US Use of Armed Drones

[nerdgirl 0]

Since he took office, President Obama has authorized reportedly approximately three dozen unmanned drone attacks in southwest Asia by the CIA. This is more than any single year. It has been reported widely recently that the CIA has requested expansion of the drone program to Balochistan, which is outside Pakistan’s northwest provinces, is almost half of Pakistan, and is widely believed to be the location of the Quetta Shura Taliban. President Obama has also approved requests from the US military to increase use of reconnaissance drones – such as the “Beast of Kandahar” UAV – and reportedly has received request to expand use of unarmed and armed drones in SW Asia. The US Air Force is anticipating increased use of unmanned drones.

There has been significant discussion and questioning whether this tactic is beneficial in the long-run, i.e., strategically. The debate can, imo, be summarized by comparing the responses of LTC David Kilcullen, PhD, Australian Army, who advised GEN Petraeus while he was OIF commander and LTG David Barno, USA (ret), who former commander of US forces in Afghanistan, during their testimony to the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) on “Effective Counterinsurgency: The Future of the U.S.-Pakistan Military Partnership” last April[/url]:

Kilcullen and Barno disagree strongly w/r/t use and effectiveness of drones deployed from Afghanistan into the Pakistan border. Kilcullen describes them as “robots in the air” and asserts that it makes the US apper weak from a tribal culture perspective. Barno argues that they are being disruptive of al Qa’eda & Pakistani Taliban.

So what do think?
Do you approve of the use of drones in southwest Asia?
Why or why not?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

We need to be able to vote for multiple options. There are three non-exclusive options (i.e., options 2, 3, 4) that I could choose.

More to the point, until our primary tactics are projections of soft power instead of hard power, the WOT is a lost cause, drones or not.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BillyVance 34]

We are having to use these drones because Pakistan has rejected all requests by the U.S. to send troops into Pakistan or manned aircraft over their airspace.

What are you supposed to do? Get it done somehow!

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

We are having to use these drones because Pakistan has rejected all requests by the U.S. to send troops into Pakistan or manned aircraft over their airspace.

Is that a question or a statement?

/marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

  Quote

… Pakistan has rejected all requests by the U.S. to send troops into Pakistan …

We've recently had troops in Pakistan. I suspect that we still do. I doubt that they're there without the knowledge of the government of Pakistan.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[BikerBabe 0]

oooh, a topic near and dear to my heart!

Well, to be honest, i didn't vote in the poll because i am biased. Personally biased. as in, my family's primary source of income comes from my husband, who happens to be a program manager at the company that produces the mainstay of said "offensive UAV" fleet, the Predator B. So if I were to be 100% honest, the only rational poll option for me would be the first one, of course. More Predator Bs means continued job security for Sean, heh.

As a techie type, I honestly had never even considered the cultural and/or diplomatic consequences of using drones. Within the Air Force, the big debate over the use of UAVs always tended to be whether they would make pilots obsolete and should we keep developing them and consequently put pilots out of a job. Or their true utility in successful mission completion.

I come from a reconnaissance background, so i'm not as knowledgeable on the use of UAVs in an offensive role. Last time i worked with the Predator, Big Safari (special recce programs office)had JUST put Hellfires on the wings of a Predator A for the first time. I do sometimes wonder about the "battle judgment" and fog of war type concerns that using them offensively might engender.

interesting debate. I'll ask my hubby about his thoughts on it when he gets back from his flight test trip on Thursday.

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[riddler 0]

  Quote

We are having to use these drones because Pakistan has rejected all requests by the U.S. to send troops into Pakistan or manned aircraft over their airspace.

Don't understand your answer - Pakistan hasn't exactly authorized the use of armed drones over their airspace either. So does the US think that sending flying missile platforms is less of an invasion of Pakistan than sending footsoldiers in?

I don't believe the US commanders are such cowards. I think they feel that it's the safest methodology for our troops - a lot fewer soldiers will be killed if they aren't actually in the country.

I also think the US commanders don't give a hoot about the innocent people that are killed in Pakistan. You may or may not get the person or people that you want to kill. But you are nearly always going to kill other people that were never targets.

The "collateral damage" mentality is going to breed more terrorism. If someone killed my children I would stop at nothing to do the same to them.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[quade 4]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the only reason to use a stealth drone such as the RQ-170 that you don't have either control or permission to be flying in the airspace to begin with? Certainly we're not concerned that the Taliban is picking it up on radar.

Are we concerned that radar operators for Pakistan are Taliban sympathizers and will tip them off?

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought we had tacit approval to fly drones from Pakistan for surveillance purposes but not attacks.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[BillyVance 34]

  Quote

  Quote

We are having to use these drones because Pakistan has rejected all requests by the U.S. to send troops into Pakistan or manned aircraft over their airspace.

