Drone strike kills six militants in Yemen's Maareb

[ZooGirl02]

(Reuters) - A U.S. drone killed at least six suspected al Qaeda militants in Yemen's southeastern province of Maareb on Thursday, officials said, the sixth such strike in less than two weeks.

Drone strike kills six militants in Yemen's Maareb | Reuters

Personally, I don't know for sure what to think about drone strikes against militants such as this. I think I lean towards being against it because it almost seems like an act of war or something and it would be an unjust war in my beliefs because it is preemptive attack. According to my beliefs, only a defensive war would be justified and even then it would have to fit the parameters of the Just War Doctrine. You can read about the Just War Doctrine here:

Just War Doctrine | Catholic Answers

That said, here is the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church titled "Avoiding War":

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5

Personally I do not see anything in this section that talks about assassinations such as this. I also did a key word search about assassinations and did not find anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about that.

I did, however, find these articles with a quick search that talk about Catholic doctrine and the drone war:

Catholic Bishops Committee Chair: Obama's Drone Policies 'Seem to Violate the Law of War' | CNS News

NCRegister | Drone War vs. Just-War Teaching

NCRegister | Drone Wars: The Morality of Robotic Weapons

So anyway, I am not an expert on Catholic teaching but I wanted to present some articles which talk about drone wars and Catholic doctrine and such so that if you are interested, you can take a look at them.

What is your opinion on the drone war? Do you think that drone strikes such as this are justified or unjustified? Why or why not?

 

[seeking4truth]

I think that such attacks, even if described as self-defense or for protection against terrorists are counter productive. They fuel the demand for terrorist responses.
To the man on the ground what is the difference between a drone attack by a force you cannot reach and a suicide bombing? To the people at the receiving end I suspect there is little difference.

If the USA wants to bring peace without incurring more terrorist responses then they should call for the Muslim nations to unite together and then assist them to control the terrorists from within though justice and education.

Unfortunately those nations are too divided internally and externally themselves and it is not in the interests of EU/USA to have all the Muslim nations united.

 

[esmith]

yeah get the majority of the Muslim world to denounce Islamic extremist, they are too afraid of having a fatwa (common misuse of the word which really means "opinion") issued against them. Have you heard of one leader within the Muslim community denounce them? I would still prefer to see covert actions to take out or capture the leaders. However, when this is not possible take them out any way you can.

 

[fallingblood]

I agree with you Zoogirl about the Just War doctrine. It is also one that is present in Lutheran ideology as well, and where I began learning about the concept. Drone warfare is actually one of the topics that we talked about in regards to the Just War doctrine. In many cases, it simply fails measuring up. Considering that one of the stipulations is that violence is only justified as a last resort, drones simply aren't justified in that regards.

I also think that drone warfare is harmful to those controlling the drones. They are often able to wage violent measures one moment, and then drive home the next. There is no separation of the two, and there definitely should be. Instead, what often happens is that the individual begins formulating multiple identities, which only results in problems.

Marlantes, in his book, What It's Like to go to War, talks about this problem. He describes it, borrowing from Carl Jung, as the shadow self. It is something that all humans have. Basically, it is the violent nature of humans, which if not dealt with, can become consuming. This became very clear after WWII, with the rise in domestic violence that was saw. This was even more true after Vietnam.

So yes, I think drone warfare really is not justified. It dehumanizes people as they are not able to actually fight against what is killing them, and it suggests that the loss of their lives is less significant then if we would loose a soldier. In addition, when other countries develop the technology, and potentially use it on us, there clearly is going to be backlash against that as being unfair.

 

[esmith]

I agree with you Zoogirl about the Just War doctrine. It is also one that is present in Lutheran ideology as well, and where I began learning about the concept. Drone warfare is actually one of the topics that we talked about in regards to the Just War doctrine. In many cases, it simply fails measuring up. Considering that one of the stipulations is that violence is only justified as a last resort, drones simply aren't justified in that regards.

I also think that drone warfare is harmful to those controlling the drones. They are often able to wage violent measures one moment, and then drive home the next. There is no separation of the two, and there definitely should be. Instead, what often happens is that the individual begins formulating multiple identities, which only results in problems.

