Could Using Drones Have Prevented Our Troops Dying In Afghanistan?

[pdq1]

It was reported today that the Al Qaeda leader has been killed in a drone attack. The previous Al Qaeda leader following on from Bin Laden was killed previously. It was said Bin Laden could also have been killed by a drone but they decided not to use this method.

[pdq1]

The most recent case of the 2nd in command being killed by a drone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245516/Abu-Zaid-al-Kuwaiti-Al-Qaedas-second-command-killed-drone-strike-house-Pakistan.html

[rojash]

Kind of ironic that this post follows AOG's post about chivalry in war time.
Using drones is just about cowardice.

[Quizmonster]

"Using drones is just about cowardice"?
So, I daresay, was using spears when one's opponents were using clubs or, arrows when they had only swords, tanks when they had only horses and so on throughout mankind's history.
In war, people have always used what seemed the most appropriate weapon to hand.

[craft1948]

Using drones is cowardice...............I would have thought it meant saving your troops' lives.

[sir.prize]

Another terrorist killed in Pakistan. So was his predecessor. So was Bin Laden.

Pakistan is obviously a favoured hideaway. Do the country's government know? Of course they do, but they won't say anything for fear or losing cash aid.

[Gromit]

Problem is, they seem to be able to immediately fill any vacancy. You can keep killing there leaders, but they will continue to kill our troops.

Drones are notoriously imprecise and there is nothing like killing civilians to drive the people into our enemy's hands.

[rojash]

Drones can be controlled from thousands of miles away (and some of them are controlled from RAF bases in the UK).

People on here are always banging on about "our brave troops". How brave do you need to be to sit in an office in the UK and take out a wedding party in Pakistan?

[emmie]

don't they also kill others indiscriminately. The sooner all troops are out of Afghanistan the better for all.

[emmie]

rojash, got a link to that little snippet or just another incendiary comment
about a dire country, situation. Wasn't it a brave man who shot an 11 year old girl in deepest Pakistan for dare one say it, being brave enough to say that all girls should get an education. She is now going to be living in Britain, so perhaps she will get her wish. Her father has been transferred here, so can stay.

[Quizmonster]

Roj, bravery is certainly a valid concept in some elements of war, particularly face-to-face combat, but it is not and never has been an essential one for thousands of years. Siege-machines...ie devices capable of hurling missiles over long distances...have existed for millennia.

Is there any moral difference at all between the skipper of a submarine sitting on the seabed firing an intercontinental ballistic missile at a city thousands of miles away and a technician in Lincolnshire or Oklahoma guiding a drone to a distant village in similar circumstances?

Obviously, one would prefer that a target had NOT been misidentified, but every war in humanity's existence has had such "collateral damage".

[rojash]

"Is there any moral difference at all between the skipper of a submarine sitting on the seabed firing an intercontinental ballistic missile at a city thousands of miles away and a technician in Lincolnshire or Oklahoma guiding a drone to a distant village in similar circumstances? "

Not really, no. How many ICBMs have been fired from submarines at cities thousands of miles away?

Is it less than one?

[emmie]

perhaps you think that strapping a bomb to your body and blowing up innocent men, women and children some sort of bravery, or planting bombs on trains and buses and killing people from all nations, creeds, colours and indeed faiths. Cowardice comes in many forms. Let us never interfere any more in these countries, if they want to kill one another
let them, it's never been our business and never will be. If there are tribal wars in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria then leave well alone.

[Quizmonster]

In terms of morality, the number of missiles involved is neither here nor there. Indeed, there are many who would claim that the only reason they haven't been fired in anger is because they exist. That is, the concept of assured mutual destruction.
But, if you dismiss missiles, in World War II, there was no real probability whatsoever that the Japanese could shoot down the aircraft carrying the A-bombs which brought that war to an end. Were the American aircrews cowards, given that they faced no direct opposition, or did they carry out a service that saved multitudes?
British tabloids assume that becoming a soldier makes you brave and being posted to Afghanistan makes you a hero. It's nonsense.

[youngmafbog]

The problem is they dont want to kill each other they want to kill us, the infidel. they have a stated aim that until Islam rules the world they wont stop.

So, do all you sypathizers want to sit back and let them do it? Maybe you would be right after all we went through two world war to stop the Germans only for New Labour to hand the country over on a plate to them.

[Quizmonster]

NEW Labour, Youngmafbog?! Now there's a novelty!

[pdq1]

Cameron said only a few days ago we are in Afghanistan to rid it of Al Qaeda. We've spent 8 years trying to do that and all we have achieved is a resurgent Taliban yet Al Qaeda lurks in the background causing trouble. Well it seems these drones work killing off the leaders so that organisation becomes almost ineffective. All right as Gromit says they always have another leader to take its place but surely there will come a time when reality sets in and know their in the headlights for elimination.

We should pull out tomorrow and let the drones take over even though some collateral damage happens.