Trump clears CIA to issue drone strikes

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 04:15 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Interestingly enough, we're talking about the drone's use in warfare, which is important. But what this particular move is about is taking away oversight of the program. The lack of oversight/accountability was why the program was moved from the CIA to the military. The program still existed, but now it was the military in charge of it which is more accountable to the elected officials.

The CIA is less accountable, and there is a lower level of oversight that will exist over the program by moving it back to the CIA. I think we may have forgotten this piece of it all.

Why can't the CinC require the same command and control protocol and ROE for both the CIA and the DOD?

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2017, 04:32 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why can't the CinC require the same command and control protocol and ROE for both the CIA and the DOD?

I'm sure he could, but that hasn't been done. And since the CIA isn't as answerable to the rest of the government, only to POTUS, even if the same ROE were implemented on the surface, who is checking that?

[Benton]

(03-16-2017, 04:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just want to take a moment and point out the interesting sides that have formed on this argument.

The crux of my argument is that, as a pacifist, I want killing to remain personal because when killing remains personal we do more to try to avoid it. We kill only when necessary. Going back to bfine's example, we see the opportunity for surrender. The saving of human life. I know it can seem counter intuitive to hear (see) someone put out there that warfare needs to be brutal so that we can better avoid it, but it's the opinion I have on it. Our country is in a constant state of conflict around the world, and I want that to stop. Weaponized drones more easily allows that to continue.

We're not going to sway anyone on this, I don't think, so I'm just going to rest it there.

Agreed on that, and the difference was why I originally asked (and the bold was why I initially hesitated to respond, as I don't think there's much any of us are going to do to sway those opinions).

And, as a pacifist, I want to do whatever I can to remove the loss of life. If that means exposing fewer soldiers to harm, great. But it also has to do with the brutality you mention. I volunteered with Wounded Warriors for a number of years. Many of their scars aren't physical, and a lot of the depression/mental illness/PTSD/suicides springs from that exposure. One of the ones that's impacted me the most is an old friend in military intelligence. He still keeps a tab of every site he ordered attacked since making the move a decade ago, and the estimated death tolls. They weigh heavier than the combatants he had to kill in person.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2017, 04:34 PM)Benton Wrote: Agreed on that, and the difference was why I originally asked (and the bold was why I initially hesitated to respond, as I don't think there's much any of us are going to do to sway those opinions).

And, as a pacifist, I want to do whatever I can to remove the loss of life. If that means exposing fewer soldiers to harm, great. But it also has to do with the brutality you mention. I volunteered with Wounded Warriors for a number of years. Many of their scars aren't physical, and a lot of the depression/mental illness/PTSD/suicides springs from that exposure. One of the ones that's impacted me the most is an old friend in military intelligence. He still keeps a tab of every site he ordered attacked since making the move a decade ago, and the estimated death tolls. They weigh heavier than the combatants he had to kill in person.

And I get that entirely. I don't know if you realize this, though, but those drone pilots are experiencing the same. Even recon drone pilots experience it. Those non-physical scars aren't going to become non-existent with drone warfare.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 04:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm sure he could, but that hasn't been done. And since the CIA isn't as answerable to the rest of the government, only to POTUS, even if the same ROE were implemented on the surface, who is checking that?

How do you know it hasn't been done? What was the difference in ROE for a CIA drone strike and a DOD drone strike? Or the C2 to get approval?

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2017, 04:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: How do you know it hasn't been done? What was the difference in ROE for a CIA drone strike and a DOD drone strike? Or the C2 to get approval?

Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to play the semantics gotcha game. I used my words incorrectly. I have no idea what the RoE are, but I do know that the entire reason for the shift of the drone program from CIA to military was so that there would be more accountability and oversight over the program. Had just stating the ROE were the same in the two programs been sufficient, then the pressure to make the change to the DoD would not have been at the level it was. Not to mention that because of the lower levels of oversight and accountability can allow for a statement to be made regarding the RoE and then immediately overturned without the fanfare.

[Dill]

(03-16-2017, 03:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you actually looked at what I said and not what you want me to have said you will see my goal is to avoid friendly casualty, WHILE engaged in direct fire combat.

You don't care about the enemy combatant because you most likely cannot empathize with him or her

So you could tell from your drone that no one was being forced to guide the patrol?

You could tell from your drone that no one was forced to guide the party? 

What I could tell depends on the kind of intel I might already have from that area.

I heard you say your goal was to avoid a friendly casualty, while engaged in direct fire combat.  If I am in a firefight then no, I cannot, and should not, empathize with whomever is shooting at me. I am a liability to everyone around me if I do.

But the point of my line of questioning is to find out whether you would put an American soldier's life at risk (your own combatants) rather than use a drone, or some other safe, long-distance weapon. The answer seems to be yes. And you would be empathizing with the Taliban, or maybe a friendly among them.

Looks like I let you slide out of the question by reframing the conditions. Let's say you have intel that says your Taliban are all Taliban and bad ones at that. You would send out a force and risk direct engagement to give them a chance to surrender rather than use the drone? Or for that matter artillery. A 155 HE round would have bigger punch. Would that be any different from a drone?