Marlantes, in his book, What It's Like to go to War, talks about this problem. He describes it, borrowing from Carl Jung, as the shadow self. It is something that all humans have. Basically, it is the violent nature of humans, which if not dealt with, can become consuming. This became very clear after WWII, with the rise in domestic violence that was saw. This was even more true after Vietnam.

So yes, I think drone warfare really is not justified. It dehumanizes people as they are not able to actually fight against what is killing them, and it suggests that the loss of their lives is less significant then if we would loose a soldier. In addition, when other countries develop the technology, and potentially use it on us, there clearly is going to be backlash against that as being unfair.

To be perfectly honest war is dehumanizing. When it is kill or be killed a, for a better word, warrior will use any means at hand to insure the survival of his comrades and himself. Talk to a pilot of a fighter aircraft, they will tell you they are killing a machine, yes there is a human at the controls but it is still the aircraft that they are attacking. Some do think about the opposing pilot but it is probably at the back of their mind. So what difference is a drone pilot over a piloted aircraft? A pilot normally goes back to a base where there are creature comforts not found in front line troops. I would hazard to guess that a drone pilot see's it as a job that needs to be done and if some lives are lost due to his action, so be it....that's war.

 

[fallingblood]

To be perfectly honest war is dehumanizing. When it is kill or be killed a, for a better word, warrior will use any means at hand to insure the survival of his comrades and himself. Talk to a pilot of a fighter aircraft, they will tell you they are killing a machine, yes there is a human at the controls but it is still the aircraft that they are attacking. Some do think about the opposing pilot but it is probably at the back of their mind. So what difference is a drone pilot over a piloted aircraft? A pilot normally goes back to a base where there are creature comforts not found in front line troops. I would hazard to guess that a drone pilot see's it as a job that needs to be done and if some lives are lost due to his action, so be it....that's war.

War does not have to be dehumanizing. As long as both sides acknowledge that each other are humans, then it doesn't dehumanize. However, it often does go down the route, which makes killing the enemy much easier. It also makes it much easier to commit atrocities. Drones only further this problem.

The difference between a piloted aircraft and a drone pilot is that in a piloted aircraft, they are still there in the action. I don't completely condone many of the actions of piloted aircrafts either though. However, they are still there, they are not living a split life, and they must deal with the situation. A drone pilot often is in no danger at all, and is very disconnected from what is going on. There is little actual connection to what is happening. More so, they often have to live a split life, which is what many drone pilots will even state (a good example is the book called Predator, which is about a drone pilot).

Also, the justification that it is "war" doesn't really do any help. That is a dangerous mentality that can easily end up with large atrocities being committed, and justified, because after all, it is "war."

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Just War Doctrine | Catholic Answers

That said, here is the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church titled "Avoiding War":

Catechism of the Catholic Church - PART 3 SECTION 2 CHAPTER 2 ARTICLE 5

Personally I do not see anything in this section that talks about assassinations such as this. I also did a key word search about assassinations and did not find anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church about that.

Honestly it shouldn't matter what the Catholic church has to say about the matter. America is not a Catholic nation. The Pope doesn't make our laws, and our legal system isn't based on the Bible or a religious document.

Drone strike are the most efficient way of targeting terrorists without putting Americans in harm's way. They are necessary to mitigate an actual ongoing threat, to stop plots, prevent future attacks and save lives. What's more is that they are legal and ethical considering the enemy that we are facing - an enemy that is ruthless, and who themselves aren't going to play by the rules.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It is bemusing to note the idea that the deployment and use of drones to kill people in another country are in some fashion not considered an act of war. The western world is pursuing international policies atm (including preemptive strikes, incursions into sovereign territory and non-war targeted killings within a sovereign state) which are likely to prove strongly destabilizing within the next twenty to thirty years, they establish extremely problematic precedent. It is not at all unlikely that other countries not within the western sphere will develop advanced UAVs within the next ten years - if china were to use such technology to strike anti-chinese forces within mongolia and/or kazakhstan and/or america for that matter how many RFers really think that people would write it off? We need to quickly act so as to cauterize the wounds inflicted on international treaties and acceptable norms of policy, before geopolitical shifts see a rebalancing of world power which incorporates a different set of dominant powers with an acceptance of these sorts of activities.

