Thursday 9 August 2012

The Day of the Drones


"Many intelligence reports in war are contradictory; even more are false, and most are uncertain. " Car Von Clausewitz.                                                                                       The foiled terrorist attack at the Kerem Shalom border crossing adjacent to Gaza and Sinai on Sunday certainly proved the Prussian military theorist wrong.                                            An unidentified terrorist group numbering 35 Sinai Bedouins attacked an Egyptian border police post, killed 16 policemen and stole two vehicles and armaments. On Sunday night they attempted to burst through the Kerem Shalom border crossing determined to attack Israeli civilian and military targets.. One vehicle exploded before it reached the crossing, the other, a Fahd type armoured personnel carrier, rammed through the barrier and drove south, apparently by mistake.  It was pursued and destroyed by combined fire from IDF tanks and an airforce drone.  Intelligence alerts received well in advance enabled the IDF    to prepare a “warm welcome” for the terrorists.
The ever increasing use of drones (unmanned aerial vehicles) in military engagements has changed modern warfare. P.W. Singer author of “Wired for War,” wrote, “And now we possess a technology that removes the last political barriers to war. The strongest appeal of unmanned systems is that we don’t have to send someone’s son or daughter into harm’s way. But when politicians can avoid the political consequences of the condolence letter — and the impact that military casualties have on voters and on the news media — they no longer treat the previously weighty matters of war and peace the same way. “   So far  Singer’s comments are equally applicable to the IDF and the Israeli public. He reminds us that. ”Today’s unmanned systems are only the beginning. The original Predator, which went into service in 1995, lacked even GPS and was initially unarmed; newer models can take off and land on their own, and carry smart sensors that can detect a disruption in the dirt a mile below the plane and trace footprints back to an enemy hide-out.                There is not a single new manned combat aircraft under research and development at any major Western aerospace company, and the Air Force is training more operators of unmanned aerial systems than fighter and bomber pilots combined. In 2011, unmanned systems carried out strikes from Afghanistan to Yemen. The most notable of these continuing operations is the not-so-covert war in Pakistan, where the United States has carried out more than 300 drone strikes since 2004. “  
“The flight of the drones,” was the title of a lead article that appeared in The Economist  in October last year. The author claimed, “Over the past decade UAVs have become the counter-terrorism weapon of choice. Since 2005 there has been a 1,200% increase in combat air patrols by UAVs. Hardly a month passes without claims that another al-Qaeda or Taliban leader has been taken out by drone-launched missiles.”
About the same time Thomas L. Friedman wrote, “If we don’t storm our own brains and redirect our Arab foreign aid to education for employment, we’ll forever be killing the No. 2 man in Al Qaeda.”   Friedman is probably right, however the Arab recipients of US aid in the Middle East prefer the money to western education and democracy.  
The same article in the Economist further detailed the remarkable abilities of one type of “loitering drone.” “The grim Reaper's ability to loiter for up to 24 hours, minutely observe human activity from five miles above while transmitting “full motion video” to its controllers and strike with pinpoint accuracy, has made it the essential weapon in America's ‘long war’.”                                                                                                                                Ten years ago Frida Berrigan was early to question the ethics of  “War by Remote Control?” in a piece in the New York Times she wrote, “The Central Intelligence Agency recently fired the opening salvo in a new phase of the war on terrorism, ushering in the "war by remote control." Using the Predator, an unmanned surveillance plane, the CIA tracked and destroyed a car carrying Al Qaeda's "top man in Yemen," Qaed Salim Sinan Al-Harethi. The November 3rd  attack, the first concrete instance of the Bush preemptive strike policy, signals a radical escalation in the war on terrorism, and raises a number of serious issues.                                                                                                                             Ms. Berrigan quoted   Swedish Foreign Minister Anna Lindh who had condemned the attack as a "summary execution that violates human rights." “Her comments are liable to hit a nerve in the Bush administration, which has criticized and sought to distance itself from the Israeli policy of "targeted killings" of Palestinian terrorists,” said Berrigan.                      Three years ago I wrote about ethical reservations regarding the use of armed UAVs. Journalist Roger Cohen had a number of ethical qualms about this detached remotely controlled killing. In an  article he wrote for the New York Times Cohen noted that Obama had authorised as many drone strikes in Pakistan in nine and a half months as George W. Bush did in his last three years in office — at least 41 C.I.A. missile strikes, or about one a week, that may have killed more than 500 people. Cohen was appalled by the lack of accountability regarding these "hits." Of course a lot more “people” have been “taken out” since then. Some of the deceased have been mentioned by name others are often referred to in the news media as – activists, militants, fighters,  insurgents, gunmen and other almost innocuous synonyms. "The dead have included high-value targets like Osama bin Laden’s oldest son and Baitullah Mehsud, the Taliban leader in Pakistan — as well as bystanders, sometimes referred to as 'collateral damage,'.” said Cohen.                                                