Bahu Virupaksha Bahu Virupaksha

US DRONE ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS

US DRONE ATTACKS ON CIVILIAN TARGETS

VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Each war faught during the course of this century of "extremes" as one prominent historian put is has had its own unique features. The horrendous bloodletting in the trenches during World War I, captured so evocatively by Remarque in All Quiet on the Western Front, the large scale destruction of cities and civillian life and property at Dresseden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not to forget the Japanese atrocities at Shanghai and Nanking, the Nazi genocide planned and executed by the state, are all unique features of twentieth century history.  The Black Book of Communism published recently by Harvard University Press has documented in some detail the civillian cost of ideologically inspired mass killing. So we are not being overly sensitive to the fact that the War on Terror unleashed by President Bush and carried out with great alacrity by President Obama seems to carry on the glorious traditions of the last century.

Warfare is ugly and more so when the enemy real or imagined is unseen and undetected. In all the rules of warfare in place until now the civillians could not be the direct target. Even when the US atom bombed Japan it was done on the pretext that the Japanese war machinery utilised the industries located in and around the two cities and the fire bombing of Dressden was sold to an unsuspecting public as an attack on the war machine of the Germans. All international conventions to which USA and its NATO allies are party to prohibit the intentional targetting of civillians.

In Afghanistan and in Pakistan the USA has been using unmanned drones carrying leathal bombs to target al-qaeda and taliban leaders. No one will be concerned if the drones kill their purported targets. Often the targets are chosen on the basis of rumours and gossip, malicious rumours that are spread by tribal rivalries and are picked up by US plants and relayed to the CIA headquarters and the order to strike given. In this process a large number of innocent men and women and children are being killed everyday and the drone attacks have become the single most important factor in fuelling anti US propaganda.

In each drone attack at least 20 to 30 people are being killed and in certain instances not a single militant was on the spot. It appears that the US is relying on motivated information in order to launch drone attacks. Apart from the sheer scale of the drone attacks and tney are becoming more and more frequent by the week, the widespread use of drone raises questions about US commitment to the conventions it has signed. I am not calling for a moratorium on the use of drones, as I do realise that such attacks are useful and to an extent necessary. I am simply saying that proper and judicious care must be taken to whet what is touted as "actionable intelligence".

22,282 views 127 replies
Reply #126 Top

I agree, drones have their place and are a valuable asset, however there is nothing better (yet) then having boots on the ground. Whether NATO or Pakistan does it, this must be accomplished. Killing civilians have almost always pushed them into the arms of who isn't killing them. These civilians will never understand the terrorists disregard for their safety until the fighting gets down to a personal level.

End of quote

Afghanistan is different from the Middle-East.

In contrast to terrorist groups in the Middle-East, the Taliban have almost no local support in Afghanistan. Their money and arms came from Arab sources and the Taliban's alliance with Al-Qaeda has been understood in Afghanistan as foreigners meddling in their country.

This is not to say that we don't have to be careful not to kill civilians just because they are unlikely to embrace the Taliban if we do. But the sensitivities are different. The clans of civilian victims want compensation for their losses, not us doubting their loyalty to whichenver non-Taliban warlord they happen to be allied with.

In Afghanistan, if you kill someone, you pay blood money. It's a system that has evolved as a solution to the same problem we in the west solve with life insurance.

The Afghanis understand that war costs innocent lives. Heck they have been fighting wars for decades. They know.

But they won't understand why we investigate why someone died rather than pay for it as we are supposed to. To most people on the ground it is obvious how someone died in an air attack.

 

Reply #127 Top

Heck they have been fighting wars for decades.
End of quote

Centuries. They were at it when the British "conquered" them 200 years ago, and probably longer than that.