 

[Aquitaine]

Perhaps if the US (and other major powers) weren't doing this **** then they wouldn't have as many enemies in the first place.

Stop acting like a self-righteous Empire, start acting like a country!

 

[Galen.Iksnudnard]

Perhaps if the US (and other major powers) weren't doing this **** then they wouldn't have as many enemies in the first place.

Stop acting like a self-righteous Empire, start acting like a country!

Islam has been at war with the civilized world since long before America was carrying out drone strikes.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Perhaps if the US (and other major powers) weren't doing this **** then they wouldn't have as many enemies in the first place.

Perhaps, perhaps not - the grievances held are not so recent, preceding UAVs by a LONG way, some of the resentment is justified, some is not.

The problem with the strikes however is far more dangerous than it appears. Not only is the civilian casualty to target ratio unbelievably high and the act itself an interference within a sovereign state contrary to international law (along with the laws of sovereign state itself with regards to the killing) and thus drawing additional ire in terms of long term grievances.

The other significant issue (which is more important purely in terms of long term effect) is that it establishes the idea that unmanned weaponry can be used to violate a nation's borders and kill people when not in a state of war - in terms of long term effects on international diplomacy this is incredibly toxic and indeed establishes precedent for any other nation (or indeed paramilitary group) to employ similar tactics in the future without having declared war. In effect, were a nation such as Iran to develop sophisticated UAVs they would be able to launch them against a target such as Israel and kill people there without provocation and without it being considered an act of war. Now, Iran is quite a way off of developing such a platform, but this might give you some sort of indication as to the problems that such a tactic might have in the hands of a nation, let alone some paramilitary organisation.

We really need to take substantive action to delineate the appropriate use of such technologies before we have other groups adopt similar platforms.

 

[esmith]

War does not have to be dehumanizing. As long as both sides acknowledge that each other are humans, then it doesn't dehumanize. However, it often does go down the route, which makes killing the enemy much easier. It also makes it much easier to commit atrocities. Drones only further this problem.

If you think that ground combat is nothing more than a neighborhood game were nice pleasantries are exchanged after a round of kill or be killed you are living in a fantasy world. I suggest that you read factual books about the war in the Pacific during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or go further back to the so called Indian wars, or the Crusades. As a matter of fact read an factual books on human conflict. You do not humanize your enemy, you kill them with any and all means that you have available to you.

 

[Sunstone]

Drone strike kills six militants in Yemen's Maareb | Reuters

Personally, I don't know for sure what to think about drone strikes against militants such as this.

...

What is your opinion on the drone war? Do you think that drone strikes such as this are justified or unjustified? Why or why not?

Zoogirl, are you certain these "suspected militants" were actual militants? I myself have heard criticisms from such knowledgeable people as Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges that it is routine for the US to claim that its drone strikes have killed "suspected militants", or even killed "militants" when observers on the ground claim those killed were nonmilitant women and children.

 

[Falvlun]

Could you imagine another country doing this to us?

We would probably go to war over it.

 

[Aquitaine]

Perhaps, perhaps not - the grievances held are not so recent, preceding UAVs by a LONG way, some of the resentment is justified, some is not.

The problem with the strikes however is far more dangerous than it appears. Not only is the civilian casualty to target ratio unbelievably high and the act itself an interference within a sovereign state contrary to international law (along with the laws of sovereign state itself with regards to the killing) and thus drawing additional ire in terms of long term grievances.

The other significant issue (which is more important purely in terms of long term effect) is that it establishes the idea that unmanned weaponry can be used to violate a nation's borders and kill people when not in a state of war - in terms of long term effects on international diplomacy this is incredibly toxic and indeed establishes precedent for any other nation (or indeed paramilitary group) to employ similar tactics in the future without having declared war. In effect, were a nation such as Iran to develop sophisticated UAVs they would be able to launch them against a target such as Israel and kill people there without provocation and without it being considered an act of war. Now, Iran is quite a way off of developing such a platform, but this might give you some sort of indication as to the problems that such a tactic might have in the hands of a nation, let alone some paramilitary organisation.

