Mat I don't think drones per se raise the question of sovereign law. Surely those questions would arise with any weapons systems, be it mechanical or human that is capable of reaching across borders. My point is that the decision to deploy, fire or activate should be given to those 'on the ground' at the time. It's my view that once a government decides to engage in a war, it should (largely) step away from the actual combat decision making process. Western governments have had to adapt to fighting an enemy that follows no formalized rules of engagement. To do so effectively has meant that they have to step away from traditional doctrine and this has meant that, at times, it may be necessary to breach sovereign law.
My comment about the 'unfairness' of the use of technology was simply a bit of a shot at what I perceived was your PC version of warfare. W Chua also, clearly thinks drones are 'unfair' on the poor , set upon,IED wielding extremists. :)

Well, no. Unless non-combat civilians are deliberately targeted, no it's not a crime. Unfortunate, shocking, disastrous yes, but not a war crime.

Of course, enemy like al Qaeda know this very well and hide, cowardly, among civilians -- as did the Viet Cong, and many other modern terrorists.

Fewer civilians have been killed in recent conflicts than in comparable historical wars, and just as well because it is becoming less acceptable, which I agree is a good thing. But lets not suggest civilian deaths are totally avoidable in war.

It is time to ask for civilian fatality score cards to be handed to UN at the end of each "hunting season" by the more enlightened nations

.

You think al Qaeda et al would comply with that? Or do you just mean the bad guys from the imperial West?

Mike, yes, I accept your fine point. If a building of 200 civilians with Bin Laden in the basement is targeted, then the issue of proportionality would be important. It would be interesting to see it tested in international law, though. Example: the Bin Laden take down in Pakistan. Drone or other aerial strike may have been sufficient, but the troops were sent in.

By and large, careless and irresponsible use of air power does not happen now as a matter of policy by the US or NATO. It would be difficult to argue that policy with regard to civilians has not changed in the last 20 years. You can quote history all you like; we know there was minimal regard for civilian casualties in earlier theatres.

Regarding terrorists or insurgents, I'm not arguing that people don't have a right to self determination, by guerrilla programs or other covert means of rising from domination. Never have.

But the finer point here is about deliberate targeting of civilians as a strategic instrument. In that case, I can and I will single out salafists, and there is no hypocrisy.

Couldn't agree more Mike ... sorry I lose my temper with opinionated windbags.

There is an issue however regarding the US and the capacity to take action against them for war crimes in international jurisdictions.

There is some history to this:

Under Clinton the US signed on to the ICC which is a treaty-based organisation that investigates and prosecutes actions for war crimes. However in 2002 G W Bush voided the treaty, removing US particapation or co-operation with the ICC.

In 2002 the US further sought to secure an exemption for all US personnel from prosecution for war crimes under international law.

This move was abandoned in 2004 when there was clear evidence that it would be opposed by the UN Security Council. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-06-24/justice/us.war.crimes.court_1_war-crimes-draft-resolution-exemption?_s=PM:LAW

However in 2011 as part of the deal done to investigate war crimes in Libya by Gaddafi the US, in return for supporting the ICC for the first time, included a special provision under which any citizen of a non signatory to the ICC treaty was immune from investigation or prosecution. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scoPzwZgH-g

Obama has subsequently entered into negotiations regarding the US signing up with the ICC and thus permitting scrutiny of its conduct and that of individual personnel. But this is strongly opposed by both the military, by Republican and even by Democrat representatives.

So, at the moment, it really doesn't matter a damn what the Americans do to civilians, so suspected enemies or anyone else... they are immune from investigation and prosecution.

Interesting isn't it?

Mike, you will have to forgive Peter's intemperate and insulting language. For the most part he argues well, but when under pressure he resorts to personal insult to distract attention from poor logic and irrational analysis.

It's widespread on discussion forums of course. We get used to it.

I'm sure you do get used to it "Yuri"... I reckon quite a few people would get angry when you accuse them of supporting a dictator like Saddam, who makes appallingly ignorant statements about an issue on which he is most adamant and hawkish (about other peoples' lives) and who pretends to have a military experience to justify his bellicose dismissal of alternative opinions.

But like all armchair generals and other bullies you don't like it when you cop a serve back. Next time try and have an argument on an issue you actually know something about. Or read up before hitting your keyboard.

Silly old duffer.

