ISIS Crisis

[Gaucho]

Really?

[PensFanInDC]

What difference does it make if they are recognized as a state?

I don't recognize Canada as our 51st state but they...

[Factorial]

They are a group of marauders running roughshod over established states. They need to be stopped however possible.

[PensFanInDC]

They need to be stopped however possible.

orly?

Do you want to edit that or are you going to stick to it?

[Factorial]

They need to be stopped however possible.

orly?

Do you want to edit that or are you going to stick to it?

No, I'll stick to that for now but reserve the right to place restrictions on however possible in the future.

[count2infinity]

I love today's day and age where you are not allowed to change your opinion based on new information.

[PensFanInDC]

They need to be stopped however possible.

orly?

Do you want to edit that or are you going to stick to it?

No, I'll stick to that for now but reserve the right to place restrictions on however possible in the future.

Fair enough. I was just commenting since you seem to be mostly in favor of less militaristic solutions. It seems you and I are on the same exact page when it comes to this.

Although isn't "restrictions on 'however possible'" an oxymoron?

[Factorial]

Luckily, my choice of words doesn't dictate US policy.

Yes, I am typically against military action but this is an actual threat vs Iraq or getting involved in Ukraine or bombing Iran preemptively, getting involved in The Falkland Islands, etc.

[DelPen]

I think right now it's possible to try to stop them without jeopardizing our troops with immediate danger through different kinds of arial attacks. In that sense, do whatever it takes. If it comes down to needing boots on the ground it's fair to revisit strategies.

[PensFanInDC]

I think right now it's possible to try to stop them without jeopardizing our troops with immediate danger through different kinds of arial attacks. In that sense, do whatever it takes. If it comes down to needing boots on the ground it's fair to revisit strategies.

All in agreement say Aye!

Aye...

[tifosi77]

no.

There were a lot of complaints here that al-Awlaki was droned without due process (Shyster, Tif, EPP, Shaf etc from what I remember but correct me if I'm wrong).

My opinion on that remains the same. Targeted drone strikes are, imo, an immoral and illegal exercise of executive authority. There may well be a construct where they are acceptable, but they way they've been conducted the last ten years is simply not kosher.

Just so I can better understand where you're coming from on this:

Regarding a US citizen, who has actively joined the ISIS forces in Syria/Iraq. Would it be ok for the US or one its allies (and believe me I'm skeptical of using that term for this situation) to take out said person through a non-drone based attack?

My objection has nothing to do with the citizenship of the target. The way the 'targeted drone strikes' has been implemented is an illegal exercise of executive authority.

I challenge their use on moral grounds, as well, because the use of drones cheapens the cost of employing military force. There should be consequences of using violence to achieve a policy objective, and I am not comfortable with the fact that armed drones take the risk of losing American lives out of the picture, which opens the door for abuse of power. That may sound like I'm rooting for Americans to bleed out on the battlegrounds of the world, but I'm not. Just pointing out that not being concerned about that risk opens the door for this kind of power to be misused.

They are also very often far from surgical strikes, tending to have a high degree of collateral damage. And they really seem to do more to foment disgust for the U.S. than to eradicate threats.

Furthermore, every day we get nearer and nearer to other entities acquiring the ability to use the same tech (in a more pared down fashion) against us. And when someone figures out how to weaponize a $500 UAV they got off Amazon and use it to blow up a school or drop a chemical device on the White House or whatever, we aren't going to have a whole lot ground to stand on as we scream our outrage.

[DelPen]

I can see your point, if you aren't willing to put a life on the line to take another then is it really necessary?

[Kaizer]

Wasnt my head getting cut off, oh well?

[Tico Rick]

Are you against guerrilla warfare against conventional armies, such as the Viet Cong vs. USA or American colonists vs. the British Empire? Because guerrilla tactics cheapened the cost of employing military force (and in both of those cases allowed the guerrillas to win). Warfare is constantly evolving, and the rules of the game constantly changing. Even if you may be morally against it, can you stop it from evolving? If entities who hate the US acquire drone capability, I don't think they'll say to themselves, no, we won't use our drones against the US because the US hasn't used them against us. They'll use them if they conclude it's in their best interests to do so, regardless of what the US does or does not do.

[tifosi77]

That depends on what you mean by 'guerrilla' tactics. If it's non-state actors conducting a guerrilla campaign, that technically makes them terrorists. (Unless there is open conflict and they are organized as an irregular force, but they must still comport themselves with the conduct requirements of the uniformed military) If they are acting as a proxy for a state that cannot directly intervene (like what's going on in Ukraine), that's something that's against the laws of warfare as well. Not that nations have not done those things in the past, obviously. The fact that those practices evolve does not necessarily mean it is morally (or legally) justifiable to employ them.