[Benton]

(03-16-2017, 04:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And I get that entirely. I don't know if you realize this, though, but those drone pilots are experiencing the same. Even recon drone pilots experience it. Those non-physical scars aren't going to become non-existent with drone warfare.

I probably muddied the waters a bit there, but I agree, they are. I guess my point was, since they are, there's not the impact you were mentioning earlier of seeing the brutality first hand. Those people are still seeing it, their brains are still processing 'hey, I just killed 50 people' even if they aren't there smelling the sulfur or stepping on empty brass.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 04:22 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: So no air support or indirect fire?  Just direct lay weapons?

Of course you want support for your ground forces. However, they should be observing the fires and in a position to shift or cancel.

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2017, 04:58 PM)Benton Wrote: I probably muddied the waters a bit there, but I agree, they are. I guess my point was, since they are, there's not the impact you were mentioning earlier of seeing the brutality first hand. Those people are still seeing it, their brains are still processing 'hey, I just killed 50 people' even if they aren't there smelling the sulfur or stepping on empty brass.

Seeing the brutality isn't as much about those pulling the trigger as it is about those sending them in to pull the trigger. I'm really not trying to be crass about it, but flag draped coffins have a bigger impact on communicating the realities of war than a twenty-something receiving psychological treatment for flying a drone over Afghanistan.

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in our elected officials to recognize this sort of thing.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 04:51 PM)Dill Wrote: What I could tell depends on the kind of intel I might already have from that area.

I heard you say your goal was to avoid a friendly casualty, while engaged in direct fire combat.  If I am in a firefight then no, I cannot, and should not, empathize with whomever is shooting at me. I am a liability to everyone around me if I do.

But the point of my line of questioning is to find out whether you would put an American soldier's life at risk (your own combatants) rather than use a drone, or some other safe, long-distance weapon. The answer seems to be yes. And you would be empathizing with the Taliban, or maybe a friendly among them.

Looks like I let you slide out of the question by reframing the conditions. Let's say you have intel that says your Taliban are all Taliban and bad ones at that. You would send out a force and risk direct engagement to give them a chance to surrender rather than use the drone? Or for that matter artillery. A 155 HE round would have bigger punch. Would that be any different from a drone?

I have stated my view and given my reasoning. I suppose if you continue to reframe the conditions you could find a scenario where I would prefer drone strike over direct combat.

As a rule I am not a fan of using drone for destructive purposes and I damn sure don't want to broaden the scope of who can employ them; however, I love them for intelligence purposes and to give our Soldiers a tactical advantage.

[Millhouse]

Snoop Dog better have an eye on the sky, just sayin.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to play the semantics gotcha game. I used my words incorrectly. I have no idea what the RoE are, but I do know that the entire reason for the shift of the drone program from CIA to military was so that there would be more accountability and oversight over the program. Had just stating the ROE were the same in the two programs been sufficient, then the pressure to make the change to the DoD would not have been at the level it was. Not to mention that because of the lower levels of oversight and accountability can allow for a statement to be made regarding the RoE and then immediately overturned without the fanfare.

I wasn't trying to play a semantics argument. I don't know the ROE or the C2 differences and wasn't aware of the reasons for the switch.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 05:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you want support for your ground forces. However, they should be observing the fires and in a position to shift or cancel.

What's the difference between observing the fire via binoculars vs. a video or satellite feed?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 05:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Seeing the brutality isn't as much about those pulling the trigger as it is about those sending them in to pull the trigger. I'm really not trying to be crass about it, but flag draped coffins have a bigger impact on communicating the realities of war than a twenty-something receiving psychological treatment for flying a drone over Afghanistan.

Maybe I'm putting too much faith in our elected officials to recognize this sort of thing.

Considering Iraq, yeah.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 05:32 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have stated my view and given my reasoning. I suppose if you continue to reframe the conditions you could find a scenario where I would prefer drone strike over direct combat.

As a rule I am not a fan of using drone for destructive purposes and I damn sure don't want to broaden the scope of who can employ them; however, I love them for intelligence purposes and to give our Soldiers a tactical advantage.

I don't see the difference between a drone and a cruise middle attack. The threat to the person employing the weapon is negligible.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(03-16-2017, 10:13 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree that we should do everything we can to minimize unnecessary deaths, but I draw a line at removing man from the battlefield unless we are removing all men from the battlefield. We can settle our differences on robot wars.

"...and that, son, was how the US ended World War 3."

[Belsnickel]

(03-16-2017, 07:52 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:


"...and that, son, was how the US ended World War 3."

Exactly.

[*bfine32*]

(03-16-2017, 07:40 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I don't see the difference between a drone and a cruise middle attack. The threat to the person employing the weapon is negligible.

...and I have stated my views on bombing as well. It's the easy button and many ground Troops do not like it. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(03-16-2017, 08:21 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and I have stated my views on bombing as well. It's the easy button and many ground Troops do not like it. 

In my experience, I've seen more collateral damage from ground troops than from drones. If we're not going to use the "easy button" then we should go back to primitive weapons and stop using 3:1 forces so we can make life more precious when we snuff it out.

Going back to supporting ground troops, if a drone prevents the ground troops from being used isn't that better support than indirect or close air? Many ground troops don't like being shot at.