Seconded, Peter Ormonde. People who claim service history but don't have any or refuse to substantiate their claims are parasitic on the real valour of people who made real sacrifice; they puff themselves up then run a hundred miles when called on it. All piss and wind. When the same people also claim to be members of the peace movement but make statements that no peace movement member ever would make they gimme the tom-tits big time.

Dear me,

More bluster and no substance. I have issued a challenge that both of you have declined.

But . . . I am beginning to doubt that either of you have any substance at all. Just cozy Monday Morning Quarterbacks and useful idiots determined to support the fascism-of-the-day as long as it decries US and Australian foreign policy.

Now, back to substance. Peter, I've asked you four times: Do you or do you not wish Saddam and his mad sons were still in power?

And Anthony, you have not answered my question about your policy of "defence only". So, would you stand by and watch the deaths of a million people in Rwanda, Iraq, and Srebrenica, and offer no help?

Substance? Sounds more like substance abuse to me.

Sorry "Yuri" I won't waste any more time on you until you do some reading and learn a bit about the issue - any issue actually.

.

Sorry Yuri, but I would like to suggest you do not understand either the doctrine of air power, its history, or its operational application and how it is used in conflict.
Air Power has never been used carelessly or irresponsibly. In the past the major limitation with air power has been its inability to deliver ordinance accurately. And it has always had a strategic application - and its use to deliberately target civilians and civilian infrastructure continues to this day.It was used that way in Vietnam, it was used that way in Iraq (both times), it was used that way in Kosovo, and it continues to be used that way in Afghanistan. The only change between the second world war and now is that air power can deliver ordinance with precision, and a single missile can achieve what it took hundreds of aircraft to do in the past - and consequently collateral damage is less. But to suggest that civilians and civilian infrastructure is not being targetted is naive in the extreme. And what do you think the targetting of cities by strategic nuclear assets is?
Air power has tactical, operational and strategic applications. It is generally targetted against military targets at the tactical level, gradually refocussing towards civilian targets at the strategic level. People involved in guerilla campaigns operate similarly, and the targetting of civilians is generally done to achieve strategic objectives. That is the way it has always been, and that is the way it always will be.
Our military forces target civilians. The US military targets civilians. And those opposed to us do the same. The only difference is that they have less of a focus on tactical, military objectives. And to suggest that they are evil or wrong for doing so is hypocritical, and demonstrates a naivety about how war is conducted.
Oh - and I do have a military background.

Peter, perhaps the ISI should read Kilcullen's counter-insurgency manual, then they could transform the country in a few years, eh? BTW, who is going to protect the medical equipment and resources in Waziristan when the local warlords steal everything and kill the local teachers?

You seem to assume that aid is a magic bullet, and that centuries of religious dogma in the hands of fanatics can be overturned with a few good deeds. In the early years, the Taliban were notorious for snaffling UN Food Program food and medical supplies, storing it, and using it for their own purposes. Most insurgent groups do the same thing. You cannot protect aid in these circumstances without the military.

The US, Australia and other NATO forces are already doing huge amounts of support and reconstruct work in Afghanistan. You talk as if this is a new approach, a solution to everything.

You may not know that the US has provided more than a billion dollars in direct earthquake and flood aid to Pakistan over the last 7 years. Not that it's changed perceptions much in that country.

Yuri, it is actually a bit silly continuing this discussion - you obviously just "know" these things and will not actually engage in any serious discussion of the issues.

I should however point out that Kilcullen and modern strategies of counter insurgency have a very clear role for the military - and a large part of the role is in protecting and defending the assistance and facilities provided to the local people such as schools and hospitals.

This puts the insurgents outside the community of interest of those they seek to control.

But of course you would "know" these things already. Armchair generals.

I've never said Kilcullen's work does not have value. I am saying that it is not a panacea for complex conflicts such as those in Afghanistan.

I'm well aware of his basic premise. I even watched his National Press Club Address on the ABC a year or so ago. I must admit, I did not like his delivery. I'm not surprised you think he's god, because HE thinks he's god!

Yuri,

I've never heard anyone arguing that killing al Qaeda or Taliban or Al Shobab leaders will "make them angry and they'll recruit more followers". If you have a link or a reference I'd greatly appreciate it.

However, taking out wedding parties, innocent bystanders, kids, wrong targets and what is usually described as "collateral damage" will drive recruitment to oust "the invader". Or doesn't that matter?