Don't understand your answer - Pakistan hasn't exactly authorized the use of armed drones over their airspace either. So does the US think that sending flying missile platforms is less of an invasion of Pakistan than sending footsoldiers in?

I don't believe the US commanders are such cowards. I think they feel that it's the safest methodology for our troops - a lot fewer soldiers will be killed if they aren't actually in the country.

I also think the US commanders don't give a hoot about the innocent people that are killed in Pakistan. You may or may not get the person or people that you want to kill. But you are nearly always going to kill other people that were never targets.

The "collateral damage" mentality is going to breed more terrorism. If someone killed my children I would stop at nothing to do the same to them.

I would then say we are using the drones to eliminate the possibility of our pilots being shot down over Pakistan and being captured, likely by the Taliban or Al Qaida. That would not be a pleasant experience. The fuckers are trying to hide from us, so we'll get them however we can.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the only reason to use a stealth drone such as the RQ-170 that you don't have either control or permission to be flying in the airspace to begin with? Certainly we're not concerned that the Taliban is picking it up on radar.

Are we concerned that radar operators for Pakistan are Taliban sympathizers and will tip them off?

Maybe I'm wrong but I thought we had tacit approval to fly drones from Pakistan for surveillance purposes but not attacks.

Yes, it is widely believed/asserted that there is tacit approval from Pakistan for drone flights ... whether that extends to armed drones and how far into/where in Pakistan is not as clear, imo. It has been asserted that it does.

You do pose an interesting question w/r/t the RQ-170. As far as I am aware all of the openly reported flights have been in southern Afghanistan (Kandahar, which is adjacent to Balochistan). My first order explanation was simpler: new equipment to use in an operational setting.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[quade 4]

  Quote

I would then say we are using the drones to eliminate the possibility of our pilots being shot down over Pakistan and being captured, likely by the Taliban or Al Qaida.

No.

The main reason for using drones for surveillance is loiter time. They can stay over the target area for a lot longer than a piloted aircraft can. That's extremely important since losing sight of the target for even a few minutes means the possibility of losing them for days, weeks, months thereafter.

The reason for having them armed is so you can take the shot if it presents itself.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

interesting debate.

Concur.
Just yesterday there was a symposia at NDU on "Unmanned Aerial Vehicles as an Instrument of War. (Check on "The HALO Postulate" too. )

  Quote

I'll ask my hubby about his thoughts on it when he gets back from his flight test trip on Thursday.

Look forward to any thoughts or comments he might share.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

  Quote

Check on "The HALO Postulate" too.

One of my former roommates had just returned from Iraq before he moved in. He couldn't stand to watch war movies, because they reminded him too much of his time in the sandbox. But, he had no issues playing HALO. I always thought that was kind of strange.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[quade 4]

  Quote

My first order explanation was simpler: new equipment to use in an operational setting.

I don't know a lot about the RQ-170 beyond its basic shape. That does, however, tell me a bit about it; the main thing being jet engined. I would think the main tradeoff there being stealth and speed vs loiter time.

To me, that means it would mostly be used to go after targets you pretty much already know the GPS coordinates of. Doesn't seem like something you'd have patrolling the skies for the purposes of electronic surveillance, then again, maybe the shape does allow it to have a long loiter time I'm just not seeing in the photos.

Those swept wings and B-2 whale like body seem to not work in favor of long flight times. Just seems a bit "thick" for that.

You're probably correct about testing it out in an operational area though, but I often wonder what side a lot of the folks in Pakistan are on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[champu 1]

Barno's comment about the strikes being "disruptive" is one that I think needs attention. The first and simplest question being how is it disruptive? From various news articles it appears we're targeting technical resources, operations planners, propaganda distributors, and Taliban liaisons.

In other words... ...just kinda... ...whoever, really.

It's apparent the drone strikes aren't popular with the locals, so the next question is is it really worth the hassle to kill someone who is extremely replaceable like a liaison or a propaganda guy? Stronger arguments could be made for going after operations planners and bomb makers (i.e. the ones who dream stuff up and the ones who make it happen) but I think this should be broken out into two separate considerations.

My third question came up when I was looking through articles and noticed that one of the guys was in a truck with his two buddies when he got hit and another was in a car with one other person. Should that be an engagement that is specifically and exclusively pursued? It seems to me if you attack a hideout in a village you are asking for trouble. If you strictly hit guys in cars on roads away from all bystanders I think you can get what you want and still be able to sell yourself to the local population (i.e. have your COIN and eat it too.)

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

Barno's comment about the strikes being "disruptive" is one that I think needs attention. The first and simplest question being how is it disruptive? From various news articles it appears we're targeting technical resources, operations planners, propaganda distributors, and Taliban liaisons.

In other words... ...just kinda... ...whoever, really.