He also quoted Singer, "These targeted international killings are no less real and indeed more insidious, for their video-game aspect. The thing about robotic warfare is you can watch people get vaporized on a screen in Langley, Virginia, and then drive home for dinner with the kids.”                                                                                                               Watching the video footage of the terrorists being incinerated in their stolen personnel carrier near the Kerem Shalom crossing, I thought of family and friends in the Gaza periphery communities nearby and sat down to dinner without giving it a second thought. However, there is a difference, Langley is a world away from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. Our enemies are much closer. Few Israelis have ethical qualms about the use of drones in actions like the one at Kerem Shalom or even targeted killings.                    Hamas and Hezbollah frequently use “human shields” whereas the IDF strives  to reduce collateral damage to a minimum by attacking with greater precision, pinpointing the target and using smaller and more accurate missiles when required.
I quote again from the Economist article of October 8th 2011. “So far, the use of drones has not fundamentally challenged the Geneva Convention-based Law of Armed Conflict. This requires that before an attack, any weapons system (whether manned or unmanned) must be able to verify that targets are legitimate military ones, take all reasonable precautions to minimise civilian harm and avoid disproportionate collateral damage.”
In  May 2010  a Reuters report quoted unnamed counter-terrorism officials who speculated that the Obama administration's closure of the secret CIA interrogation centres and intent to close the Guantanamo Bay prison had a direct influence on the expansion of the drone targeted killings. According to the officials, the killings are necessary because there is no longer any place to put captured terrorists.”                                                                      The same argument was phrased differently in another publication, “Yet the administration’s very success at killing terrorism suspects has been shadowed by a suspicion: that          Mr. Obama has avoided the complications of detention by deciding, in effect, to take no prisoners alive. While scores of suspects have been killed under Mr. Obama, only one has been taken into American custody, and the president has balked at adding new prisoners to Guantánamo. Mr. Obama’s aides deny such a policy, arguing that capture is often impossible in the rugged tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen and that many terrorist suspects are in foreign prisons because of American tips.”
The ever increasing demand for UAVs has been tempered by the craft’s disadvantages. Although UAV’s are cheaper than conventional piloted aircraft some of the newer, larger and better equipped drones, like the “Global Hawk” cost a king’s ransom.  Providing them with the  means  to keep them out of harm’s way is now an essential part  of their design and development.
In the August edition of Jane’s International Defence Review  the magazine’s correspondents Nick Brown and Caitlin Harrington Lee surveyed some of the UAV’s disadvantages. “They remain vulnerable to ground fire and other air assets.”  “Supporters of UAVs argue that all of this is acceptable because unmanned systems were designed to be disposable, or at least more disposable than manned platforms.” The authors  cite the principle that UAVs were designed for the jobs deemed too dull, dirty and dangerous for humans. “However,” they say, “there are gradations of  how disposable the craft is  and no operator can realistically afford to treat anything but the very low-level systems as such.”
The IDF prefers to use its own locally manufactured unmanned aircraft.   Like other local military systems manufacturers, the industries producing UAVs  rely a lot on exporting their products to foreign customers. One indigenous UAV ,the Heron, has been sold to more than 40 countries. Its operational features include a long-distance range, the ability to stay aloft for 52 hours non-stop and tracking and targeting capabilities. The Heron is able to carry out complex functions such as in-flight refuelling and slotting into strategic missile defence systems. It carries 250 kg of ordnance, mainly air to ground missiles. With this load, the Heron can reach an altitude of 11,000 metres. Flying empty, it can reach a height of 13,700 metres. This means that the Heron can fly above regular commercial air traffic without becoming icebound thanks to another special feature, which is important in the freezing Afghan winters.     An additional advantage is its price. It is cheaper than similar UAVs.        Ethical reservations concerning the use of UAVs shouldn’t be dismissed without due consideration. Improved technology provides the operator with better tools to do the job with minimum collateral damage. The day of the drones has come.


Have a good weekend


Beni                                        9th of August, 2012.

  



No comments:

Post a Comment