Waleed Aly, an Australian, doesn't like our drone strikes on jihadi nasties. Let's take a tour of the results of idiocy linked to writing implements:
It seems inevitable that lots of countries – including ones that make the West uncomfortable – will soon enough have drones of their own. Perhaps the most overlooked story of the year comes from China, where the People's Liberation Army hatched a plan to send a drone to Myanmar to assassinate a drug trafficker who had murdered 13 Chinese nationals.
The fact that China will soon have drones is no argument against us having drones. At heart, the view is that somehow--against all history--if we don't use a weapon poorly then others won't either. We've used planes, mines, tanks, and rifles under the laws of war yet that hasn't stopped China from selling planes, mines, tanks, and cheap rifles around the globe to people who couldn't care less about the rules of war or even common decency. China will use and sell armed drones whether we use them or don't use them. And oddly enough for an example Aly is using to show how China will abuse drones, China did not use armed drones to kill a murdering drug dealer. Odd, that is, given his premise.
He then raises the issue of civilian casualties as a reason to oppose drone strikes:
But even if we could get a reliable figure, it's unclear precisely what it would mean. The problem here is that we're dealing with a counter-factual. How many civilians would have died if conventional weapons were used instead? How many (if any) of these strikes would not have gone ahead if drones weren't available? Again, we can't say. And, sadly, we're in an era when civilian deaths are deemed an acceptable inevitability of war, rather than a reason to avoid it.
Apparently, Aly is not well read. In the end, Aly doesn't care whether the number of innocent civilians killed by our drones is high or low--or whether more conventional weapons would have killed more or fewer. But he does know that we live in an era when civilian deaths are acceptable.
What rot. Civilian deaths--at least for Westerners who wage war--are not acceptable. If they were we wouldn't actually have rules of war that we enforce with prosecutions against our own troops if they violate them. We live in an era where Westerners go to extreme lengths to avoid unintentional civilian deaths--exceeding even the requirements of the rules of warfare. Those rules do not require us to hold our fire when going after enemies if civilians might die. How many civilians died in World War II as we fought the Nazis? Lots. Lots of German civilians and lots of friendly civilians who got in the way. To say we live in an era when civilian deaths are acceptable is idiocy and blindness.
Blindness because Aly doesn't see that the only side in the war where civilian deaths are acceptable--desirable even--is on the side of our enemies. They hide among civilians in the hope that we won't shoot at the jihadis and risk civilian deaths. They dress like civilians in the hope we will not shoot--and even if we do they might persuade the Aly types around the world that those killed were innocent civilians. They deliberately target civilians and even justify the deaths of their own civilians who die as simply creting involuntary martyrs.
But don't go away yet. Aly is just getting warmed up:
The central problem is drones permit a kind of no-risk, low-cost warfare. Indeed, they so radically and fundamentally alter the nature of war that they risk making war seem far less grave, and far easier to wage.
I assume I missed the earnest Aly article about the evils of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and suicide bombers that our enemies use to kill mostly civilians but some troops if they get lucky. The idea that we shouldn't wage war unless our troops die in sufficient numbers is so bizarrely stupid that I can hardly stand it. When we are at war, we need to win. And if more of our troops survive and more of the enemy's die, that's freaking great and not a reason to despair. How many troops did we lose overthrowing the Saddam regime or the Taliban regime? How many did we lose over Libya, Bosnia, Serbia, or Kosovo? And without armed drones in sight in any of those fights?
But he's just approaching the heart of his brain synapses randomly sparking:
War is a kind of contract. Each side confronts the other, with the risk of death and defeat. In short, war should come at a cost. That contract is shredded when you're attacked by something that cannot itself be killed. It's not remotely a fair fight. It's scarcely a fight at all. For all the horror, pain, and gore of the battlefield, there's something to be said for it. It's one of the very best reasons every nation has not to go to war. The greater the sacrifice, the graver the decision to fight.
A contract! Did we fail to read the fine print that made slamming our planes filled with people into the World Trade Center--also filled with people--an expected part of our war with the jihadis?
Are more than 6,500 military dead not enough of a price we have paid? Are Thousands more with wounds physical and mental not enough? Are the hundreds of billions of dollars we've spent not enough of a price? Are the limits on our freedoms and civil liberties due to measures to stop jihadis from killing us "on the battlefield" of our home towns not enough of a price? Is Aly really that stupid?
