Life as a drone operator: 'Ever step on ants and never give it another thought?'


Life as a drone operator: 'Ever step on ants and never give it another...

Author
Message
quickflick
quickflick
World Class
World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Ed Pilkington appearing in The Guardian on 20 November, 2015 wrote:

When Michael Haas, a former senior airman with the US air force, looks back on the missions he flew over Afghanistan and other conflict zones in a six-year career operating military drones, one of the things he remembers most vividly is the colorful language airmen would use to describe their targets. A team of three would be sitting, he recalls, in a ground control station in Creech air force base outside Las Vegas, staring at computer screens on to which images would be beamed back from high-powered sensors on Predator drones thousands of miles away.

The aim of the missions was to track, and when the conditions were deemed right, kill suspected insurgents. That’s not how they put it, though. They would talk about “cutting the grass before it grows out of control”, or “pulling the weeds before they overrun the lawn”.

And then there were the children. The airmen would be flying the Predators over a village in the tribal areas of Pakistan, say, when a series of smaller black shadows would appear across their screens – telling them that kids were at the scene.

They called them “fun-sized terrorists”.

Haas is one of four former air force drone operators and technicians who as a group have come forward to the Guardian to register their opposition to the ongoing reliance on the technology as the US military’s modern weaponry of choice. Between them, the four men clocked up more than 20 years of direct experience at the coalface of lethal drone programs and were credited with having assisted in the targeted killings of hundreds of people in conflict zones – many of them almost certainly civilians.

As a senior airman in the 15th reconnaissance squadron and 3rd special operations squadron from 2005 to 2011 – a period straddling the presidencies of George W Bush and Barack Obama – Haas participated in targeted killing runs from his computer in Creech that terminated the lives of insurgents in Afghanistan almost 8,000 miles away. He was a sensor operator, controlling the cameras, lasers and other information-gathering equipment on Predator and Reaper drones as well as being responsible for guiding Hellfire missiles to their targets once the pilot sitting next to him had pulled the trigger.

Haas, a 29-year-old, in a Notre Dame baseball cap and Chicago Blackhawks ice hockey jersey, looks too youthful to be burdened by such enormous issues. Yet the existential sensation of killing someone by manipulating a computer joystick has left a deep and lasting impression on him. “Ever step on ants and never give it another thought? That’s what you are made to think of the targets – as just black blobs on a screen. You start to do these psychological gymnastics to make it easier to do what you have to do – they deserved it, they chose their side. You had to kill part of your conscience to keep doing your job every day – and ignore those voices telling you this wasn’t right.”

Haas was relatively lucky, in that his team directly launched only two missile strikes during his 5,000 hours of drone flying. The first of those incidents, in January 2011, involved a group of insurgents in Helmand province, Afghanistan, who were exchanging gunfire with US troops on the ground and were duly eviscerated. “No-doubters”, the targets were called in the cold vocabulary of the military drone business, indicating certainty about their enemy status. Such certainty rarely existed, Haas said.

He has also been spared the burden of knowing the overall number of killings in which he played a part as a cog in the wider machinery of drone warfare. When he left the air force, Haas was given a report card that revealed the tally, but he chose to ignore it.

“They handed me a closed envelope with the number in it, but I never opened it. I didn’t want anything to do with it,” he said.

Brandon Bryant, a staff sergeant who worked with US air force Predator drones between 2005 and 2011 as a sensor operator and imagery analyst, did not get away so lightly. He knows for a fact – he saw it on his screen – that he was directly involved in the deaths of 13 people in five separate Hellfire strikes, one in Iraq and the rest in Afghanistan.

Bryant, 30, his head shaved and tattoos covering the backs of his hands, carries himself like a leader and seems to be driven by a determination to own a personal responsibility for the drone campaign he was involved in for five years and five days.

His first “shot”, as the former drone operators call the strikes, was in Afghanistan, where Bryant helped guide in F-16 fighter aircraft to kill three individuals who he was told were reinforcements coming to join anti-US Taliban forces. But when he “got eyes” on the targets, it was obvious to him from their body movements – they were hunkering down, gesturing, looking around – that they were terrified, suggesting to him that they were unlikely to be trained fighters.

After the strike was completed, when Bryant was back with his squadron, there were high-fives all round. He was celebrated for having “popped his cherry” – he had broken his drone virginity with a killing.

In the fourth of the Hellfire strikes in which Bryant directly participated, his team was called in to take out a group of five tribal individuals and their camel who were travelling through a pass from Pakistan to Afghanistan. They were said to be carrying explosives for use in attacks on US troops.

