Thursday, November 15, 2012

Drone ROE

Rules of Engagement - a somewhat, uh, loaded jurisprudence term in girlworld. Not so much in the cherry popping 1st year of the 2nd decade of drone wars.

Tho now cats are beginning the confabs of a fake debate about drone war since P4's Laffy Taffy inspired Hari Kari
 For six months now, we have seen the first stirrings of a drone revolt—like the quiet growth of the COIN critique, the pushback on GWOT ("global war on terror"), and every other tactic masquerading as a defining strategy for counterterrorism after 9/11. Like those counter-revolutions, the drone revolt has two strands—a moral and humanitarian one, and a pragmatic and effectiveness-based one.
 Coping with the threat of terrorism not by winning hearts and minds, but by decapitating extremist groups so quickly that they were ill-equipped to mount and carry out large-scale attacks across borders and great distances. The drone wars.
  In fact Jack, 2 ex CIA cats LOL that with a new Director General - CIA should "kill less and spy more." 
The core of the effectiveness critique of drones, in particular the "signature strikes" against low- and mid-level operatives, or individuals who share characteristics with such operatives, that the CIA has rolled out in recent years, is disarmingly similar to the critique Petraeus made of pre-COIN operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—that you cannot deny terrorists the ability to operate in a community if that community does not have a sense of security, and that terrorists recruit replacements from disassociated violence faster than they or their leadership can be killed off. 

This confluence suggests that the core challenge of blocking terrorism is not a military one... Drones and other forms of remote-control warfare aren't going away. The technological developments that empowered them won't be undone. The very real organizations that do seek to threaten Great Satan aren't going to fold up on their own.

So far - o tay - noth major yet noth unmajor either. And now the boring part
We do need, urgently, some theory around which we create legal, ethical, and practical guidelines for remote-control warfare, based on what we know about human nature, and what we have learned about human response to our efforts to date.
 Actually, that last bit is totally incorrect.

Why cause?


Beleaf it or don't - Drones Gone Wild do have their very own Rules of Engagement.

1st off - please note where Drone Wars is happening - or better yet where it's not happening.

Nation States with a fully crunk Writ of State, the ability to police and manage their turf (Rule of Law or despotry designed) are prett much safe as milk where Drones are concerned. No drones strike down the wicked in Montreal, Miami, London, Mockba or Cairo. A phone call or shout out to confederate counterparts in the shadowy shadow wars world wide easily renders suspects and  terrorists to fall sweetly in Great Satan or allied clutches.

Only in the goofy parts of the world where Writ of State is as rare as Barnes and Nobles, Victoria's Secret or Hot Topic are drones deployed - spying and killing. 

The humanitarian issue is somewhat overblow in worse fashion than the bridge at Remagen.

Nation States (of sorts) that host homegrown and foreign creeps that craft diy girl beating promo vids, mutilate girls, shoot girls in the head on a school bus, are magically immune from the indigenous PoPo and/or Allied boots on the ground while rocking out to sweet crunchy pop rock about drones, suicide bombs and multiplying militants marching down from the mountains are hardly worthy of a sovereignty dodge

Pic - "My love is as fatal as a drone attack."