It is sad how little some of our more hawkish commentators learned from losing Vietnam and now seek to re-write history or give it a decent edit. The Viet Cong were in no way cowards which - had you had any battle contact with them or know anyone who did, they would quickly disabuse you of that notion.

The NVA did not "hide behind civilians" but the VC were actually civilians - ploughing paddies and planting rice during the day and popping into the black pj's at night. That is the basis of a guerrilla war Yuri ... like a fish in water.

The yanks did not understand that - they just labelled an entire village as VC and levelled the place - again and again - and in doing so created a massive surge in support for and membership of the Viet Cong. And they are doing it again.

Stupidity is a failure to realise and learn from one's mistakes.

Have a read of Kilcullen's counterinsurgency manual if you'd like a more informed view of the tactics and strategy required to fight this sort of struggle.

Peter, anyone who gives their life for a cause can hardly be called a coward -- more often than not a fanatic though. But this does not preclude "cowardly" actions. Hiding among, or merging with, civilians knowing that 'you' are a target, and that civilians are likely to be killed is . . . "cowardly".

And you know I am familiar with Kilcullen's work. He's not god, mate. It's one opinion -- and one that has little majority support; because it has limited application and effectiveness in Afghanistan.

Even better than giving one's life for a cause is winning, Yuri... doing what it takes to win. Lots of cowards die Yuri - it takes real courage to win.

Kilcullen - one opinion? - the counter terrorism advisor to the US Secretary of State? The Duntroon graduate who was senior advisor to David Patreus in Iraq?

Whose books and writings are used extensively by military institutions all over the world? The advisor to the Brits, NATO, ISAF and an adjunct professor at John Hopkins in Security Studies? Just one opinion? Yep ... and it's an opinion that sensible people listen to Yuri... lots of them... people who make serious decisions and need serious approaches to fighting guerrilla wars and running counter insurgency operations.

Still I'm sure the US military will be greatly relieved that his approach has "limited application and effectiveness in Afghanistan"... so will the Taliban... and that this is the opinion of Yuri Pannikin.

Read the 28 articles - a short essay on modern warfare - it's on the interweb.

Then come back and we'll discuss it.

To live among civilians is not cowardly, even for a terrorist. As for IEDs, are they any different in effect from anti personel mines that the USA, among others, continues to make available to this day. And who is more cowardly, the misguided suicide bomber or the agent who flies his drone from his position of safety, presumably in the midst of a civilian population?

Sure, IEDs targeting troops have become a part of basic warfare in these conflicts, as devastating as they are. I've no problem with that.

However, if they 'deliberately' target civilians, as they do in some instances, then that is an important distinction. For suicide bombing, the same applies, and we know that vastly more suicide bombings and missions target civilians than enemy troops. That is not an accident, it is standard operating procedure for the salafists.

You need to do some critical thinking, Graham. Drone strikes NEVER target civilians exclusively and significant time and resources are spent attempting to establish whether non-combatant civilians are in the vicinity. It's never going to work 100%. Obama knows that; he has to live with it. That's war, get over it.

Yuri

You are confusing terrorism - the deliberate use of wholesale civilian murder as a tool - and insurgency - civilian combatants targeting an enemy or invader and then going back to their day jobs are farnmers or lawyers. This is what happened with the Viet Cong and is the hallmark of guerrilla war.

It is a good thing to have strong opinions - but they should be informed by reading and understanding - or experience. Enthusiasm and fear are not enough.

Read Kilcullen before you dismiss more sophisticated strategic approaches as "pacificist mantras". As a senior military officer he is aware of the limitations - the counter-productive impact - of a purely military response when engaged in insurgency conflict.

Collateral damage - civilian deaths - ensure the victory of the insurgents over time Yuri... drones, blackhawk strikes, napalming villages, dead wedding parties are the best recruiting tool the Taliban and al Qaeda have got. This was the lesson of Vietnam Yuri.

Or are you just another "armchair general" with a taste for blood and for sending young men and women to kill and be killed on your behalf? There's more to war than killing Yuri... and some conflicts are too important not to win.

Peter, now you're getting insulting, which suggests you have no better response. And I suggest you're guessing at what I do and do not know, and my background. (No, I did not make it to 'General', armchair or other.)