Bryant, together with a pilot and mission coordinator who formed the other two members of his team, tracked the group for several hours from their computers outside Las Vegas. They flew the Predator drone out of sight and beyond earshot of the targets at about 20,000 feet and a distance of about four nautical miles from the group on the ground.

He was puzzled during that time, because there was no sign of any weapons on the men or in the baggage carried by the camel. The drone team patiently waited for the men to descend the valley and bed in for the night, before they let rip with the Hellfire. Even then, there were no secondary explosions, which made Bryant think that his hunch had probably been right – five men and a camel had been reduced to dust for no apparent reason.

“We waited for those men to settle down in their beds and then we killed them in their sleep. That was cowardly murder,” he said.

These direct incidents were harrowing enough for Bryant. But then, when he was honorably discharged from the air force in 2011, he made the mistake of doing what Haas had refused to do: he opened the envelope with the report card in it that itemized the number of killings in which he had played some assisting role.

The number was 1,626.

The impact of such knowledge, and the myriad other stresses of sitting in a tin box in Nevada tracking individuals for potential assassination on the other side of the globe, has taken a heavy toll on Bryant and other drone operators. Studies have found similar levels of depression and PTSD among drone pilots working behind a bank of computers as among military personnel deployed to the battlefield.

The psychological effect can hit personnel in unexpected ways. Cian Westmoreland was a senior airman based at Kandahar Air Field in Afghanistan, working as a technician to set up the communications infrastructure that acts as the backbone of the drone system.

Though he never pulled the trigger or used a joystick to guide in missiles, the lethal nature of his work was driven home to him when his superior came to his unit one day and said: “We are killing bad guys now, boys.”

Westmoreland was troubled by the disclosure, and from 2009 to this day has been disturbed by recurring nightmares. “I’m in the radio unit flipping switches, with my boss yelling at me to get it up and running. Then all of a sudden it does start working and I realize with a jolt what I’ve done. I run out of the control station and now I’m in a village in Afghanistan and the whole place is burnt out and there’s a woman on the ground covered in soot and a child crying over her. I go up to help the child, but half of her face is blown off and there’s nothing I can do.”

The four former drone operators who talked to the Guardian described the various ways in which they and their peers would try to cope during shifts of up to 12 hours. Airmen would show up to the control station drunk; others would sleep on the job, read comic books or play video games on their secure computers.

Despite the load they were carrying, they were disparaged within the wider air force. “We were looked down upon, because we were wearing flight suits but not sitting in the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Drones were like a joke in the military,” Bryant said.

Toward the end of his service, Haas switched to training new recruits in the technology of drone warfare. That shocked him anew, as he discovered that many of the younger intake were gung-ho about the power they wielded at their fingertips. “They just wanted to kill,” he said.

He remembers one training session with a student in which they were flying live over Afghanistan. The student said that a group of people on the ground looked suspicious.

Why? Haas asked. Because they look like they are up to no good, the student replied.

Would you act on that? the instructor asked. Sure, the student said.

Haas immediately pulled him from his seat, took over the mission himself, and promptly failed the student. “I tried to get the students to understand that preservation of innocent life had to take priority.”

Because he failed the student, Haas was later rebuked by senior officers. They told him that they were short of bodies to keep the drones flying, and they ordered him to pass students in future so that there would be a sufficient number trained and ready to go.

Drone premieres theatrically in North America on Friday in New York. Directed by Tonje Hessen Schei and produced by Flimmer Film, it features former drone operators as well as people in conflict zones living under threat of drone attack.

This article was amended on 19 November 2015, to correctly identify where Cian Westmoreland was based.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot-creech-air-force-base-nevada




Seriously worrying stuff. Just the psychology behind the kind of language used gives me the chills.

This is just one reason why moderate Muslims may be driven to extremist stances. Other reasons are marginalisation of Muslims in the West. And, yes, they sure are marginalised.

The United States really does shoot itself in the foot, in so many ways. Unless, it's in their best interest to be in a state of war perpetually.

