WAR ON TERROR - Use of Drones

"Amid Criticism, U.S. Increases Use of Drones as Weapons of War" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 10/10/2011

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Next tonight, remote-control bombing attacks as a weapon of war.

The recent killing in Yemen of the U.S.-born al-Qaida militant Anwar al-Awlaki, with several others, was just the latest example of a high-profile missile attack by CIA drones. In fact, the U.S. has dramatically increased its use of remotely controlled UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles, to go after targets in hard-to-reach areas, including in Afghanistan, Somalia, Libya and especially Pakistan, where U.S. Reaper and Predator drones have reportedly killed more than 2,000 Taliban and al-Qaida militants.

But they have also stirred protests, including last June in Karachi, where Pakistanis complained too many innocents are killed by errant strikes. And just yesterday in Nevada, protesters outside Creech Air Force Base also condemned the deaths of innocent civilians.

There are also questions about what happens as the technology spreads. Britain and Israel have already used drones. Other nations are in the process of developing their own models.

"Does U.S. Drone Use Set a New Precedent for War?" (Part-2)
PBS Newshour 10/10/2011


Points well made.....

Excerpts from transcript

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): Well, David Cortright, do you -- do you find something here that is unique, that is different?

DAVID CORTRIGHT, University of Notre Dame: Yes, I disagree. I think it is new morally and politically.

We are now at a point where it's possible for political leaders to think that we can make war cheaply and seemingly easily. This is a part of the justification, as the general noted. We can wage war without endangering our troops, at seemingly lower costs.

And any development that makes war seem cheaper or easier is morally troubling. Our principles are based on -- an aversion against the use of force. We should use force only in an absolute emergency under strict ethical principles. Now we have a development which will make it easier. It's very troubling, I think, and also raises many legal issues in terms of where we stand as a country, what our political and legal principles are.
----
DAVID CORTRIGHT: And, moreover, these weapons are, I think, perpetuating the illusion that we can defeat terrorism with military force. We should know by now that this cannot be done. We need to protect ourselves, yes. Security measures are part of the mix, but ultimately terrorism is a political phenomenon. It must be defeated by political means, through bargaining and negotiation, through police work, law enforcement.

JEFFREY BROWN: OK.

DAVID CORTRIGHT: It will not be defeated through military attacks. And the more we use the drones, the more we increase animosity towards our countries and some...

There is one of Mr. Cortright's statements I disagree with. This is NOT a political phenomenon, so much as a religious phenomenon. Which means this cannot be solved by political means, militarily or diplomatic.