Abu Jihad al-Masri (aka Mohammad al-Hakim) and Abu Khabab al-Masri (Midhat Mursi) were very high level members of al Qa'eda. Al Hakim was the chief of propoganda. To quote Galula with “no positive policy but with good propaganda, the insurgent may still win.” He was also thought to be the chief of external operations. Mursi was the chief unconventional weaponeer.

You're asking a valid question, imo - how do you measure the effectiveness - "disruption" -- versus consequences? COIN is not something that lends itself to easy metrics.

  Quote

If you strictly hit guys in cars on roads away from all bystanders I think you can get what you want and still be able to sell yourself to the local population (i.e. have your COIN and eat it too.)

Concur. What are the critical variables for that? The two off the top of my head are first, human intelligence. You have to know when & where. And second, technical or a material capability, i.e., need a drone, missile, and control system capable of that precision there at the right time. The former is more challenging than the latter.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[champu 1]

I gathered up a bunch of articles hoping to illustrate the spectrum of people being targeted. I may not have ordered the classes of actors in the same priority as someone else might, I just think it's an aspect that needs to be considered.

  Quote

You're asking a valid question, imo - how do you measure the effectiveness - "disruption" -- versus consequences? COIN is not something that lends itself to easy metrics.

It's about replaceability. Is this someone who is particularly effective at training others? Is this someone who has a skill that's not easily transferable and accomplishes a lot as a one-man-outfit? Is this someone with particular contacts outside of AQ that may not be easily re-established by another member?

  Quote

  Quote

If you strictly hit guys in cars on roads away from all bystanders I think you can get what you want and still be able to sell yourself to the local population (i.e. have your COIN and eat it too.)

Concur. What are the critical variables for that? The two off the top of my head are first, human intelligence. You have to know when & where. And second, technical or a material capability, i.e., need a drone, missile, and control system capable of that precision there at the right time. The former is more challenging than the latter.

Agreed. The latter is simpler (read: we're better at that sort of challenge, and some might think us crazy for actually believing that's the easy part.)

[redlegphi 0]

In COIN, there is no single enemy who is so important that his death justifies pushing a civilian populace further into the enemy camp. If they can get a clean shot on a "bad" guy, then great. Take it. But it seems like there aren't a lot of those clean shots happening, which means that we're breeding our next generation of militants.
Also, if we know where a guy is well enough to target him with a drone, I'd say it'd be a hell of a lot better to get the Pakistani military to go pick him up so that we can try and drag intel out of him. Intel drives operations, or so they keep telling me. Dead guys tend to give us very little intel. Of course, that runs into the problem of the Pakistani military and ISI being infiltrated by Taliban and AQ, though I have to believe that there's a work-around for that that would keep the information from getting out until it's too late for the target to help himself.
In short, I'm voting option 2.

[riddler 0]

  Quote

We've recently had troops in Pakistan. I suspect that we still do. I doubt that they're there without the knowledge of the government of Pakistan.

Not according to Admiral Mullen, who said just last week there is "absolutely no provision or discussion" of putting any U.S. troops in Pakistan. There is support personnel there, which was at the request of the Pakistani government, to train their own troops.

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[champu 1]

  Quote

In COIN, there is no single enemy who is so important that his death justifies pushing a civilian populace further into the enemy camp. If they can get a clean shot on a "bad" guy, then great. Take it. But it seems like there aren't a lot of those clean shots happening, which means that we're breeding our next generation of militants.

This is kinda what I was getting at. The reason I suggest re-evaluating how important some of these people actually are is because I'm assuming waiting around for a clean shot is more resource intensive than just taking what you get, and it may limit the number of targets you can go after. I think that if armed drones are to be used they must not kill/maim civilians. That's actually a higher standard than for deployed troops, but we've demonstrated that we can do it.

  Quote

Also, if we know where a guy is well enough to target him with a drone, I'd say it'd be a hell of a lot better to get the Pakistani military to go pick him up so that we can try and drag intel out of him. Intel drives operations, or so they keep telling me. Dead guys tend to give us very little intel. Of course, that runs into the problem of the Pakistani military and ISI being infiltrated by Taliban and AQ, though I have to believe that there's a work-around for that that would keep the information from getting out until it's too late for the target to help himself.

I have no idea what kind of time window these strikes are conducted in, or how fast the Pakistani military can get to anywhere in their country discretely enough to capture someone, but that may be an alternative. Of course, exchanging fire in a small village when everything doesn't go perfectly presents a lot of the same problems as with the drone strikes.

[happythoughts 0]

  Quote

It's about replaceability. Is this someone who is particularly effective at training others?

"Ok... welcome to Suicide Bomber Training 101.
This is your standard bomb vest. These are the batteries.
This is the detonator switch."

"Watch carefully, I'm only going to show you once."

