Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Civilian Deaths in Drone Strikes Cited in Report
This article explains how the CIA's drone attacks in the surrounding area of North Waziristan, Pakistan, specifically Miram Shah, aren't as flawless as reported by the Obama administration. Citizens of Marim Shah are now being backed by a new Amnesty International investigation which reveals that 19 people have been killed in just two attacks since January of 2012. Buzzing drones are always hovering over the area in hopes of finding Al Qaeda or Taliban commanders, who have gotten quite good at avoiding these missiles. Soldiers are typically left at their bases, leaving residents alone in these very trying times. The constant psychological burden on these people has caused sales of sleeping tablets, antidepressants, and anti-anxiety medications to soar. The civilians are forming their lives around the drone attacks and military checks. Even though there is proof that these attacks have killed civilians, President Obama continues to support this system.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I can not imagine the constant state of fear these men and women must be living in. They are constantly reminded of the ever present danger around them by the buzzing of the drones. As with all forms of new technology, I think mistakes and accidents are bound to happen. However, the fact that so many civilians have died in just this one area shows a large flaw in drone usage. Additionally, the US government must be more transparent about drone usage; lying will only make the accident into a coverup. I think the drones dilemma comes down to this: do the ends justify the means? Does the death of one terrorist justify the deaths of numerous innocent civilians? Personally, I don't know the answer.
ReplyDeleteI do not know enough about the drone policy to be able to develop a sufficiently informed opinion and therefore comment on that matter. I would, however, like to point out that the militants are meandering and going about daily business in Miram Shah (and even trying to enforce Shariah Islamic Law) while the Pakistani military idly sits by. I think this is a bigger civil rights concern than the drone program. The Pakistani government is not shielding the people of Miram Shah from the dangerous jihadists. If Amnesty International is not is not criticizing Pakistan for its inaction, it probably has no business criticizing the United States for a few incredibly tragic accidents (when the Pakistani government’s actions are intentional).
ReplyDeleteThe death of civilians in drone attacks is sad and is a mistake. The problem is that, as they clearly said, the drone attacks have killed people but most were unintended casualties. Simply if you live in an area where you live amongst known terrorists and you choose to live there and not kick these terrorists out then you simply assume the risk that if you are out and a known terrorist walks by you and the US decides he needs to be eliminated then you may be killed or injured. If anyone needs to be criticized here, as Andrew said, it is the Pakistani government. If they acted and arrested or tactically eliminated these people, or could at least be trusted to do so, then the US wouldn't need to use drones. It's simple, they need to clean up their own backyard if they don't want the US to do what needs to be done. Maybe the people of that city should have a larger grievance with there government allowing terrorists to cowardly hide amongst civilians to avoid being arrested or eliminated. Sadly the US doesn't have the resources to send in the Navy Seals every time a terrorist hideout is found in Pakistan.
ReplyDeleteHearing about how militants are casually roaming the streets makes me wonder whether the invasion of the "US and friends" has had any helpful effect on the region. After a decade of fighting and war, not in Pakistan obviously, but in Afghanistan and Iraq, the US's remaining aftermath does not seem much different from the beginning. Amazingly, the We've managed to waste billions of dollars on a whim that only produced more hatred for the US than we have before.
ReplyDeleteIt's very important for the United States military to maintain a moral high ground since we are such an important world superpower. We can't hold other countries to higher standards than we hold ourselves. If the report is right about how many civilian deaths from drone strikes there have been, we need to step back and take a look at how we run that program. The point of having drones is to preserve human life, and not just that of American people. If drone strikes don't prevent civilian casualties as well as they prevent soldier casualties, we shouldn't be carrying them out. Justin, we can't place the blame on the Pakistani people for living in Pakistan and not forcing out the Taliban. I'm sure that given the choice, the civilians would elect not to host gun-wielding militants in their home town. But it can be sort of difficult to force out said gun-wielding militants. The issue is more complex than "If they don't want drone strikes, they shouldn't have terrorists."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ethan. I think we need to rethink the use of drones. I can't imagine living in a constant state of fear like the Pakistanis. This whole situation is only contributing to greater tensions. We can't blame these civilian deaths on the Pakistani government for failing to protect its citizens. Wars always have casualties, but I think these casualties could have been prevented. Calling drones "angels of death" is interesting I don't think it's entirely accurate. This term implies that the deaths of the civilians were intentional which I don't believe is the case. I think if we continue to use drones, we should develop the technology further to ensure this will not happen again.
ReplyDeleteWhen ever an innocent human is killed it is a traumatic event. We should definitely make sure that our drones are top of the line and ready to go before using them. Not only is it horrific for the victims' friends and family, it is also an embarrassment to the United States to have these things happen. However, I do like the use of drones when they are accurate. Because it comes down to a robots life, or an American serving his/her countries life.
ReplyDeleteI think it may be time to reevaluate the use of drones. I thought the story of the old woman being killed was particularly disturbing because she was by herself and did not resemble the people the drones were after. That story must put they people in a constant state of fear because they cannot trust that the drone will only killed the targeted people. In addition to that, the constant buzzing must have a detrimental psychological effect on the people. I don't know much about drones but I feel like there is a disassociation with what is happening because they are machines and not our citizens going in to the cities.
ReplyDeleteTo start, I'm not surprised at all that Washington would say that everything is going smoothly with the drone strikes when it is clearly not. The civilians are scared of everyday life. Personally I wouldn't exactly call that successful. I understand that terrorists are being eradicated, but if civilians are dying as well, the U.S. has to change their policy. We are basically doing the same exact thing as them, killing people who don't deserve it, except we are doing it in the name of liberty and peace.
ReplyDeleteI can see how the use of these drones can be beneficial to the US, but it's clear that they do not always function as they should. It's our government's fault that innocent civilians are dying, but still they refuse to acknowledge it. For me, this is another example of why there is so much distrust of our government. It angers me that an innocent old woman was killed by one of the drones. She did nothing. If these were American citizens being killed, our country would be in an uproar.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult one because the use of drones has benefits and drawbacks. The benefits are that we kill some terrorist scum, the drawbacks are that we may kill some civilians in the process. I like to think of our government - in terms of warfare - as a machiavellian one: doing whatever it takes to get the job done. As an American citizen, I would rather have our government do what it takes to ensure our protection and everlasting liberty then to stand idly by and run the risk of terrorist attacks on US soil. Obviously I would rather not have innocent civilians killed but I know my safety and way of life is secure.
ReplyDeleteKilling any civilians with drones is unacceptable. An obvious statement, but one that needs to be examined in the present situation. These civilians are stuck in a tough situation: on one hand, the drone strikes help take down terrorists, but on the other hand, the drone strikes might harm them. The drones not only might cause physical damage to innocent people, but mental damage as well. An old lady was murdered by these drones. Time to rethink the policy.
ReplyDeleteAs I stated earlier in another comment, the use of drones doesn't really get the right point across. Regardless of it even hits the right target or not, the drones don't dissuade terrorists with fear, they push them with anger. In these situations mentioned we must realize that we are killing innocent people with the justification of "the greater good." WE are the terrorists. The drones exacerbate the situation. And people wonder why there are terrorists that hate the US. What international right are we imploring when we justify our right to have these floating death strikers above foreign territory? The idea of an assassinating drone flying above my head waiting to strike around (with the possibility that it hits the wrong person) is terrifying.
ReplyDelete