Note: The Assassination Complex, is the book which includes the information
about the Drone wars that was first posted on The Intercept. The book is on
Bookshare.
Miriam
Bamford writes: "Once little more than novelties, militarized drones are now
buzzing around the globe like locusts. According to New America, "the
virtual monopoly on drones that the States once enjoyed is long gone.'"
A predator drone. (photo: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)
How the 'War on Terror' Inspired Terrorists to Follow America's Lead in
Weaponizing Drones
By James Bamford, Foreign Policy
14 May 16
86 countries have drones, 19 of them armed. Now ISIS wants them too. Is it
too late to stop the unmanned arms race?
Hanging in an atrium of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum,
home to the Wright brothers' plane and the Mercury capsule that first
carried an American into space, is a Predator drone with the tail number
3034. Like the other vehicles on display, it made history by launching a
revolution: Nearly one month after 9/11, in the skies above Afghanistan,
3034 became the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to kill humans with a
remotely fired missile.
Once little more than novelties, militarized drones are now buzzing around
the globe like locusts. According to New America, "the virtual monopoly on
drones that the States once enjoyed is long gone." Eighty-six countries have
some drone capability, with 19 either possessing armed drones or acquiring
the technology. At least six countries other than America have used drones
in combat, and in 2015, defense consulting firm Teal Group estimated that
drone production would total $93 billion over the next decade-reaching more
than three times the current market value.
Experts fear that sinister actors may be obtaining the technology as well.
In a report issued this January, the Oxford Research Group's Remote Control
Project, which analyzes developments in military technology, warned that the
Islamic State "is reportedly obsessed with launching a synchronized
multi-drone attack on large numbers of people in order to re-create the
horrors of 9/11." The report's lead author has said, "Drones are a
game-changer in the wrong hands."
Are there any safe hands, though? The United States is the motivating force
behind UAVs' increasing sophistication and deadliness. Since taking office,
President Barack Obama has attacked more countries than any president since
World War II, launching drone strikes against at least seven nations and
killing thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians. According to a
February report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Pentagon
makes little effort to determine whom UAVs are slaying: "Just 10 of the
scores killed by U.S. drones in Pakistan last year have so far been
identified."
It may be too late to stuff the drone genie back into the bottle. Yet the
Obama administration has six months before leaving office to at least do
some damage control. It could start by telling the truth-not just cautioning
people about the dangers drones could pose when deployed by terrorists, but
also admitting to the toll that unmanned weapons have exacted under U.S.
command.
Anxiety about the Islamic State's access to drones has increased over the
past few years. In 2014, the group employed UAVs to shoot propaganda video
of fierce fighting in Kobane, Syria. In March 2015, coalition forces said
they witnessed the Islamic State using a drone for reconnaissance near
Fallujah. Then, in December, Kurdish fighters shared pictures purporting to
show the wreckage of UAVs; the Kurds claimed terrorists may have begun
experimenting with explosives to weaponize drones.
Fear has also hit U.S. soil. In 2014, the RAND Corporation reported, "[I]t
is possible that a terrorist group could launch an expendable armed UAV
attack from within the United States or a neighboring country." Last July,
as the number of domestic arrests of Islamic State sympathizers was growing,
the Department of Homeland Security warned police units nationwide about
drones being "used by adversaries.as part of an attack."
Ironically, there is evidence that America's own drone program is compelling
terrorists to adopt unmanned tools. It's not just that the Islamic State is
watching and learning the tricks of the drone game from the country that
invented it. The organization is also angry about the lives claimed in
American strikes.
That was the conclusion of four former U.S. Air Force servicemen, with
decades of experience among them operating drones, who wrote an impassioned
letter to Obama last November. "[T]he innocent civilians we were killing
only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like
ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool," they argued.
"The administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is
one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization
around the world."
The government has deliberately kept Americans in the dark about this cause
and effect. Victims of strikes die in obscurity; their broken bodies are
buried in remote towns in the Middle East and South Asia. Whistleblowers
have leaked documents to the Intercept showing that upward of 90 percent of
victims may be unintended yet labeled "enemies killed in action," making it
easy for the government (if asked at all) to deny responsibility for
civilian deaths.
Last summer, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a 57-year-old Yemeni engineer whose
family members (including an anti-al Qaeda cleric) were killed in a 2012
U.S. drone attack, sued the Obama administration to establish that the
strike had been unlawful. In September, his lawyers proposed to settle in
exchange for "an apology and an explanation as to why a strike that killed
two innocent civilians was authorized." The Justice Department refused,
however, because "the government could not confirm or deny" that the attack
had even occurred.
When America launched its drone wars, it doubtless did not anticipate that
terrorists might want to strike the United States with a weapon of its own
making. Nor did the government likely expect veteran drone operators would
assert that the White House is "lying publicly about the effectiveness of
the drone program." Yet here we are.
The only move the Obama administration can make to set things right is to
remove its cloak of secrecy. At a minimum, it owes apologies to the families
of guiltless victims. But only by providing the public with long-overdue
answers-about deaths caused by UAV strikes, their impact on terrorist
recruitment, and other salient issues-can there at last be a serious debate
about whether the benefits of unmanned warfare outweigh its detriments. For
how can America hope to quell the threat of an Islamic State armed with
drones if it cannot first admit the role it may have played in landing the
weapons in terrorists' hands?
