There is a great deal of inconsistency with the data that is being reported. Mother Jones for example, states that the success rate is 2%, with a combattant death count of "1061 to 1584" out of "1,372 and 2,12", resulting in a civilian, or non-combatant, death rate of ~25%. Their 2% statistic is derived from the percentage of attacks that went after high value targets and suceeded.
The site DoD Buzz, which one would assume as being for innovative military measures like unmaned drones, posted a scathing article on the innefectiveness of the drones. I take issue with their reporting, however, as they cite the 2% statistic as being the number of combatants killed, with the other 98% that were killed being non-combatants, which is misleading. They're only non-combatants insofar as not being people in positions of power within their military structure.
The people of Pakistan are, according to all that I could find, against the drones strikes because of their high civilian death count. There are sites that try to explain why the numbers appear as skewed as they are, and I gather that it is due to differing definitions of what is and is not a civilian.
I can't really make a claim one way or another. The conflicting data leaves me unsatisfied, though I feel more compelled to side with the people on the receiving end than the people launching the strikes, if only because they probably know what's going on better than anybody else.
If there's anything to take away from this, is that you shouldn't take that link I posted to be definitive proof. There's a lot of conflicting data out there, leaving the waters quite murky.
The key word is innocent. Because we did not have a trial for any of these people, all of them are technicaly innocent. If Pakistan government points out a location of terrorist. We bomb it and one source claims they were innocent, while Pakistan government still claims they were terrorist.
The number of civilians killed flactuates on knowing and trusting the intelligence gathered that lead to the strike. If you think US government has no credible evidence on any of the targets, you can claim 100% of those killed were civilians.
Drones are better than all out war, but how many things can you think of that are actually worse than war?
Samuel L. Jackson To Voters: 'Wake The up and vote for Obama
I gotta say I kinda agree with the message.
I don't think one can say that enemy combatants are innocent in the absence of a trial. I realize it gets very dang tautological to say, "we bombed them, so they were combatants!". I'm not arguing that there weren't innocents folks killed, just that the absence of a trial doesn't make them de facto innocent.
Agreed, I'm going to be somewhat skeptical of any claimed numbers.
For me, it's that drones are a lot better than all out war for the US. I'm under no delusion that they're better for the people that get hit though. I absolutely would advocate for making very damned sure we're hitting the right people, to the best of our abilities.
I understand that this is common knowledge, but I feel it is pertinent to the conversation. We shouldn't forget that there are still people guiding these drones. How Stuff Works has an article detailing how these drones operate.
And for some reasoning my spellcheck isn't working.
well yes. it just seems like a lot if this is kneeherk reactions. "Innocents get killed by drones, drones are bad!" they also get killed in raids, in invasions, and in wars. more than with drones i would imagine. maybe if we offer bigger bounties on the terrorists they'll turn themselves in like that one guy?For me, it's that drones are a lot better than all out war for the US. I'm under no delusion that they're better for the people that get hit though. I absolutely would advocate for making very damned sure we're hitting the right people, to the best of our abilities.
---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 04:22 PM ----------
yeah, we've never been attacked on our own soil before. much less embassies.
Does 9/11 that not count as an attack on our land?
Sounds like we need to do something on our own soil to prevent it from happening. That way, we can protect from foreign attacks of any country and domestic. None of the people we hit with drones attacked us and as far as I know that crappy Tom Cruise movie about predicting the future, is still in the sci-fi section.
---------- Post added 2012-09-29 at 12:27 AM ----------
No, those people are dead. The people we kill now had nothing to do with it.
It amazes me how the vast majority of people can't grasp the concept WAR is Hell.
Innocents will die, civilians will die, non combatants will die, all in the hopes of preserving a longer lasting piece.
Not to sound callous but war is like making a omelet, you are going to break a few eggs.
I am going to link this video one more time. It's really a well made video. I'd like some feedback on it please.