Brennan in trouble

[Tyrannical]

I don't really beleive in the concept of a civilian. Just because you aren't carrying a gun doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the war effort.
I'm sure we killed more civilians than soldiers in WWII, especially if you use Jewish math to compute casualties.

[Jason]

Just because you aren't carrying a gun doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the war effort.

True, but you're blurring a very important line with that sort of rationale. Slippery slope and all that.

[Tero]

Ian, I think the sexy part of drones is spying, not so much bombing. It's a conspiracy. The gubment will spy on your land.

[Ian]

I'd worry about that, but I can see my car on Google Earth right now. I don't worry about the gubment so much as others.

[JimC]

I don't think they invite any greater callousness than already exists. It's not a bad theory, but I just can't get there. Were Air Force generals less aggressive during Vietnam because they had pilots to worry about? There are other concerns besides political ideas that UAVs are more expendable. They're also far cheaper, less likely to be detected, and can hover over areas for much, much longer. Whether or not to directly involve a pilot in a mission has, I think, little effect on whether or not the missions is going to be carried out - especially since, given the current circumstances, there's little likelihood of a human pilot being shot down anyway. If UAVs did not exist, I think the same recon & strike missions would have been carried out by manned planes over the last few years, almost no change at all.

You may be right about the generals not worrying too much if they lose a pilot, but a warplane cost much more than a drone. I think it very unlikely that the same number of recon and strike missions would have been flown if drones had not been invented.

The existence of a technology invites its use.

In addition, from everything I've heard, drones are much harder to detect (smaller, quieter etc.) than a manned warplane. Hence, strikes are much more likely to achieve surprise, and given the fact that they are harder to shoot down, harder to defend against. All of these factors are no doubt very inviting to the military, which contributes yet again to an increased frequency of use.

The moral question can be dissected. First, consider the "perfect use" scenario, where no one other than armed or active insurgents are killed, without damage to civilians or property. The equation is then about the wisdom or legality of strikes into foreign territory, in many cases against the will of the government of that territory (e.g. Pakistan).

Given that this perfection is not going to be achieved in the real world, we bring into the equation the deaths of civilians and the damage to private property. Does the moral equation change with the % of strikes which cause such collateral damage? Is the factor of increasing resentment against the US, and pushing more people into the arms of islamic fundamentalists important? Is the fuzzy legality of assassination by drone,whether of US or non-US citizens something to be considered?

[Tyrannical]

Just because you aren't carrying a gun doesn't mean you aren't contributing to the war effort.

True, but you're blurring a very important line with that sort of rationale. Slippery slope and all that.

You do realize slippery slope is a logical fallacy, right?

[Jason]

No it isn't. In particular forms it is an informal fallacy. In this case it is not. Unless you can demonstrate how your argument that 'Anyone in Afghanistan could be supporting insurgents, therefore killing anyone in Afghanistan is justified' does not lead to the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.

[JimC]

No it isn't. In particular forms it is an informal fallacy. In this case it is not. Unless you can demonstrate how your argument that 'Anyone in Afghanistan could be supporting insurgents, therefore killing anyone in Afghanistan is justified' does not lead to the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians.

Let's consider the following spectrum of opinion, concerning the deaths caused by the western coalition in Afghanistan/Pakistan:

At one end: "Drone strikes, air strikes and ground actions by coalition troops only kill vicious, evil Taliban fighters who deserve to die"

At the other: "Military actions by the coalition are a prime example of US/western Imperialism, mostly killing women and children, plus heroic freedom fighters struggling for a free and independent Afghanistan"

Even the most optimistic western spin doctors will modify the first, saying that rarely and unavoidably, a small % of civilian casualties occur, mostly due to Taliban fighters hiding amongst civilians.

I suspect the reality is not quite as rosy as that - at the best, the % is higher than most people could stomach, at the worst it represents a natural, pragmatic but disturbing military attitude of "Who the fuck cares, if there's the slightest chance that they're insurgents, nail 'em good"

All this, in service to a nominal Afghani government that is as corrupt as they come...

And the end result is ensuring more generations of islamic insurgents, burning with holy zeal to avenge their dead...

[Jason]

That's true. They'd be swelling the ranks of the enemy and shifting public opinion farther away from cooperation with each attack not only in Afghanistan, but throughout the world. It's a bad move all around.