David Kilcullen, adviser on counterinsurgency to General Petraeus and the author of The Accidental Guerrilla: Fighting Small Wars in the Midst of a Big One (Oxford University Press, 2009), talks about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and his op-ed against the use of drones in the May 17th edition of the New York Times.
Comments [3]
Drone attacks.
Introduced by Israeli army.
Recent report/findings on Israel attack on Gaza claims disproportionate civillian casualities due to drone attacks.Given the the precise nature of drone technologies the report cites that this was Israeli policy(acceptable civillian deaths) rather than the usual claim of "fog of war"
US drone attacks have also claimed much civillian casualties in Pakistan/Afghan border.The qeustion is whether it's US acceptable "COLLATTERAL DAMAGE" or just failed policy mimicking Israel.
Question for David Kilcullen:
Why did we need to substantially reduce sectarian violence in order for the Iraqi politicians in the Green Zone to sort out how to split oil revenues, etc.?
Is it the case that the use of drones was prompted primarily by the desire to reduce US casualties? And, isn't it the case that as you increase targeting distance (whether with drones or long-range artillery, or high-altitude bombing) you can't help but increase collateral damage?
It strikes me that the use of these methods is more designed to keep domestic support from being eroded by US casualties than by their actual value in achieving set-goals on the ground.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.