Generally, however, guerrilla tactics are just a means of using a small force to join battle against a larger enemy in conditions that favor the smaller force. That's not an issue.

And to clarify what I mean about other nations developing or acquiring the ability to employ armed UAVs against us, consider the debate surrounding torture. Whether or not you agree with the practice, we now no longer have any standing whatsoever to be able to complain should an American serviceman or woman be tortured. If we can do it, it must be fair game, right? That's a policy outcome that's detrimental to the stated goals, and I tend to think that's a bad thing.

[Tico Rick]

I'm not sure why you say that guerrilla tactics are not an issue when, by your own definition, the American militias who fought against the British were terrorists, as they were non-state actors who often did not "comport themselves with the conduct requirements of the uniformed military" of that time period - they tried to avoid meeting to battle on open fields, which was the accepted form of fighting in those days, but which would have been a disaster for them.

To me the use of drones is just another advance in the technology of warfare, not any less moral than, say, using satellite information to find the location of armies, arms shipments, etc. and then bombing them with piloted aircraft on bombing missions. Technology is amoral. How it is used may be immoral by the definitons of the time (recalling that murder is generally considered moral if it is the soldier of one army killing the soldier of another army in the heat of battle). Every time period has its "rules of the game" regarding warfare. To my knowledge, there hasn't been any updating of the Geneva Convention's rules to include drones. If one army is using them to target enemy combatants, how is this any different – apart from the much better cost/benefit ratio – from using bombers, tanks, rifles, grenades, etc. for that same purpose?

[columbia]

For example: firing a long range missile from a un-endangered submarine.

[tifosi77]

The use of guerrilla tactics by the American militia certainly contributed to the final outcome, but it is important to keep it in perspective. The battles were still won formation fighting. But that's not the philosophical point you're making.

It is important to not apply modern definitions and codes to battles that took place nearly 250 years ago. Article IV of the Third Geneva Convention actually spells out quite clearly that in countries where a guerrilla or 'irregular militia' makes up part or even all of a military force, those forces are deemed uniformed combatants for the purposes of determining applicable humanitarian laws, rights, duties etc. I am not sure how much that differs from the Revolution, but it should be noted that not only were the British used to guerrilla tactics by the time they were in open conflict with the Americans, they themselves had been making use of such tactics for over half a century.

But remember; a guerrilla force still acts in concert with a codified military structure and often under the command of a uniformed military officer. The Wolverines (for example) were not that. Many of the insurgents in Iraq were not that.

To my knowledge, no international agreements have addressed drones in any real capacity. That means they are treated like any other weapons system, making them subject to the same international agreements on their use. For example, there is an affirmative responsibility on the using party to distinguish between combatants and civilians. All realistic precautions must be taken to spare civilians and civilian infrastructure, and if it comes to pass that civilian collateral damage is more likely than originally planned, the attack must be called off. Conversely, any weapon system that makes it possible to be more precise in attack, and helps mitigate collateral civilian damage and casualties must be given preference. It is unclear if drones actually afford that measure of enhanced accuracy, and given our record of dead civilians in Pakistan in particular, I'd argue that they really aren't all that great as platforms.

Bear in mind, however, that when drones are used absent a 'hot' armed conflict, it is the applicable national law, and international human rights law (vis-a-vis law enforcement), as opposed to humanitarian law, that governs the deployment of armed force. And this is the key differentiator, imo, that really calls the legality of our drone program into question. Since we are not in open conflict with Yemen, Somolia or Pakistan, for example, the question that has to be asked is "Would this be a legal thing for the local police to do?" While I confess to not being terribly familiar with the criminal codes of those countries, I'm pretty sure the cops can't murder people with flying killer robots. Unless they're gay; they will murder absolute sh|t out of gay people.

[columbia]

I can guarantee you that someone out there is trying to figure how to use a drone to launch a dirty bomb attack on the type of target you mentioned, regardless of whether the US uses them again or ever did in the first place.

[columbia]

I think you're looking for moral clarity where none exists and is maybe not even possible.

[Green Eggs and Ham]

If someone is considering some kind of terrorist action it is highly likely Tom Clancy already wrote about it.

[Tico Rick]

Technology and events have both outpaced international law. I don't believe there are any laws which regulate the use of drones, nor any legal definitions of war as something that can take place between a state and an NGO such as Al Qaeda.

[count2infinity]

why isnt this thread called crISIS?

[Tomas]

For at least the last 15 years, our grading/administrative/etc. system has been called:

https://isis.uark.edu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

and yes, sometimes trying to work with that website feels like a nightmare...

[Tico Rick]

Razorbacks: pure sports terrorism