Edited by quickflick: 20/11/2015 06:25:33 PM
Crusader
Crusader
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K, Visits: 0
It has been like this in every war since the dawn of time, dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to do your job properly. Actual combat soldiers have a much darker sense of humour and will laugh at anything. I have laughed at the death and destruction my soldiers and I caused and I do not regret it. You are worried about the psychology behind his words? That is why we don't use people like you to kill our enemies. Until you have the balls to shoot at men who are trying to kill you it is best if you just sleep peacefully in your bed at night and be thankful for the rough men ready to do violence on your behalf.
Slobodan Drauposevic
Slobodan Drauposevic
Legend
Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K, Visits: 0
Crusader wrote:
It has been like this in every war since the dawn of time, dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to do your job properly. Actual combat soldiers have a much darker sense of humour and will laugh at anything. I have laughed at the death and destruction my soldiers and I caused and I do not regret it. You are worried about the psychology behind his words? That is why we don't use people like you to kill our enemies. Until you have the balls to shoot at men who are trying to kill you it is best if you just sleep peacefully in your bed at night and be thankful for the rough men ready to do violence on your behalf.




No you're right, I am so glad that an absolutely condescending cunt of a person is helping me sleep at night.

Get off of your high horse. You might be the reason that people sleep peacefully at night, but the only reason is because you dropped out of high school and the choice was either become a labourer or to have a gun in your hand.

I mean for real, look at how tough you actually are - talking nonsense on a fucking football forum in reply to a post about psychology. Shit. Big man indeed.
Crusader
Crusader
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K, Visits: 0
Draupnir wrote:
Crusader wrote:
It has been like this in every war since the dawn of time, dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to do your job properly. Actual combat soldiers have a much darker sense of humour and will laugh at anything. I have laughed at the death and destruction my soldiers and I caused and I do not regret it. You are worried about the psychology behind his words? That is why we don't use people like you to kill our enemies. Until you have the balls to shoot at men who are trying to kill you it is best if you just sleep peacefully in your bed at night and be thankful for the rough men ready to do violence on your behalf.




No you're right, I am so glad that an absolutely condescending cunt of a person is helping me sleep at night.

Get off of your high horse. You might be the reason that people sleep peacefully at night, but the only reason is because you dropped out of high school and the choice was either become a labourer or to have a gun in your hand.

I mean for real, look at how tough you actually are - talking nonsense on a fucking football forum in reply to a post about psychology. Shit. Big man indeed.


I have a couple of masters degrees and speak three languages fluently, another half a dozen or so to some standard, so you know where you can stick that straw man argument. I referred to the psychology of combat in my reply, your complete lack of manliness was simply an aside that caused your vagina to fill with sand.
AzzaMarch
AzzaMarch
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K, Visits: 0
I am more concerned about the seeming lack of enforcement of protocols in place to minimise civilian deaths.

I agree that 'gallows humour' is a normal part of being a soldier, and is a coping mechanism to cope with the life and death decisions to be made. However, you need strict enforcement of protocols and standards for engagement to prevent flippant comments from escalating into flippant behaviour.

The standards set by those in command are crucial. Otherwise you end up with Abu Ghraib.
Crusader
Crusader
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️
⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)⚽️ R.I.P. ⚽️ (5.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 5.8K, Visits: 0
AzzaMarch wrote:
I am more concerned about the seeming lack of enforcement of protocols in place to minimise civilian deaths.

I agree that 'gallows humour' is a normal part of being a soldier, and is a coping mechanism to cope with the life and death decisions to be made. However, you need strict enforcement of protocols and standards for engagement to prevent flippant comments from escalating into flippant behaviour.

The standards set by those in command are crucial. Otherwise you end up with Abu Ghraib.


There are an excess of protocols in place, especially when you are the poor bastard on the ground getting shot at while aircraft circle above waiting to get permission to attack. Or even worse if they are from some worthless Eurotrash ally who cannot act without direct divine intervention.*

You identified the problem correctly as being those in command position, mid level officers and NCOs, if they do not maintain the standards and punish anyone who violates the protocols innocent people are injured or killed. Same as Abu Ghraib, they hung a lowly private out to dry for that when it should have been the entire chain of command that was punished. That kind of behaviour only happens in the presence of weak leadership.

*Especially the Germans or Dutch. We were in contact in with our erstwhile clog wog allies less than 500m away watching and refusing to act as the enemy had not fired directly at them. Despite the mockery they receive the French were complete badasses, as fearless and reliable as the Brits or Yanks.
quickflick
quickflick
World Class
World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
Crusader wrote:
It has been like this in every war since the dawn of time, dehumanising the enemy makes it easier to do your job properly. Actual combat soldiers have a much darker sense of humour and will laugh at anything. I have laughed at the death and destruction my soldiers and I caused and I do not regret it. You are worried about the psychology behind his words? That is why we don't use people like you to kill our enemies. Until you have the balls to shoot at men who are trying to kill you it is best if you just sleep peacefully in your bed at night and be thankful for the rough men ready to do violence on your behalf.


