Combat Without Cognizance – or Murder by Joystick?

drone_418733a-copy

I have spent no more time on any other cause in my life than I have protesting and vocalizing my opposition to government sponsored death. Be it the death penalty or military engagement, I have never wavered in this
position and that includes Roe v Wade and the ongoing abortion issue. I do not advocate state sponsored death. Therefore I want government out of the issue as well.

I accept and defend the rights of others to disagree. If your notion of capitalism and free markets in today’s environment doesn’t give you pause to consider the effects on our military engagement policies into international territories I suggest you consider it through some investigation.  Some might argue that our military has become nothing more that a collection of Private Defense Agencies [PDA] positioned globally to protect the interests of an Anarcho-Corporatist consortium of private businesses. I tend to agree with that assessment.

In lieu of the limited infomation or biased reporting we must find a position on such matters. Taking your position without the facts or truth is mere philosophical opining and detrimental in the ultimate goal of progress? Well progress itself is defined as;

Miriam Webster

1 a (1): a royal journey marked by pomp and pageant (2): a state procession b: a tour or circuit made by an official (as a judge) c: an expedition, journey, or march through a region
2: a forward or onward movement (as to an objective or to a goal) : advance
3: gradual betterment ; especially : the progressive development of humankind

whereas;

Dictionary.com – 2. a developmental activity in science, technology, etc., esp. with reference to the commercial opportunities created thereby or to the promotion of the material well-being of the public through the goods, techniques, or facilities created.

What? From where did that definition come from? For the sake of this opinion I choose to use it. So please, establish your position in regards to military engagement and the Rules that govern it. Combat is waged by State Military as well as CIA, Mossad, MI6 Intelligence, Blackwater [Xe] type state sponsored and independent mercenary and terrorist organizations which might at some point be called “freedom fighters” or extremists. The designations seem to vary depending on your interpretations. I accept the rules of engagement as defined from what I can find currently.

Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law [AFP 110-31], p. 5-9. These requirements restate almost verbatim the provisions in Protocol I, Article 57.—The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, instructs that, applying international legal limits to air attacks, planners must take the following precautions:

(a) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…
(b) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to
minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects; and
(c) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

So what about Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles? What are the concerns regarding the logistics, legalities and ethics?

Some of the logistic and legal concerns are price. The UAV cost to the Defense budget is considerably less than traditional F series fighter aircraft and range and fuel costs are nearly 90% less but do not require a trained pilot to operate. This is a considerable plus for the global military combines and their financial resources as well as taxpayers, though it potentially puts another pilot out of work.

There are issues regarding FAA and NORAD operations and traffic control related to available airspace and concerns over the the UAV ability to react or respond without human visual capabilities.

The US military’s increasing use UCAV (armed) development, requires the US aviation community to rewrite the rules regarding UAVs and to draft and publish rules and regulations governing the use of UCAVs in national airspace as well as the International Civil Aviation Organization and public concerns.

As with any technology relying on human operation and like aircraft, UCAVs can experience engine problems, loss of communication, and weapon malfunctions. Unlike manned aircraft, UCAVs must be programmed with precise instructions and procedures to follow. These instructions and procedures may include a preplanned orbit point to regain communications and control, a preplanned self-destruct point, or an autonomous recovery-and-landing option. The potential for loss of life increases significantly in the case of armed, pilot-less aircraft.

Since these are chip programmable and involve wireless communications, the enemy could hack into the system and sieze control over or sabbotage the mission.

The United States must consider the rules that govern flight operations in national and international airspace, the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC), and rules of engagement (ROE) when the use of UCAV to execute combat-attack operations. I have not been able to find the specific laws or rules in respect to UCAV’s and their use in combat but I have considered these issues.

Under the LOAC, if the controller pilot of the UCAV is in Langley, VA and the programmer is in San Jose, CA while the operation or intelligence base is in Kabul the enemy under the same rules would be able to launch an attack a counter strike in Virginia, California as well as Kabul. I’m sure that would be of deep concern to the local residents.

Recently we have come to the knowledge of the US CIA UAV attacks in Pakistan. President Obama can take responsibility for the half dozen attacks and the eighty or so deaths from UCAV missions in the Kurram region of Fata. Though sources say it was successful in taking out the targets, the nearby school was leveled as well and it is uncertain to the number of innocent casualties or injuries. These strikes are carried out by Predator unmanned aircraft and use the hellfire rockets as their weapon of choice.

Similarly, the Israeli attacks with UCAW’s has confirmed massive civilian damage and raises the concerns of the ability to direct investigation as to the reasons. With drone air attacks it brings the question of human, mechanical or intelligence errors.

