Fort Hood, a man deliberately killed innocent people. This would have continued if someone did not stop him. Was it then wrong for Police Sgt. Kimberly Munley to shoot the attacker, risking her own life and getting shot in the process? It was her last resort to save others. The same applies to the war in Afghanistan. Terrorists are still trying to kill innocent people in America and other countries. War is our last resort to prevent more attacks.
As to the issue of God’s command “Thou shalt not kill,” and the question of its definition, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible shows that the word used in Exodus 20 is the Hebrew word ratsach. Ratsach means “to murder-put to death.”
In comparing Scripture with Scripture, I look to when Jesus referred to the ten commandments in Mathew 19:18, He says “Thou shalt do no murder.” Also, I must again refer to God’s command to drive out and kill those in the Canaan land because of their wickedness. God talks about it in Numbers 32. God would not command His people to act contrary to His own laws.
I would also like to state that I am not “for war.” It is a horrific thing. I personally have been affected by it in ways that would be too complicated and personal to go into on this blog. I have several relatives that have been to war and one who will be going to Afghanistan in a couple of months. I understand some of the fears and terrors of war. However, I also understand its necessity as a last resort to protect our people.