[redlegphi 0]

  Quote

I have no idea what kind of time window these strikes are conducted in, or how fast the Pakistani military can get to anywhere in their country discretely enough to capture someone, but that may be an alternative. Of course, exchanging fire in a small village when everything doesn't go perfectly presents a lot of the same problems as with the drone strikes.

The time window can obviously become an issue and there are obviously times when it's necessary to just take the shot when you get it (like when we took out Zarqawi). That said, the Pakistanis going in and taking them with ground troops has several advantages over the UAV option.
1) It's the Pakistanis doing it, not us.
2) It removes the psychological effect of the UAV kill. I think the UAV kill tends to cause more resentment than ground troops rolling in and getting into a firefight. If there's a firefight, then it's clear that there were at least some bad people there, justifying the action. The UAV kill tends to come out of nowhere, like we're a country that fancies ourselves equal to God, capable of smiting people at will.
3) There's a chance of getting intelligence from people you capture, driving further operations. I'd say it'd probably also easier to collect documents and such from a building that hasn't been blown up by a missile, making exploitation of said documents easier as well.

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

In COIN, there is no single enemy who is so important that his death justifies pushing a civilian populace further into the enemy camp. If they can get a clean shot on a "bad" guy, then great. Take it. But it seems like there aren't a lot of those clean shots happening, which means that we're breeding our next generation of militants.

An argument that suggests that the underlying division w/r/t whether or not one supports or doesn’t the use of drones in SW Asia is less a partisan/US domestics politics issue than one of support (or maybe just understanding?) of counterinsurgency (COIN) versus non-COIN approaches. (And some of those critiques of lack of understanding are internal to the US military.) At least that’s how I’m reading what’s been posted to this thread. Others may disagree.

  Quote

Also, if we know where a guy is well enough to target him with a drone, I'd say it'd be a hell of a lot better to get the Pakistani military to go pick him up so that we can try and drag intel out of him. Intel drives operations, or so they keep telling me. Dead guys tend to give us very little intel.

Concur. That’s a lot harder. And harder to measure.

  Quote

Of course, that runs into the problem of the Pakistani military and ISI being infiltrated by Taliban and AQ, though I have to believe that there's a work-around for that that would keep the information from getting out until it's too late for the target to help himself.

This I’m going to push back just a little on this but also largely in agreement. ISI’s support for the Taliban in well-known and fairly well-documented; as well as anything ISI does is. As far as the Pakistani military, at the lower ranks I know there is concern – great concern in some areas like nuclear security for a number of years – regarding infiltration by Islamist extremists and Pakistani sympathizers to the Taliban, by folks in the US and by high ranking folks in the Pakistani Army. At the upper ranks, general officer level, I don’t see anything to indicate Taliban and certainly not AQ infiltration.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

  Quote

  Quote

In COIN, there is no single enemy who is so important that his death justifies pushing a civilian populace further into the enemy camp. If they can get a clean shot on a "bad" guy, then great. Take it. But it seems like there aren't a lot of those clean shots happening, which means that we're breeding our next generation of militants.

This is kinda what I was getting at. The reason I suggest re-evaluating how important some of these people actually are is because I'm assuming waiting around for a clean shot is more resource intensive than just taking what you get, and it may limit the number of targets you can go after. I think that if armed drones are to be used they must not kill/maim civilians. That's actually a higher standard than for deployed troops, but we've demonstrated that we can do it.

So you and I (& I suspect [redlegphi]) agree on that ... but looking at the poll as I type 64% of the respondents don't.

Is COIN too difficult to do? Or to understand? (I generally don't accept that as a valid explanation.) Or are other factors driving the 64% who selected that option? What are they?

A leaked Joint Chiefs of Staff brief illustrates vividly, imo, how complicated COIN is. Every one of those lines, nodes, and connections matters (see Slide 22). Every one. (If it didn’t matter, it wouldn’t be included.) Some are more important … and imo, some can be rewired or improvised via alternative pathways. But some can’t. Recognizing the difference is key. Armed drones just seems so much simpler by comparison.

(Tangent: That JCS brief also illustrates, again imo, part of the reason for taking time in formulating and announcing a decision – figuring out a COIN plan is more than just ‘throwing troops’ at problem. Or as one commentator asserted “They Don't Call COIN the ‘Graduate Level of War’ for Nothing.” Figuring out how to resource to enable, secure, stabilize, and transition those connections and capabilities is not an overnight task. Before even dealing with the inter- and intra-agency coordination, a process that in a typical scenario can take months.)

Or is it an indication of a need to focus on the domestic component of a COIN strategy?
Because our domestic politics matter for executing a successful COIN strategy.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[champu 1]

  Quote

Every one of those lines, nodes, and connections matters (see Slide 22).

I don't think that diagram is DoDAF compliant.