Leaked report shows high civilian death toll from CIA drone strikes

Whether or not the combatants killed actually were combatants, or whether or not this should be done morally are for other people to discuss. But assuming that the other option would be say a full blown invasion of Pakistan or Yemen (and I'm NOT saying that it is), looking practically, if a military action had to be conducted (and I'm NOT saying that it must), I'd pick it in the form of drone strikes any day of the month.

Say the US were to find evidence that a Canadian terrorist group was planning an attack on the Joe Louis Arena. We would inform the Canadian government who would then go, arrest the terrorists and put them on trial. This seems to be what drone critics think should happen in countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. There are some pretty obvious problems with that position.

Countries like Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia all have weak, corrupt, ineffective governments. Naturally, they also have weak, corrupt, ineffective police forces. Normally, the US government doesn't care. The US government is responsible for US citizens, and Pakistan's problems are the responsibility of the Pakistani people's government. However, the US now perceives some groups within those countries as threats. We could give the Pakistani government all the info we like, but unlike Canada, we can't realistically expect that to result in the arrests of the terrorists. Even if we tried to give lots of support to their police forces, it is almost certain that the terrorists would be informed about any and all police movements (e.g. Bin Laden lived down the street from a Pakistani military academy.)

So what should we do?

Ignoring the threat is too great a political risk. If Pakistani terrorists executed so much as a single attack on US soil, you better believe the headlines would read: "Politicians knew of terrorist threat, failed to act."

No US law enforcement agency is effectively equipped to police Pakistan. We can't ask NYPD to go police the Pakistanis, that's stupid. The FBI is the best candidate, but their responsibilities are primarily investigative; the actual subduing of the terrorists is outside their purview.

The only other real option is some form of military action. Technically this violates Pakistan's sovereignty, but who cares? Pakistan is a weak government, it can't even police its own country. It's politicians may object, but it is not going to start a war with the US. Moreover, Pakistani terrorists not only kill lots of Pakistani civilians, but also are incredibly costly[1]. Therefore, many politicians will actually support the US's intervention, even if they have to publicly distance themselves. Obviously military intervention carries the risk of civilian casualties, but remember that the US government's responsibilities are towards US citizens. It is the Pakistani government's responsibility to protect Pakistanis, and it is a failing of the Pakistanis if they have not created a government capable of protecting them.

What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need holding facilities, transportation, etc.) Drones are the obvious alternative. Not only are they cheap, they are pose about zero risk to US personnel. People mention that drones may create terrorists, but if we assume that Pakistani public opinion is proportional to the number of deaths, then terrorism (which has killed far more innocent Pakistanis than drones [2]) ought to be significantly less popular.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Pakistan

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

I never argued for supporting Occupy. The problems isn't about occupy, the problem is that FBI and their corporate partners thought they are dangerous enough to label them as "domestic terrorists". Think about it. A bunch of people without a goal, disorganized, non-violent, and they bothered to label them as terrorist. Good Lord. What if they were more organized. What would those watching them be doing? Assassinating them with drones.

> The technology used to spread the message has changed, but the message has always been available. It's just that no one actually cares.

It is a mater of degrees. There used to be zines and meetings and what not. Getting a hold of a publisher, printing on dead trees, distributed that is a lot of effort than just posting a blog. So saying alternative media was there and it is there now. Is true. But it was never in the same quantity and availability. The latency was much higher as well. There aren't dark and white colors only. Only radicals vs authoritarians. People are on the continuum and drift across it. Availability of information is that makes that easier. One can become more informed or go further into conspiracy theory fantasy world. But overall it is a very positive development.

> Why does everyone blame the evil MSM? Fox News was started because the MSM was 'too liberal'.

There is nothing to blame there. They are simply following their incentives. Fox News, MSM and all others are large corporations in the business to make money (largely from advertising). They are not in the business of informing the public. They would operate according to basic incentives. This is very well described and researched in Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent work. The work is not new but it is still very valuable to read and very actual.