Drone Warfare

So this was going to be about North Korea but then I saw the new movie Robocop with some friends. Now if you have seen the film you will note that it depicts the United Sates military as being nearly wholly automated (as in the soldiers are robots who are not directly controlled by humans, only supervised by them). So after we got back one of my friends asked me "so what do you think about drones in war?" as I began to think about it another message from him popped up that read: "I mean is it not dangerous as a software malfunction could cause the drone to start killing civilians as no human is controlling it?"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

As we can see from this info-graphic I took a pretty dim view to the question. As I looked further however I discovered that actually quite a few people thought that this was the case.

So first off before I recount the pros and cons of drone warfare I would like to make sure everyone know what a few things mean. So, without further stalling to make the formatting look nicer:

Automated: This is machines controlled by themselves. This like the AI on a video game or antivirus on you computer, it is something that has had a program written for it which is follows but is not directly controlled by a human user.
Unmanned: This just refers to a vehicle that has no pilot inside it, it may also be automated (programmed to fly around  or over an area as reconnaissance) or it might have a human pilot flying it via video feed.

What Drones do we use? 

Well there are a bunch of training, target (yes, literally a target for people to shoot AA weapons at) and recon(think remote control aeroplane with a camera) but the main two are the American made MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper, pictured right with 4 Hellfire anti tank missiles and 2 Paveway laser guided bombs (which kill everything). The MQ-1 is a smaller version of the MQ-9 which is now used mainly for reconnaissance (which actually can be the most dangerous missions as obviously you are not quite sure where the enemy are). The MQ-9 is the one you see on TV blowing things up and is also the one that replaced the MQ-1 in it's role as a combat drone and does the mush feared "drone strikes".

What is so good about Drones?

Well they are a lot less risky to humans as they are flown from monitors back at base (very few missions bar reconnaissance are automated and all combat operations are controlled by people). Drones are also a lot faster, easier/faster to refuel and more manoeuvrable than jets as they do not waste space with a cockpit or many of the on board instruments a manned aircraft might need. So they are more effective in combat and safer for the people controlling them.

The Problems

The problem with drones is two fold. The first issue is one it shares with many modern strike craft. Take, for example, the AC-130 pictured left. It has many weapons and packs a wallop. These were used much like drones in both the Afghanistan and Iraq invasion to destroy ground borne enemies from a position of relative impunity (as by the time they were deployed all enemy air defence had been destroyed). Both these strike craft and others have a thermal imaging display as a means of identifying targets. The problem with these displays is that they blur the line between combat and simulation. A pilot of an AC-130 or F-18 or MQ-9 will not see people or faces, just heat signatures. This makes target identification much harder and also does not convey to pilots the full psychological impact of what they are doing. So in summary the disconnect from what the display says to what is actually happening on the ground is arguably too great. This problem though is mainly due to the increased scale, range and effectiveness of the weapons we are using.

The second problem with drones is the way in which they can be used. Currently one of their most controversial uses is in Pakistan, Yemen, Iraq and Afghanistan to attack targets as part of the War on Terror. Here they can be used multiple times every day, are faster to scramble and do not involve putting human lives at risk. For these reasons they are used to attack targets as ordered by the CIA. Civilian deaths from these targets from 2010-11 have been reported at 0 by the United States government but the Bureau of Investigative Journalism (a London Based non-profit organisation) puts the total number of civilians killed in these years as anywhere from 136-339. So there is clearly a lot of debate around how many civilians die due to these strikes, humanitarian organisations like Amnesty international working inside Pakistan have put the casualty figures much higher than the US government and in March 2013 a report from the UN said that over the entire campaign over 400 civilians had died as a result of Drone strikes. 

Implications

Drones make warfare faster and easier, which is probably not a good thing. Their ease of use and the fact that they do not risk human lives mean that more firepower can be called in to missions that originally would not have warranted such zealous responses. Equally the way in which they are used, to strike at targets which often have not engaged our forces, is morally very suspect. The problem is that the drone fleets are being expanded and every day advances in avionics make them and other strike craft faster and deadlier. Finally I believe it is difficult to argue that if drones were not used similar strikes would not occur in Pakistan and Yemen by manned jets as in other warzones they already do.