I respect what you've done for your country and for an important cause, generally. You have my gratitude for that.

With all due respect, you're not in a position to know who or what I am, nor what my capabilities are.

Suffice it to say, reasonable and compassionate people are capable of doing things they're uncomfortable with when, unfortunately, it is necessary.

It's basically all about extent. There are some things which reasonable people can be brought to do (and laugh about) and then there are other things which reasonable cannot do (or at least which they might be able to do, but which they would not derive any joy from it).

That leads me to soldier humour.

A number of people in my family have served in the armed forces (ours a bit, but more so the British Army).

They do have a dark humour. I won't pretend to know everything they would and would not find funny. But while you're right that they might make jokes about themselves dying or and I'm fairly sure that at least some would laugh about death of enemy troops, there are some things that they would not find funny.

I genuinely find it concerning if you can find anything funny. I'm fairly sure they'd be disgusted if they heard somebody refer to innocent kids as "fun-sized terrorists" and not give a shit if they took the out. Especially from the safety of a base in Nevada.

Reasonable soldiers realise there are situations when children may be killed or when they may have to be killed (at that point it's a judgment call), but there's no way in hell that a reasonable soldier would be able to make light of that.

Making jokes about taking out an insurgent killed while trying to ambush you, fair enough. Enjoying the idea of killing a child. That's absolutely fucked. Anybody who does that isn't actually fit for combat.

Simple as that.

Military personnel have to do things they're not proud of and (in many cases) it helps if they can make light of death and destruction. But there is still a line. Soldiers are still human beings.

This is quote from former British SAS soldier Ben Griffin about his view on on the Americans in Iraq. It goes a long way to explaining a lot of things. It shows things that have gone a bit too far.

Ben Griffin wrote:
As far as the Americans were concerned, the Iraqi people were sub-human, untermenschen. You could almost split the Americans into two groups: ones who were complete crusaders, intent on killing Iraqis, and the others who were in Iraq because the Army was going to pay their college fees. They had no understanding or interest in the Arab culture. The Americans would talk to the Iraqis as if they were stupid and these weren't isolated cases, this was from the top down. There might be one or two enlightened officers who understood the situation a bit better but on the whole that was their general attitude. Their attitude fuelled the insurgency. I think the Iraqis detested them.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1512767/I-didnt-join-the-British-Army-to-conduct-American-foreign-policy.html

If there wasn't a line, then there would be fuck all point in being there in the first place as we'd be just as bad as them.

As for your point about the rules of engagement. I think they need to be strict, but I agree with you that there are circumstances when it becomes frankly ridiculous and I can see how other nations troops are have let you lot down.

Edited by quickflick: 24/11/2015 02:33:43 AM
trident
trident
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K, Visits: 0
On whose behalf?
Some foreign cabal of corporations?
quickflick
quickflick
World Class
World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
AzzaMarch wrote:
I am more concerned about the seeming lack of enforcement of protocols in place to minimise civilian deaths.

I agree that 'gallows humour' is a normal part of being a soldier, and is a coping mechanism to cope with the life and death decisions to be made. However, you need strict enforcement of protocols and standards for engagement to prevent flippant comments from escalating into flippant behaviour.

The standards set by those in command are crucial. Otherwise you end up with Abu Ghraib.


There's 'gallows humour' and then there's 'gallows humour'. It's one thing to be able to find the death of enemy combatants funny. But to enjoy the idea of taking out kids is fucked. That goes beyond mere 'gallows humour'.

In the article, the reference to 'fun-sized terrorists' illustrates the extent of the problem. Enjoying the idea of killing kids is too far. I know soldiers who have gallows humour, but I'm almost certain they wouldn't find that funny at all. They'd be disgusted and think the person who said that unfit for combat.

One of the main issues with the Middle-East is a failure to balance efficiency in taking out enemy leaders and combatants and winning the hearts and minds in the area.

This is an ideological war. Which means hearts and minds need to be won. Dehumanising to that extent is dangerous. We need really savvy people in command and disciplining troops to ensure the correct balance is struck.

If the balance is not struck, then there's absolutely no hope in the Middle-East.

Edited by quickflick: 24/11/2015 02:34:31 AM
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
yes we need check and balances in place while we fight an enemy who doesn't give a fuck who they kill......

you do realise that our troops can't shoot UNTIL they are shot at?????
AzzaMarch
AzzaMarch
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
yes we need check and balances in place while we fight an enemy who doesn't give a fuck who they kill......

you do realise that our troops can't shoot UNTIL they are shot at?????