What was fair about seizing our planes on 9/11 and killing nearly three thousand? What was fair about bombing Bali? What was fair about bombing hotels? What was fair about bombing Boston? What was fair about slitting an off-duty soldier's throat in London? Or bombing mass transit in London or Madrid? What's fair about suicide bombing polling places?
What's fair about jihadi IEDs and mines? How do we kill them?
What's fair? What's fair about idiots lecturing on politics at Monash University?
And if sacrifice deterred a decision to fight, why aren't jihadis refraining from that choice given the unfairness that Aly heaps uniquely on our armed drones? Shouldn't the logical conclusion of Aly's argument be that we must kill even more jihadis and their civilian fans to make the price of waging jihad on us felt by their society?
Don't the jihadis tell us they will beat us because in their contract, we love life and they love death? I'm no attorney, but I'd call that a contract we can work with!
The fact is, the central argument of Aly is ridiculous. He thinks the price we pay for using drones to kill enemies is so low that we'll use them wherever we want. But the fact is, we don't. We use them in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And we use them in Yemen and Somalia. These are all places where fighting is actively going on and pre-dated our development of armed drones. Where else are we unleashing the drones rather than reying on allies to take down jihadis with their own police or own forces? So far we aren't even using them over Mali where a war against jihadis is being waged by France.
War is no contract between combatants. We don't want war but they attempt to kill us. Under those circumstances I simply want our troops to kill as many of the enemy as we can--as carefully as our technology and objectives allow--and do so as quickly as possible to finally defeat our enemies.
Aly then pretends to have a notion of the historical record more granular than his knowledge of his own buttocks:
The historical record suggests our every military development seems to have made war less and less costly for those waging it, with horrific results. Once, rulers risked their own lives on the battlefield. Then the lives of ordinary citizens, called up by conscription. Now they risk the lives of professional soldiers who make the choice to get in harm's way. And in the meantime the ratio of civilian casualties to those of combatants has ballooned.
Seriously? Hysterical record is more like it.
I suggest our scholar consult World War II--that splendid era of conscript armies. Entire armies sweeping across countries killed lots of civilians even when those armies weren't trying to kill civilians.
Who knew, I might add, that the mass murders of Rwanda in the 1990s was inflicted by impersonal drones rather than up-close guns and hatchets. I guess they can all be proud that they paid a price worthy of respect by an academic of Aly's caliber.
And that age of glorious conscript warfare that Aly extols? It had a fairly brief shelf life of about a century in the West. Before that, it was volunteers. Now we're going back to volunteers. Hell, before conscription, private hired military units were pretty common. I know, buzz kill for the "cost" arguments here.
Good God, I suppose I should be grateful that we don't have a monopoly on raving lunatic stupidity masquerading as deep thinking.
In the end, it is hard to escape the conclusion that Mr. Aly is only concerned that American soldiers aren't dying in high enough numbers to suit him. Who is his contract with, anyway?
UPDATE: A reminder from the glory days of World War II:
The U.S. has long been accused of having an unfair advantage in war, because of the American tendency to throw more material and money than manpower into the fight. This was most notable during World War II, when German prisoners often complained (when debriefed) about it. To the Germans (or Japanese), American artillery, aircraft and tanks seemed to be everywhere, all the time and in unbelievable quantity. Should the enemy launch an attack, every American gun within range would, as if by magic, begin firing on the advancing troops. The result was that both the Japanese and Germans were surprised, and usually pulverized, when they encountered the artillery support that accompanied U.S. ground units. The Germans thought this massive artillery support was somewhat "unfair" (if only because the Americans had it and they didn't), while the Japanese found yet another way to die nobly.
I don't understand why people are complaining that it isn't fair for us to use drones to kill our enemies. I can understand why those who side with our enemies don't like them. But is it really a case of people being for us or against us?
If it makes people feel better, the Strategypage post discusses our difficulties in perpetuating our tradition of unfair advantages.
UPDATE: So is this an admirable way of fighting:
Also on Saturday, an Italian soldier was killed and three were wounded when a child threw a grenade at a NATO convoy in the western province of Farah, a spokesman for the governor and a Taliban spokesman said
"A brave, heroic 11-year-old Afghan child hurled a hand grenade at dismounted Italian troops in Farah city," the Taliban said in an English-language statement.
Sadly, since the Taliban celebrated the attacker, I guess the Afghans aren't paying the price for their method of warfare.