Please refer to the UK. Guardian Report

Haaretz has reported the possible war crimes and violations during it’s Israel Defense Forces “Operation Cast Lead”

Article one

Article two

In this case the soldiers had direct contact with the targets that ended up being partly women and children included in the casualties. The testimonies and investigations into the possible criminality are in progress.

What needs to be said here is war and conflict regardless of means is tragic, heartbreaking and often criminal. There is a distinction to made between the technique of Operation Cast Lead and the use of Drones. If we must as a species continue to kill each other for any reason under the Military, LOAC and RoE, I think we should continue to operate with face to face annihilation of our supposed enemies. The use of UCAV’s may seem to some as a means to prevent the death of ones forces or manpower, but it leaves the personal intercourse, witnesses, testimonies, human reaction that may avoid a deadly encounter and most important accountability.

Who bears the responsibility for an autonomous attack when things go wrong? Can a computer determine proportional response? Can the computer mimick humanity? Can this technology weigh casualties against advantage anticipated? Can an autonomous system differentiate between unnecessary suffering or injury? Sanitizing and dehumanizing these factors will open the doors to what I believe will be unspeakable disregard for humanity and the necessary processes of distinction.

I apologize to the families who have lost love ones but I stand fast on this point. If you enlist to fight for your country, you enlist to kill for your country and you risk dying for your country as well. How you deal with these in your time of service are what will progress our hopeful enlightenment to an end to war and armed conflict and an avoidance of assured mutual destruction.

It is foolish for the public to be aghast at the tragedies such as Israel’s possible crimes or the matter of Lt. Calley in the Mei Lei massacre in Vietnam. It is the harsh realities and bitter pills that we must swallow until we address the real issues of leadership, our military agendas, the industrial military corporations and the men who wear the star clad shoulder bars and ribbons, for they are the ones who back and support the technology of killing without faces, without feeling and without accountability. This is another slippery slope that if we do not consider the inevitable desensitizing effect of this kind of combat and the long war mentality, then powers behind the creations of these conflicts will be happy to run drone and joystick wars in the backrooms of their stores for years to come while ringing their cash registers.

“Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him.” ~M*A*S*H, Col. Harry Potter

This statement is not particularly clever or brilliant but it has so much in it for one who understands how war works.

Advertisements

15 Responses

  1. Two points. First, Israel doesn’t necessarily use the same rules of engagement that we do. Al-Qeada definitely didn’t use our rules when they hit the twin towers. And Hamas didn’t seem to care about civilian injuries when they fired rockets into Israel targeting civilians specifically. Second point is that sometimes civilians get hurt in wars, they always have and always will. Should we just allow the enemy to kill us because their civilians may be injured or killed if we dare to fight back?
    Sometimes it is us or them. If you have to make the choice, who lives and who dies? Al-Qeada won’t take time to consider civilians the next time they attack, they target civilians intentionally.

  2. Try reading the article next time before you comment or are you just lazy?

  3. “Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law [AFP 110-31], p. 5-9. These requirements restate almost verbatim the provisions in Protocol I, Article 57.—The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, instructs that, applying international legal limits to air attacks, planners must take the following precautions:

    (a) Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects…
    (b) Take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding, and in any event to
    minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects; and
    (c) Refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”

    These are our rules, not necessarily Israel’s, your article does bemoan Israel’s killing of civilians.
    “I apologize to the families who have lost love ones but I stand fast on this point. If you enlist to fight for your country, you enlist to kill for your country and you risk dying for your country as well. How you deal with these in your time of service are what will progress our hopeful enlightenment to an end to war and armed conflict and an avoidance of assured mutual destruction.”
    I did read the article and understand the point, you are anti-war, and opposed to the new technologies that save American lives at the risk of killing innocent civilians. My comments were correct, relevent to the discussion at hand, and stand.

  4. Then, I assume you think these technologies won’t be used against us? I assume you think that our continued support for Israel or any other country should not include international or Nato RoE?

    I also assume that you are okay with the unaccountability for the warfare that might kill you or your family?

    “Two points. First, Israel doesn’t necessarily use the same rules of engagement that we do.” [right. and they should avoid the ones that continually put them in similar situations like we were when Clinton Reno addressed Waco]

    Al-Qeada definitely didn’t use our rules when they hit the twin towers. [unproven]

    And Hamas didn’t seem to care about civilian injuries when they fired rockets into Israel targeting civilians specifically.
    [that’s why they are called terrorists, whats our excuse for it?]

    Second point is that sometimes civilians get hurt in wars, they always have and always will. Should we just allow the enemy to kill us because their civilians may be injured or killed if we dare to fight back? [I said that , did you miss it?]
    Sometimes it is us or them. If you have to make the choice, who lives and who dies?