Okay, I'll quote from the US Counterinsurgency Manual -- you have a copy of course? -- no, not the KIlcullen one, that's the US Government Counterinsurgency Guide:

"Even when destroying an obvious insurgent headquarters or command center, counterinsurgents must take care to minimize civilian casualties. New, precise munitions with smaller blast effects can limit collateral damage. When considering the risk of civilian casualties, commanders must weigh collateral damage against the unintended consequences of taking no action.

Avoiding all risk may embolden insurgents while providing them sanctuary. The proper and well-executed use of aerial attack can conserve resources, increase effectiveness, and reduce risk to U.S. forces. Given timely, accurate intelligence, precisely delivered weapons with a demonstrated low failure rate, appropriate yield, and proper fuse can achieve desired effects while mitigating adverse effects. However, inappropriate or indiscriminate use of air
strikes can erode popular support and fuel insurgent propaganda. For these reasons, commanders should consider the use of air strikes carefully during COIN operations, neither disregarding them outright nor employing them excessively."

That's a reasonable policy, but things are bound to go wrong. That's the bottom line. If Kilcullen disagrees with that, then I've yet to see him elaborate it.

Yep that is one of their manuals - and most likely the one that is in common use - and why they keep losing these counter insurgency conflicts.

Now Yuri you are implying that you have a military background - let's hear it... spell it out for me so I know who I'm talking to ... where did you see combat?

I'm not sure this is relevant, Peter, you're trying to squirm out of a difficult position, but you go first . . .

Do you want name, rank and number as well?

Exactly Yuri ... just the unit number/designation will be adequate I'll track it down.

You stated above that "No, I did not make it to 'General', armchair or other." This is suggesting that you have seen military service and have some expertise in the area. Let's hear it. Or is it just from your extensive reading on the subject?

Incidentally that's a rather selective quote you've lifted from that US Defence Dept Counterinsurgency guide isn't it? I'm assuming it's the 2009 edition.

The discussion of a standard military victory (enemy-centric) versus a "population centred" (Kilcullen approach) strategy (pp 13-14) seems rather relevant:

A purely enemy-centric approach might work against incipient insurgencies that are led or centrally controlled by a particularly charismatic or powerful individual. However, historical experience has shown that against mature insurgencies and complex, non-hierarchical insurgencies, population-centric approaches have a higher likelihood of success."

See even the yanks are trying to do things smarter. Pity they keep buggering it up. Too many toys. Too many armchair generals that wanna "kill the towel-heads".

So let's have your "expertise" in this field of military strategy Yuri.... or is it all just "goodies and baddies" again?

Peter, I asked you to go first. However, like my request to you to attest that you would prefer Saddam and his psycho sons to be still in power, you continue to ignore me.

I think you're bluffing and you have nothing.

"That's war. Get over it"

A great leap forward in moral philosophy there Yuri. Presumably made from the comfort of your home. If you're so keen to prosecute war against Muslim "fanatics" at any expense then I reckon that there probably aren't any obstacles to you doing so. Enlist, either here or somewhere where you can claim nationality. Then, and only then, once you've smelled the real deal, advise us to "get over war".

Yuri,

Above you insinuated that you had served in the military - but had not risen to the rank of General. When I asked you for details you have ducked and run for cover.

Now I don't care if you did or didn't - I'm absolutely certain you have never fired a shot or been shot at - makes no difference to me. But people who have served in the military take it rather unkindly when armchair warriors claim to have "done their bit".

So again I ask you to clarify your insinuated expertise as a serving soldier. Or you can have the courage to admit you just made that up and in fact know nothing whatsoever about military strategies - even as a humble foot soldier - but just want (someone) to kill the bad guys.... and it's just all part of the show if a few kiddies and mums and dads get caught up in the cross fire.

How to lose a war part 2.

Anthony, at the risk of being labelled a troll, I can say that I deliberately used that phrase because we all need to deal with the shocking truth, which is that people get killed in war, including many innocent civilians.

If you cannot deal with this, then you need to advocate we disband the military completely. Perhaps you do. This does not mean we should not do everything possible to avoid conflicts. However, part of that assessment is how and when we need to intervene to protect innocents in other countries being slaughtered by their own governments.

I can understand that you might not want to do this, being safe and sound in a comfortable and prosperous country. Are you all right, Jack?

Peter, we are getting nowhere. If you want my military background it's only fair that you provide yours first. I could make the same claims about you, but seeing as I did not start this, please provide yours first.

And as I said, you have deliberately started a distraction that has no relevance to the subject being discussed. I can see why, because you are all at sea . . . or is that just a snafu with you?