The issue is not the protocols. The issue is enforcement of the protocols.

Like mentioned previously, Abu Ghraib came about from weak officer leadership allowing and implicitly (if not explicitly) endorsing torture. Then they do the investigation once the photos came out and... surprise surprise - it is only the lowly soldiers on the front line who directly committed these acts being punished.

The fact is that dehumanising "the enemy" is a coping mechanism many soldiers use to deal with the psychological horror of doing something we are raised from birth to not do, kill people. Military training does a great job of breaking down societal taboos ingrained in soldiers, so that they can do their job of killing.

However, very little is done to then put in place an alternative ethical structure with guidelines other than "kill the enemy". And even less is done when these soldiers are expected to integrate back into society and are magically supposed to be able to once again live by society's ethical framework regardless of what they have seen, and done.

I think this is exacerbated in the US Army, which has (from my limited understanding) much more emphasis on winning wars, rather than peace-keeping operations.

The skills required to win a war are different than the skills required to occupy somewhere for an extended period.

The point of all my rambling is that the "fun-sized terrorist" comments are not the problem. They are a symptom of the problem, which goes right back to the strategic decision to overthrow Saddam and dismantle completely the Baathist political party and the Iraqi Army and Police Force, rather than just replacing the top brass and leaving the structure in place.

It goes back to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq when they had a complete lack or Arabic translators.

It goes back to many tactical and strategic errors by the civilian leadership. Chiefly, as I said, the decision to dismantle a whole country's political structure with no clear plan (or injection or resources) to create an alternative power structure. The ensuing vacuum has led to any number of problems years later.

Sorry - gone on a tangent here. George W Bush has a lot to answer for in my opinion...
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
:lol: fun-sized terrorists.

I am literally shocked that they would carry out strikes with children present. Where the hell are the UN to stop this? There are way too many protocols sure but avoiding the death of children in all but extreme situations is surely mandatory? Killing them will only breed more 'fun-sized terrorists'.

Also I'm so fucking sick of seeing people justify extremism with marginalization etc. as if muslims are the only minority in the west.....
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
BETHFC wrote:
:lol: fun-sized terrorists.

I am literally shocked that they would carry out strikes with children present. Where the hell are the UN to stop this? There are way too many protocols sure but avoiding the death of children in all but extreme situations is surely mandatory? Killing them will only breed more 'fun-sized terrorists'.

Also I'm so fucking sick of seeing people justify extremism with marginalization etc. as if muslims are the only minority in the west.....


so what do you do when the enemy occupy schools and hospitals and public locations to prevent attack from allied forces?
these cowards hide behind women and children, they don't follow any rules, that's why these battles are near impossible to win......
BETHFC
BETHFC
World Class
World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)World Class (8.2K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.2K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
BETHFC wrote:
:lol: fun-sized terrorists.

I am literally shocked that they would carry out strikes with children present. Where the hell are the UN to stop this? There are way too many protocols sure but avoiding the death of children in all but extreme situations is surely mandatory? Killing them will only breed more 'fun-sized terrorists'.

Also I'm so fucking sick of seeing people justify extremism with marginalization etc. as if muslims are the only minority in the west.....


so what do you do when the enemy occupy schools and hospitals and public locations to prevent attack from allied forces?
these cowards hide behind women and children, they don't follow any rules, that's why these battles are near impossible to win......


The argument here is that drones are not appropriate for all types of combat. In instances like you describe, soldiers on the group would I guess reduce civilian casualties.
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
BETHFC wrote:
batfink wrote:
BETHFC wrote:
:lol: fun-sized terrorists.

I am literally shocked that they would carry out strikes with children present. Where the hell are the UN to stop this? There are way too many protocols sure but avoiding the death of children in all but extreme situations is surely mandatory? Killing them will only breed more 'fun-sized terrorists'.

Also I'm so fucking sick of seeing people justify extremism with marginalization etc. as if muslims are the only minority in the west.....


so what do you do when the enemy occupy schools and hospitals and public locations to prevent attack from allied forces?
these cowards hide behind women and children, they don't follow any rules, that's why these battles are near impossible to win......


The argument here is that drones are not appropriate for all types of combat. In instances like you describe, soldiers on the group would I guess reduce civilian casualties.


sorry i didn't see it that way.....
paulbagzFC
paulbagzFC
Legend
Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)Legend (45K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K, Visits: 0
Just like playing CoD m8.

