Other new organizations hyped the fact that 90% of those killed were "unintended targets." But that's exactly what you'd expect when targeting officers in an insurgency. They are going to be surrounded by foot-soldiers.
It's certainly possible that among that 90% are too many civilians, but the leaks didn't provide any evidence of that.
I would love for you to cite where in the Drone Papers it says that the 'unintended targets' were 'foot soldiers' instead of civilians.
Of course, you can't; since the military automatically classifies any "military aged males" as combatants unless it can be proved otherwise (and there's a huge conflict of interest for them both militarily and politically if they do declare they killed a non-combatant).
You seem to be certain that the people targeted are actually "officers in an insurgency". After reading "The Drone Papers." stories I don't think we can take that as a given.
This was my initial thought as well and why war of this nature is so difficult. Let's say you know where a known terrorist is located. Do you send a drone or risk US/coalition soldier lives? You decide to send a drone and when its in range there are 20 other people around the area of the terrorist. Are they soldiers? Officers? Technicians? Drivers? Cooks? IT/Infrastructure engineers? Innocent bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time? If you don't take the known terrorist out, are you willing to wait another 6-12+ months for another chance?
Who's responsibility is it to determine and separate the supporters from the innocent? The attacker's push is to label them enemy, while the defender would label as innocent. It's impossibly hard to do this at a distance, so therefore, are you willing to send troops on the ground and live with US casualties? Or are you willing to let the terrorist go and risk increased turmoil in the region?
Let's remember this is an extremely difficult task and job, and in the current state of affairs, I don't think there is a right answer.
Imagine for a moment that the death toll and civilian casualty toll were exactly the same as our drone program except that instead of carrying out such killings using drones we were using remote detonated car bombs. Would that affect your judgment of the morality of the campaign?
Even the intended targets are intended on the basis of tenuous guesses. An armchair guess about the nature of unintended targets is just about substance-free.
I remember scanning the story about that leak and not being able to figure out what was new about it, so I didn't share it. I guess the NYT reporters didn't see a whole lot either?
It's sad Iowa Governor Branstad got rid of our Air Guard and replaced the 132nd with drone pilots. Then even advertise they are manning Reapers from the DSM Airport/Camp Dodge at the top of the kill chain. http://www.132dwing.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123450496
The US Constitution delegated Congress with the enumerated power to issue letters of marque. This is murder.
[+] [-] rhino369|10 years ago|reply
It's certainly possible that among that 90% are too many civilians, but the leaks didn't provide any evidence of that.
[+] [-] gortok|10 years ago|reply
Of course, you can't; since the military automatically classifies any "military aged males" as combatants unless it can be proved otherwise (and there's a huge conflict of interest for them both militarily and politically if they do declare they killed a non-combatant).
[+] [-] superkuh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eanzenberg|10 years ago|reply
Who's responsibility is it to determine and separate the supporters from the innocent? The attacker's push is to label them enemy, while the defender would label as innocent. It's impossibly hard to do this at a distance, so therefore, are you willing to send troops on the ground and live with US casualties? Or are you willing to let the terrorist go and risk increased turmoil in the region?
Let's remember this is an extremely difficult task and job, and in the current state of affairs, I don't think there is a right answer.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] putlake|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zigurd|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] skybrian|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] crb002|10 years ago|reply
The US Constitution delegated Congress with the enumerated power to issue letters of marque. This is murder.
[+] [-] littletimmy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh4|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyleblarson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morsch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]