    Al-Qeada won’t take time to consider civilians the next time they attack, they target civilians intentionally. [again that’s why they are terrorist’s. They send distruction into civilian populations without the courage of uniform or discrimination. I am saying using pre-programmed or UAV type weapons that launch an attack without the human discernment of gain over superflous suffering is in itself terrorism]

    I would gather you are either a defensive Z type Israeli supporter, uncritical in the research on Military and the autonomous strategies of UCAV warfare or you missed the article point completely.

  5. “Then, I assume you think these technologies won’t be used against us? I assume you think that our continued support for Israel or any other country should not include international or Nato RoE?”
    No, I don’t think they will be used against us, but to be fair, this time in 2001 I never would have believed that passenger planes would be turned into missiles. If they ever are, so be it. I don’t believe we can force our ideas of RoE on other nations, especially not Israel when we consider the RoE used by Hamas.
    “I also assume that you are okay with the unaccountability for the warfare that might kill you or your family?”
    There is always some sort of accountability. That is why the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has prevented Russia from attacking us militarily. When our enemy has a different moral code than we do, we can rely on their survival instinct. If they know we will fight back and fight to kill them indiscriminantly, they will be less inclined to attack at all. I’m not suggesting that we attack first, merely that when we defend ourselves, we defend ourselves with an eye on survival.
    “Al-Qeada definitely didn’t use our rules when they hit the twin towers. [unproven]”
    Unproven? Bin Laden’s admissions in his videos wasn’t proof enough for you? The news networks videos of the planes flying into the towers wasn’t proof? There is plenty of proof, if you are willing to consider it rather than blame the US.
    ” I am saying using pre-programmed or UAV type weapons that launch an attack without the human discernment of gain over superflous suffering is in itself terrorism.”
    And I’m saying it is better that the enemies’ civilians die than our military or civilians.
    “I would gather you are either a defensive Z type Israeli supporter, uncritical in the research on Military and the autonomous strategies of UCAV warfare.”
    Yes, I am. Or you could say that I am a strong believer in right and wrong, and an even stronger believer in our national defense.

  6. I’ll avoid treading into the lies of 911 and yellowcake intelligence. If you see it as you state, there is no point in pursuing that vein.

    I don’t think we should economically or militarily support those who violate Geneva Convention including our own.

    “There is always some sort of accountability”
    Please give me some examples of high ranking accountability in any area over the last dozen years or so.

    “enemies’ civilians” is an oxymoron and screams racism.
    It is frighteneing to hear people such as you, who see bin laden, a Saudi as an indictment for the death of a million Iraqi and Afghan people.

  7. “‘There is always some sort of accountability’
    Please give me some examples of high ranking accountability in any area over the last dozen years or so.”
    Let me say this again, “There is always some sort of accountability. That is why the doctrine of mutually assured destruction has prevented Russia from attacking us militarily. When our enemy has a different moral code than we do, we can rely on their survival instinct. If they know we will fight back and fight to kill them indiscriminantly, they will be less inclined to attack at all.” That is not the “accountability” you are looking for, I understand that, you want to see someone facing war-crimes charges at the Hague, but surely you would agree that it is a measure of accountability that actually works, historically, to keep those who would start wars in check.
    “‘enemies’ civilians’ is an oxymoron and screams racism.
    It is frighteneing to hear people such as you, who see bin laden, a Saudi as an indictment for the death of a million Iraqi and Afghan people.”
    Enemies’ civilians is an oxmoron? The enemy represents no one? They believe they do, they believe they represent the whole of Islam. I know the President says we are not at war with Islam, but anyone who doubts that Islam is at war with us hasn’t been paying attention for the last thirty years. Without “people such as you” people such as you would be praying towards Mecca five times daily by now because you fail to understand what Islam wants or how to oppose it. That isn’t racist, it is realistic, and if the half of this country that fails to understand doesn’t start understanding soon, the proof will be in our otherwise avoidable loss to Islam.

  8. We then could say we are at war with anyone, So we must publish the list: Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, China, Indonesia, North Korea, Russia, Spain and Venezuela.

    Or we have pushed our capitalistic minded military agendas into territories where small factions of religious zealots have rejected the advances, as we would if the Soviets had set up shop in Mexico and Panama.

    Hipocrisy gets knocked down and rolled over when the sounds of US IMC trumpets blows the charge. Had we not supported Israel and the UK and collaborated under covert covers since the coup for the Shah Pahlavi back in the fifties and continuously to date, I think the climate would be far less ominous.

    History has clearly paved our path to the present need for a WOT agenda. It’s hard to run a defense based economy without it, eh?

  9. actually, we aren’t talking about “small factions,” according to Brigitte Gabrielle, the Lebanese author and expert on Islamic extremists, approximately 20% of Muslims are willing to wear suicide bombs or drive a car or truck bomb, another 70%, while not willing to wear a bomb or drive a car bomb, are willing to support the 20% that are willing. That means that approximately 90% of Islam has chosen to be our enemy either outright or by supporting and financing those willing to actually fight. That is 90% of 1.2 billion people, that’s 1.08 billion potential fighters or financiers of fighters. Not exactly a “small faction,” is it?