-PB

https://i.imgur.com/batge7K.jpg

batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
paulbagzFC wrote:
Just like playing CoD m8.

-PB


WHATS THAT?
salmonfc
salmonfc
World Class
World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)World Class (7.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 7.6K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
paulbagzFC wrote:
Just like playing CoD m8.

-PB


WHATS THAT?

Cock of Doodoo.

Edited by salmonfc: 24/11/2015 02:51:06 PM

For the first time, but certainly not the last, I began to believe that Arsenals moods and fortunes somehow reflected my own. - Hornby

trident
trident
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.3K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 1.3K, Visits: 0
Protecting our country by killing brown people in the desert by remote control who had no quarrel with us. Heroic.
quickflick
quickflick
World Class
World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)World Class (6.3K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
AzzaMarch wrote:
batfink wrote:
yes we need check and balances in place while we fight an enemy who doesn't give a fuck who they kill......

you do realise that our troops can't shoot UNTIL they are shot at?????


The issue is not the protocols. The issue is enforcement of the protocols.

Like mentioned previously, Abu Ghraib came about from weak officer leadership allowing and implicitly (if not explicitly) endorsing torture. Then they do the investigation once the photos came out and... surprise surprise - it is only the lowly soldiers on the front line who directly committed these acts being punished.

The fact is that dehumanising "the enemy" is a coping mechanism many soldiers use to deal with the psychological horror of doing something we are raised from birth to not do, kill people. Military training does a great job of breaking down societal taboos ingrained in soldiers, so that they can do their job of killing.

However, very little is done to then put in place an alternative ethical structure with guidelines other than "kill the enemy". And even less is done when these soldiers are expected to integrate back into society and are magically supposed to be able to once again live by society's ethical framework regardless of what they have seen, and done.

I think this is exacerbated in the US Army, which has (from my limited understanding) much more emphasis on winning wars, rather than peace-keeping operations.

The skills required to win a war are different than the skills required to occupy somewhere for an extended period.

The point of all my rambling is that the "fun-sized terrorist" comments are not the problem. They are a symptom of the problem, which goes right back to the strategic decision to overthrow Saddam and dismantle completely the Baathist political party and the Iraqi Army and Police Force, rather than just replacing the top brass and leaving the structure in place.

It goes back to the decision to invade and occupy Iraq when they had a complete lack or Arabic translators.

It goes back to many tactical and strategic errors by the civilian leadership. Chiefly, as I said, the decision to dismantle a whole country's political structure with no clear plan (or injection or resources) to create an alternative power structure. The ensuing vacuum has led to any number of problems years later.

Sorry - gone on a tangent here. George W Bush has a lot to answer for in my opinion...


Top post. Especially about the difference between winning a war and occupying a country. Hearts and minds, right?

Something else worth pointing out (not that you're suggesting otherwise) is that the rules of engagement are one thing. They need to be fairly strict but mustn't be absurd for the troops on the ground. I can see how issues of engagement can be somewhat nebulous. Torture of enemy combatants is another matter. That's not nearly as nebulous, imo, and that's where there must be strict rules which are rigidly enforced and the highest levels of accountability.
AzzaMarch
AzzaMarch
Semi-Pro
Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)Semi-Pro (1.7K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K, Visits: 0
Cheers quickflick.

I think it is natural that the US army is skewed towards winning wars, whereas smaller armies like the Europeans, are skewed towards peace keeping. But knowing this, the US civilian command did nothing to address the issue. I mean - who invades an arab country with the intention of dismantling the entire political structure, and then doesn't have many Arabic translators, or any coherent plans to create an alternate power structure????

Following on from what you have added - the other issue is that many missions have questionable military value. This is a problem when you have vague war aims before going in. The military get locked into house-to-house missions because they are an occupying army, but at a higher level there is no clear timeline etc.

They set goals that they did not have control over - eg trying to create a democracy. They are reliant on the participation of others to reach this goal. You then enable these other parties to take advantage of this fact.

You should never set strategic goals that you are not in complete control of.

In Gulf War I they remembered the lessons of Vietnam - they forced Saddam out of Kuwait, significantly degraded their military capabilities etc, but left him in control.

In Gulf War II they let the neo-cons run loose, decided they could create a democracy overnight after 20+ years of military dictatorship, and completely ignored the ethnic factional makeup of the country. A recipe for disaster!

Edited by AzzaMarch: 25/11/2015 09:58:20 AM
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search