I regard this thread as terminated.

Kind regards, Yuri

And there we have it folks ... another armchair general ... all too keen to send off younger folks to fight the good fight for them ... and well if we kill a few innocent bystanders that's just par for the course isn't it?

With a bit of luck we'll soon be able to give old warriors like Yuri their very own drones which they can unleash from their loungerooms - he'd really show them foreign devils what's what I'd reckon.

Wonder when they'll start turning up on Ebay?

Yeah, I think the term is "concern troll". But we'll let that go. It isn't necessary at all for the sake of philosophical coherence that I advocate disbanding the military. Why would you think so? I'm not a pacifist, just anti-war. Defensive war is acceptable. The issue on this thread is what counts as defensive or not.

Okay, you answered my question: you are not prepared to help others at risk of genocide. Defence only, eh?

Right, good, got it, know all about you now.

Who exactly is "at risk of genocide" that we are currently defending? According to what definition of genocide?

You's is talkin' like one a dem muzlims there fella.

That comment is a little embarrassing for you, Peter.

Sorry Yuri - I'm ashamed of myself. I should've said

"you's is talkin' like one a dem passifist fella's there fella," shouldn't I?

Again, you underestimate me, Peter. I was a member of the Greens for 5 years. Pacifists were, and still are good aquaintainces. I marched and protested with them, discussed and debated with them.

Nuh. You can't paint me into that redneck corner, mate, and they can' help it if they're naively wrong :-)

In all my years in the peace movement going back to the Vietnam War I never, ever, heard a peacenik say about civilian deaths '"that's war...get over it". Did you learn that line at Greenham Common? No? Maybe out at the Pine Gap protests then? Or during the 1980's Palm Sunday gatherings on the Sydney Domain? Please Yuri, cite a source for this attitude. Did ya read that in an article by Gene Sharp, maybe? Martin Luther King? Ghandi? Maybe it was in a song by Dylan?

I don' tthink Ghandi is a good choice . . . sorry. I'm thinking more along the lines of Anwar Sadat - a hero by any standard.

Not sure exactly what standards the Salafists adopt actually if any... an unknown quantity... It will be very interesting to see what the Islamic Brotherhood do with their newfound power. Seems the serious money is on Morsi.

Either way not a good place to be a Copt.

Oh no, not the "military industrial complex & the US multinational oil industry."

Is that like Country AND Western?

Yuri, you alluded upthread to your own history of military service. Fair enough. I have no such history but my family does going back four generations. So we're always keen to establish the truth of any such claims. You'll be aware that in Australia it is an offence to claim military service and not have done it (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/alleged-military-fraud-reappears-in-nsw-20100429-twdx.html). You'll probably also be aware that there is an organisation that vigorously pursues such imposters (http://www.anzmi.net/). That site is worth a read for you I reckon.

So, what about it? You served with whom? Give us your unit number and we'll check on that. In the interests of respecting those who did actually serve.

Anthony, I can assure you there is no case to answer in that regard, and it would be a waste of everyone's time and serve no purpose whatsoever -- and it is irrelevant.

You need to stick to the discussion, but I can see you have no intelligent response.

No mate. You're laying claim to expertise based on military service. I'm asking: what service? If you aren't prepared to back it up maybe it is a good idea to not say. Just for the record under the Defence Act, 1903 as amended, it is a federal offence to claim to be a returned soldier, sailor or airman, subject to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to $3300.

So now you know where you stand.

Nice try Anthony. It's irrelevant -- for me, or the discussion thread.

Tell you what. If you can get the Conversation to ask the Feds to talk to me, I'll reveal my military service to them. How about that?

Now put up or shut up.

Sorry folks if my expression gets a bit touchy and offends the sensibilities of innocent bystanders.

But in mitigation I find that folks who know nothing about a subject, who adopt belligerent machismo and rattle off slogans like "it's war - get over it", politely call others cowards, civilly dismiss civilian deaths as necessary and start sending out the interweb equivalent of white feathers to pacifists or those with a humanist position, deeply infuriating. A velvet sock on an iron bar.

These are the sorts of arrogant and ignorant notions that get young soldiers killed and excuse the excesses and abuse of military power. All sides have them. A cheer squad for killing the baddies - no matter what the consequences.

And you can absolutely guarantee that they have never shot at anything or anyone, or been shot at. Absolutely.