We really need to take substantive action to delineate the appropriate use of such technologies before we have other groups adopt similar platforms.

All true points. However I wasn't entirely talking about drone strikes, by "this" I'm basically talking about aggression; almost a sense of entitlement to other people's sovereignty, resources and lives that the US and UK (at least) seem to have.

Basically, we will have less enemies if we act more like a country, and less like an empire.

 

[Aquitaine]

Zoogirl, are you certain these "suspected militants" were actual militants? I myself have heard criticisms from such knowledgeable people as Glenn Greenwald and Chris Hedges that it is routine for the US to claim that its drone strikes have killed "suspected militants", or even killed "militants" when observers on the ground claim those killed were nonmilitant women and children.

There's one of the major problems: anyone could be considered a "suspected militant/terrorist".

People tend to hear the word "Terrorist" and forget the "suspected" part.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The US made it clear these types of drone attacks will not only continue, but will intensify



Obama: U.S. will keep deploying drones when they are only option - CNN.com

 

[Twilight Hue]

Could you imagine another country doing this to us?

We would probably go to war over it.

Sometimes i think multiple countries are secretly planning on joining forces and making a joint uniform attack on the us.

Hope it's not the case, but it seems we make more and more enemies every day. Rather than diplomacy and resolution efforts we just outright attack now at anyone and anything.

 

[fallingblood]

If you think that ground combat is nothing more than a neighborhood game were nice pleasantries are exchanged after a round of kill or be killed you are living in a fantasy world. I suggest that you read factual books about the war in the Pacific during WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or go further back to the so called Indian wars, or the Crusades. As a matter of fact read an factual books on human conflict. You do not humanize your enemy, you kill them with any and all means that you have available to you.

You need to go reread what I said. What you have done here is create a strawman, which really is just ridiculous.

If you think war is just about killing the enemy by any and all means that are available, then you are sorely mistaken. We don't drop nuclear weapons on those that we are going to war with. In fact, all of the nations who have nuclear weapons have not dropped them on anyone (besides the United States doing so on Japan) while at war. Obviously we are not killing the enemy by any and all means.

I did minor in history, and the area that I did focus on was warfare (specifically WWII and Vietnam, as well as historic warfare particularly in America). I am very well aware that often what happens is that people dehumanize others, which allows for them to kill the enemy with less or no guilt at the time. However, just because that is how it has been done doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. It is this dehumanization process that has also led to massive atrocities, such as the Holocaust, the genocide of Native American tribes, as well as the acts committed by the "Tiger Force" unit in Vietnam.

Any and all means necessary only leads to great negativity. It should not be justified as being okay. It should be avoided, as such a mindset leads to atrocities.

 

[esmith]

If you think war is just about killing the enemy by any and all means that are available, then you are sorely mistaken. We don't drop nuclear weapons on those that we are going to war with. In fact, all of the nations who have nuclear weapons have not dropped them on anyone (besides the United States doing so on Japan) while at war. Obviously we are not killing the enemy by any and all means.

I did minor in history, and the area that I did focus on was warfare (specifically WWII and Vietnam, as well as historic warfare particularly in America). I am very well aware that often what happens is that people dehumanize others, which allows for them to kill the enemy with less or no guilt at the time. However, just because that is how it has been done doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. It is this dehumanization process that has also led to massive atrocities, such as the Holocaust, the genocide of Native American tribes, as well as the acts committed by the "Tiger Force" unit in Vietnam.

Any and all means necessary only leads to great negativity. It should not be justified as being okay. It should be avoided, as such a mindset leads to atrocities.

I should have qualified my statement " kill them with any and all means that you have available to you" to avoiding weapons of mass destruction except in retaliation (with the exception of WWII). I made a mistake that I normally do not make and that is to make an assumption that someone has little or no knowledge of what really happened and happens in an armed conflict. Too many people have no concept of the real horrors of war because their only information comes from basically the entertainment industry. In my opinion, about the only way that one can wage armed warfare in a humanistic (possibly the wrong word) is to consider it nothing more than a job that has to be done. Once it becomes something more than a job is when the atrocities can and will occur. To instill this into combat troops, under any circumstances is almost impossible. Their will always be the incident that causes the animalistic dehumanization of one or more persons.