I hope this has provoked some interesting ideas in whoever has read it. Apologies for bad grammar or spelling.

Syrian Peace Talks

So the first day of the peace talks between Assad and the opposition have gone by and, after 27 minutes of discussion, an Agenda has been agreed/disagreed on multiple times and the talks have ended without, according to Lakhdar Brahimi (mediator) anything much has been accomplished. I think perhaps the main issue is that peace for Assad means him returning to power and killing all those who defied him (which will be a truck load of people) whereas peace for the opposition means the removal of Assad from power which will start with a heckled exit from the Presidential Palace in Damascus and probably end with an execution/lynching.

So first off, a little Background:

1963: Hafez Al-Assad takes power in Syria via military coup and puts country under "Emergency Rule" so he is basically dictator.

2000: Bashar Al-Assad comes to power and an intense period of political debate ensues. Country remains under emergency rule. Multiple human rights offences, incident of police brutality mark Bashar's rule.

2011:
-March Uprising in the city of Daraa sparks Nation wide protest in response to which Assad sends in his military, causing defections and massacres in equal measure.

-July: Free Syrian Army created out of ex army officers and civilian volunteers.

-October: FSA receives backing from Turkey, using a location within its borders as their HQ.

-Several bloody sieges such as Homs and Idlib result in tens of thousands of civilian casualties a long with the "Ramadam Massacre", a country wide crackdown by the Syrian Government killing 142 politicians, generals and other suspected ring leaders or potential "troublemakers".

Other important things:
Sieges of Aleppo and Damascus have been both very important and very bloody with both sides complaining of the usage of chemical weapons and the Assad deploying Gunships, tanks and Infantry Fighting Vehicles against both protests and legitimate hostiles.

Balance of power:
Tactically Assad has armoured vehicles, jets and helicopters. The FSA have usually untrained and poorly equipped fighters.
Strategically: FSA has a lot more support, seemingly, in Syria.

Key Stats:
Over 100,000 people have died.
9.5 Million people have been forced to flee from their homes.

Okay so that is basically how it started (and a broad view of the type of conflict). Throughout the war there have been several ceasefire attempts, with all of them failing usually due to military action by one of the sides during the attempted ceasefire talks. There have been also 16 complaints of chemical weapons to the UN.

So why did these talks fail?
Well the proposed plan was to have the second round of negotiations discussing a transitional government and the third round discussing an end to the violence on the ground. The Assad regime have rejected this plan on the grounds that the "terrorism" must be dealt with first. Equally the opposition are pushing for a transitional government without Assad's involvement which is something that the Assad Regime obviously will not agree to (in fact it is doubtful if they will agree to a transitional government at all).

There is of course a major issue over the secularism of the new Syria. Many of the opposition groups are Muslim fundamentalists or at least have a strong religious background. The Syrian Army, however, are a secular organisation but it is debatable as to how many opposition fighters they directly command on the ground and how much of the anti Assad forces are under their control and so therefore how much of the fighting will be stopped by their signing of a ceasefire and how much of a say they will have in the new political system of Syria. This is the main reason that western military aid has been so limited.

Differing perceptions of the conflict.
Another issue, as I see it, is the different perceptions of the Syrian conflict. In Britain and America most news stations report it as a popular uprising by the people against a pretty hideous regime whereas on Russia today a lot of the coverage sees it as a western instigated  uprising, or at least the "independent speakers" take that line. Personally I am more inclined to believe the BBC.

Final thoughts on the future.
Well some progress has been made. Relief is being delivered to the embattled city of Homs and burden of famine is being reduced but I find it hard to see the peace talks accomplishing a huge amount with such hatred between the two sides a long with a total lack of common ground. Still, we shall have to see.