  10. The world according to Brigitte Gabrielle. Another Islamapobe NEO-Conservative working for the payday IMC and destruction of all religion. Great source. An elitist of shills.

    The radical Islamists act as other groups who have historically been robbed, expoited, abused and condemned. They wind up a small armed terrorist group waliking into Columbine High School.

  11. “The world according to Brigitte Gabrielle. Another Islamapobe NEO-Conservative working for the payday IMC and destruction of all religion. Great source. An elitist of shills.”
    Actually, howabout we consider her what she is, a victim of the Islamic terrorists you seem to want to defend. Remember, she was a child and a christian living in Lebanon when Lebanon was a secular nation, she was a victim hiding in the shadows and basements when the Muslims decided there was no room for any religion other than Islam in the middle east.
    “The radical Islamists act as other groups who have historically been robbed, expoited, abused and condemned. They wind up a small armed terrorist group waliking into Columbine High School.”
    You should probably study a little more about Islam before casting them as the innocent victim finally standing up for himself. What indignaties had the newly formed United States forced on Islam when the Barbary Pirates started attacking and capturing American ships? If it was about some perceived mistreatment, why did the Muslims tell American representatives meeting in London that it was “nothing personal,” the Muslims claimed it was the requirement of their religion. Islam is quick to whine about the Crusades, but have you ever done research, even just a little into what caused the Crusades? Securing Constantinople for the Christians was only a small part of the Crusades, and even that is misrepresented in history. The Muslims brought the Crusades on themselves by attempting to take over the world in the 700’s, less than 100 years after the death of Muhammed Islam met its first major defeat when it pushed into Lyon, France. That was the beginning of the Crusades, the Pope encouraged European forces to continue on to Constantinople to save the Christians there from the Muslims, Constantinople was originally a christian city.
    Muslims are not now, nor have ever been the “victims” they pretend to be, and their actions are only encouraged when society in general wishes allow them the claim of victimhood.
    It serves no purpose to demonize people like Brigitte Gabrielle who understand what Muslims really are and have lived through their “victimhood.”

  12. I have studied the religion of Islam as far back as the Khazars and it is very important to explain the Muslim outlook on the Kahazars who adopted Judaism. These Kahazars were nomadic, aggressive and always the aggressor in these early wars. Once the Arabs and Persians defeated them, they dissapeared? No. They scattered into Christian, Islamic, but predominately Jewish populations.

    These bloodlines from the Khazars are the power factions that have controlled Russia, Israel, EU and in the US. They represent the collective financial, politico and military capstone that control the world affairs.

    They are no more Jews, Christians, Tao’s or Hindi than my dog. Under these conversions they have continued slaughters of Christians, Hebrew (13) and Muslim populations.

    These Zionists [Christian, Arabic and Jew] have and are running the conflicts worldwide. The Russian genocide of Christians, armenian, holocaust, Iraqi invasion (most recently) are just some examples of Ashkenazi and Byzantine Khazar engineered “ethnic cleansing”

    Brigitte Gabrielle’s personal story is irrelevant unless she adopts the infiltration of Khazarian tribes into the rise of the Khazar created Zionist movement.

    “You should probably study a little more about Khazar and Otoman before casting them as the innocent victim finally standing up for himself”

    I would suggest you research prior to the Ottoman empire and the crusades. You can follow the Khazarian displacement in the second millenium after their ultimate defeat and diaspora to the power centers in Russia, Europe, Asia and Nothern Africa. Then subsequently to the US and Israel.

    If we did the proper ancestral research and DNA testing on all the Despots, leaders and power financial Khazars, we would find the consistent markers of Khazars who continue to provide all the misery that infects the world.

    The populations of innocent people are being cleansed via murder at sickening rates and the cluster of vermin that create, manipulate, propagandize and propel the One World Government as they mention it consistently are getting a lot of support from folks like you.

  13. Actually, you might try reading from the time Muhammed invented “Islam” forward. Islam was founded on the doctrine of combat and conquest. It is their sole purpose for existing. Islam was never a “victim” so much as the perpetrator in atrocities, unless the island nation of the Philippines was part of the Khazar conspiracy when the Muslims arrived there and enslaved the people on those islands.

  14. No conspiracy mentioned. Conspiracy is a NEO-CON term for history that works counter to their theory. Rome was built on conquest. Asian dynasties were built on conquest.
    Ottoman, Byzantine and Jihad. Not Islam as a religion but like Christian and Jew under the name of false faith or flag.
    We can be lead by the nose or by the knows. It’s our choice.

  15. fuck america!!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: