[deadbea7]

They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1]. Compare this to estimated civillian casualty rate of 60% in WWII [2] and around 50% in Vietnam [3] (distorted figures because anyone in a "free-fire" zone is considered the enemy).

The intelligence for drone strikes are based on patterns, such as a party of men carrying guns or a group of unknown people plotting something. And so these strikes routinely -- and sometimes deliberately -- target wedding parties [4], funerals, and rescue workers [5], and children [6].

Add to this the psychological trauma of constantly living under the threat of drones [7], it is no wonder citizens of countries where these programs are carried out hold somewhat of a grudge against the US [8]. You can call it signature strike, or whatever you want, the fact is that bombs do not know the difference between combatants and women/children/civilians. They kill indiscriminately. So forgive me if I don't see the "advantage" of using drones over boots on the ground or see how they are "better".

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/05/opinion/bergen-obama-drone/ind...

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

[3] http://www.vn-agentorange.org/edmaterials/cost_of_vn_war.htm...

[4] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57448041/afghanistan-off...

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drone...

[6] http://tribune.com.pk/story/229844/the-day-69-children-died/

[7] http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stan...

[8] http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/27/pakistani-public-opinion...

[Dove]

In fact, the collateral fatalities from drone attacks are one of the highest at 98%, according to some estimates [1].

I think you're confused. The relevant paragraph in your link says the collateral damage -- both civilians and unknowns -- is 2% at the moment.

    The civilian casualty rate has been dropping sharply 
    since 2008. The number of civilians, plus "unknowns," 
    those individuals whose precise status could not be 
    determined from media reports, reported killed by drones 
    in Pakistan during Obama's tenure in office were 11% of 
    fatalities. So far in 2012 it is close to 2%. Under 
    President Bush it was 33%.
    
    Conversely, the percentage of militants killed has been  
    rising over the life of the drone program. The number of
    militants reported killed by drone strikes is 89% of the    
    fatalities under Obama compared to 67% under Bush.

I think that's fantastic news. A collateral damage rate of 2%, including unknowns "whose status could not be determined from media reports" is downright unprecedented in warfare.

The statistics, taken together, say they're using drones more in regular combat than they used to, and getting better at confirming that the kills are accurate. That's great news, isn't it?

There is a later paragraph that claims only 2% of drone strikes kill leaders. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?

    Since it began in 2004, the drone campaign has killed 49 
    militant leaders whose deaths have been confirmed by at 
    least two credible news sources. While this represents a 
    significant blow to the militant chain of command, these 
    49 deaths account for only 2% of all drone-related 
    fatalities.

I don't see how that's relevant, though. Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous?

[deadbea7]

Is it somehow illegitimate to use drones on regular soldiers if it's tactically advantageous

No, but I reject the categorization of "military-age males in a strike zone" [1] as regular soldiers.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in...

[Dove]

All right, but isn't categorizing anyone who isn't "a militant leader confirmed dead by two news sources" as a civilian . . . a little over the top?

And anyway, disagreeing with the categorization of combatants is a separate question. They claim, at least, that they hit who they intended to hit 98% of the time. I still say that's pretty good!

[n3rdy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-dea...

This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant. I suppose you can try to play around with the words of what is and is not a militant, if that helps you sleep at night, but it shouldn't.

What it boils down to is this, we shouldn't even be over there. We're making it a lot easier for terrorist organizations to recruit new members, because we are doing all the pitching for them.

In this country where kids now get to be kids until they're 25, all first world problems, and you still have a bunch of angst filled teenagers who daydream about blowing up their schools with pipe bombs.. and they have absolutely no reason to feel like this other than hormones making them bat excrement crazy.

So imagine what goes through the hormone crazed teenagers mind in one of these countries who grew up without their parents because they we're killed by our military, and one day some guy offers them a chance to get back at the people who took everything from them. It's not a tough sale.. I mean look at how easy our military recruits people just barely out of high school, all they have to offer them is college money and they're ready to kill whoever their officer points to.

This just makes it all the more ridiculous and infuriating when someone is so nonchalant about innocent people getting killed, because it isn't even accomplishing the intended goal. What it does accomplish, is further justification for our military to start more wars to protect us from new generations of terrorists.

[Dove]

This article says its 50 civilians killed for every targeted militant.

If true, that's horrific, and I'll be the first to criticize it. But I'm going to need to see some methodology on that before I believe you.

In particular, given that the above link established that 2% of drone kills were on media-confirmed terrorist leaders, that means your article is claiming all the other kills, all 3000+, have been on innocent civilians.

I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.

[n3rdy]

> I find that a rather unlikely level of incompetence.

I believe government is the only place where that level of incompetence is common.

The problem with the 2% figure is that 2% of even 3,000 would only be 60 innocent people killed, but 160+ children have been killed.. so if someone is saying its only 2%, how do 5% of these deaths turn out to be children?

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drone...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-stri...

The military is denying that the number of children killed is that high.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-reported-drone-strike-casua...

If our government would share their data with the organizations that did these investigations, maybe it would show they were wrong, but I doubt it.

We know the precise number of military causalities, we even know the precise number of police officers injured or killed, our government is meticulous about reporting on those, but try and find out how many U.S citizens are killed annually by police and you won't get anywhere.

If they won't accurately report how many of us are killed by police, what are the chances that they are keeping track of foreign civilian casualties any more accurately?

[mc32]

>They don't reduce "enemy collateral damage", though. In fact...

Percentage may or may not be the best way to assess effectiveness (reduction in casualties). Another measure could be collateral, or even total casualties, per highly valued target. After all a strategy in war is to take out the leadership making engagement with grunts and or civilians less necessary.