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
A predator drone. (photo: Veronique de Viguerie/Getty Images)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/28/terrorists-have-drones-now-thanks-obama-
warfare-isis-syria-terrorism/http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/04/28/terrorists-
have-drones-now-thanks-obama-warfare-isis-syria-terrorism/
How the 'War on Terror' Inspired Terrorists to Follow America's Lead in
Weaponizing Drones
By James Bamford, Foreign Policy
14 May 16
86 countries have drones, 19 of them armed. Now ISIS wants them too. Is it
too late to stop the unmanned arms race?
anging in an atrium of the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum,
home to the Wright brothers' plane and the Mercury capsule that first
carried an American into space, is a Predator drone with the tail number
3034. Like the other vehicles on display, it made history by launching a
revolution: Nearly one month after 9/11, in the skies above Afghanistan,
3034 became the first unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) to kill humans with a
remotely fired missile.
Once little more than novelties, militarized drones are now buzzing around
the globe like locusts. According to New America, "the virtual monopoly on
drones that the States once enjoyed is long gone." Eighty-six countries have
some drone capability, with 19 either possessing armed drones or acquiring
the technology. At least six countries other than America have used drones
in combat, and in 2015, defense consulting firm Teal Group estimated that
drone production would total $93 billion over the next decade-reaching more
than three times the current market value.
Experts fear that sinister actors may be obtaining the technology as well.
In a report issued this January, the Oxford Research Group's Remote Control
Project, which analyzes developments in military technology, warned that the
Islamic State "is reportedly obsessed with launching a synchronized
multi-drone attack on large numbers of people in order to re-create the
horrors of 9/11." The report's lead author has said, "Drones are a
game-changer in the wrong hands."
Are there any safe hands, though? The United States is the motivating force
behind UAVs' increasing sophistication and deadliness. Since taking office,
President Barack Obama has attacked more countries than any president since
World War II, launching drone strikes against at least seven nations and
killing thousands of people, many of them innocent civilians. According to a
February report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the Pentagon
makes little effort to determine whom UAVs are slaying: "Just 10 of the
scores killed by U.S. drones in Pakistan last year have so far been
identified."
It may be too late to stuff the drone genie back into the bottle. Yet the
Obama administration has six months before leaving office to at least do
some damage control. It could start by telling the truth-not just cautioning
people about the dangers drones could pose when deployed by terrorists, but
also admitting to the toll that unmanned weapons have exacted under U.S.
command.
Anxiety about the Islamic State's access to drones has increased over the
past few years. In 2014, the group employed UAVs to shoot propaganda video
of fierce fighting in Kobane, Syria. In March 2015, coalition forces said
they witnessed the Islamic State using a drone for reconnaissance near
Fallujah. Then, in December, Kurdish fighters shared pictures purporting to
show the wreckage of UAVs; the Kurds claimed terrorists may have begun
experimenting with explosives to weaponize drones.
Fear has also hit U.S. soil. In 2014, the RAND Corporation reported, "[I]t
is possible that a terrorist group could launch an expendable armed UAV
attack from within the United States or a neighboring country." Last July,
as the number of domestic arrests of Islamic State sympathizers was growing,
the Department of Homeland Security warned police units nationwide about
drones being "used by adversaries.as part of an attack."
Ironically, there is evidence that America's own drone program is compelling
terrorists to adopt unmanned tools. It's not just that the Islamic State is
watching and learning the tricks of the drone game from the country that
invented it. The organization is also angry about the lives claimed in
American strikes.
That was the conclusion of four former U.S. Air Force servicemen, with
decades of experience among them operating drones, who wrote an impassioned
letter to Obama last November. "[T]he innocent civilians we were killing
only fueled the feelings of hatred that ignited terrorism and groups like
ISIS, while also serving as a fundamental recruitment tool," they argued.
"The administration and its predecessors have built a drone program that is
one of the most devastating driving forces for terrorism and destabilization
around the world."
The government has deliberately kept Americans in the dark about this cause
and effect. Victims of strikes die in obscurity; their broken bodies are
buried in remote towns in the Middle East and South Asia. Whistleblowers
have leaked documents to the Intercept showing that upward of 90 percent of
victims may be unintended yet labeled "enemies killed in action," making it
easy for the government (if asked at all) to deny responsibility for
civilian deaths.
Last summer, Faisal bin Ali Jaber, a 57-year-old Yemeni engineer whose
family members (including an anti-al Qaeda cleric) were killed in a 2012
U.S. drone attack, sued the Obama administration to establish that the
strike had been unlawful. In September, his lawyers proposed to settle in
exchange for "an apology and an explanation as to why a strike that killed
two innocent civilians was authorized." The Justice Department refused,
however, because "the government could not confirm or deny" that the attack
had even occurred.
When America launched its drone wars, it doubtless did not anticipate that
terrorists might want to strike the United States with a weapon of its own
making. Nor did the government likely expect veteran drone operators would
assert that the White House is "lying publicly about the effectiveness of
the drone program." Yet here we are.
The only move the Obama administration can make to set things right is to
remove its cloak of secrecy. At a minimum, it owes apologies to the families
of guiltless victims. But only by providing the public with long-overdue
answers-about deaths caused by UAV strikes, their impact on terrorist
recruitment, and other salient issues-can there at last be a serious debate
about whether the benefits of unmanned warfare outweigh its detriments. For
how can America hope to quell the threat of an Islamic State armed with
drones if it cannot first admit the role it may have played in landing the
weapons in terrorists' hands?
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
