Time to finally say no to drone strikes

[The Northerner]

As if drone attacks and the disclosure of Washington Post that if Gen David H Petraeus is confirmed as the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), he would effectively take command of a third war in Pakistan (he fought the other two in Iraq and Afghanistan) were not enough, the nation had to face yet another humiliation in its own city of Abbottabad. Our air defence system was knocked out by jamming radars. Our sovereignty, if any, was violated by our close ally in this war on terror. This leads one to another and more serious question: are our nuclear assets safe? We need to ponder on this question seriously if we want to survive as a nation with honour and dignity.

We failed to respond to such urgent calls in 1971 and lost half the country. We cannot afford such a mistake again. We have no option but to get our act together to avoid another embarrassment like this.

We had hardly recovered from the shock of this blatant violation when another drone attack took place in North Waziristan killing more than 16 people. What will be our leaders’ response to this? Will they consider it a violation of our sovereignty or overlook it as they have done in the past?

Imran Khan was right when he tried to remind us of our duty by protesting in Peshawar against drone attacks, at a time when other leaders were only paying lip service. Other political leaders supposedly opposed to drone attacks who only vent their anger on TV talk shows were left in the lurch. The chairman of Tehreek-e-Insaf led the procession from Islamabad to Peshawar in these difficult times, when bomb blasts and suicide attacks are the order of the day. By doing this he proved that when you are on the side of the people they will themselves gather around to protect you.

Read more: http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=45963&Cat=9&dt=5/9/2011

[sudopod]

1. Waitin for people to get mad. nt

[saras]

2. The time to say no to drones was when they were invented, now, and forever

Personally I think they should simply be outlawed, the same way chemical and biological weapons are.

[AtomicKitten]

3. Still they are preferable to boots on the ground.

[Phx_Dem]

4. Disagree. Drones are very effective and keep our soldiers safer.

You think innocent people don't accidently get killed when we use soldiers instead of drones? Ask Pat Tillman's family about that.

[Swede]

5. If you can't control insurgents inside your borders,expect these things.

Dismantle the AL Qaeda camps,no need for drones.

[sudopod]

7. Do what we say or we'll kill these innocent people?

Now what sort of people do that, hmmm?

[Swede]

10. Innocent insurgents?

hmmmm

[sudopod]

11. You know who I meant.

Actually, no, I love the terrorists. Boo Amerika!!!11111one

[sudopod]

8. .

[stevenleser]

6. If we have to be going after these folks, drones are the best option. Drones are a red herring

The argument you really want to be making is that we should not be in Af-Pak at all.

Otherwise, what you are arguing for is full out air strikes or battallions on the ground attacking towns with mortar, artillery and close air support.

As I said, the drone argument is a red herring.

[tekisui]

12. We should be completely out, but the drones are arguably worse.

They are more indiscriminate and have high collateral damage. The large increase in their use under Obama, as his weapon of choice, also sets a dangerous precedent. We have now carried out drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Libya among others.

It foments hate and radicalizes the local populations. It is making us less safe by creating more terrorists.

[stevenleser]

13. You do understand the alternatives will kill many more civilians, right?

If we send fighter-bombers to drop even their smallest ordnance, it is more powerful than a drone's hellfire missile. You will probably kill three times as many people as the drones kill.

If we send ground troops to fight their way to the targets, there will be bullets flying from both groups, RPGs from the bad guys, grenades from both sides, mortars from both sides, possibly artillery from our side, close air support, etc. You will kill around 5-10 times as many people as the drones kill.

[tekisui]

14. And, as I said, we should not be there killing at all.

I also don't necessarily think that higher deaths mean greater outrage. The psychological impact of death from the sky by drones, especially in civilians populations could cause a greater blowback than if we were actually engaging with troops.

It is a feeling of helplessness, and impossibility to confront.

[stevenleser]

18. If that is the objection, it is one I am willing to live with.

"It is a feeling of helplessness, and impossibility to confront."

That is what you want if you are fighting with someone.

[tekisui]

20. We are not fighting civilian populations are we?

[stevenleser]

22. Mentally? Absolutely. If you can get the civilian population behind the combatants to give up

its over. That is true for virtually any war or conflict.

[Keith Bee]

9. I guess I'm just dumb

I didn't know the Borg even had a labor union!

[jefferson_dem]

15. Sorry...

I must disagree. Drones are among the least bad of all options in warfare.

[Cali_Democrat]

16. The war cheerleading on this thread is frightening

If many people on a progressive website are so supportive of war and drone strikes, there really is no hope of ending these wars.

And new wars will happen as well because the support will be there. This is why Bush was able to go into Iraq without any real consequences to his Administration, the majority of the American people supported it at the time.

[stevenleser]

19. I dont see any cheerleading. I see discussion of which types of attacks are worse than others

I am opposed to our continuing to be in Af-Pak. But if we are there, the drones are the best option.

[Thrill]

17. More Drone attacks=Less US troops

Up them and bring the troops home

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. +1