Are Drone strikes cowardly?

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 02:46:09 -0500

http://news.yahoo.com/cowardly-murder-ex-drone-operators-speak-jobs-001824335.html?bcmt= [login to see] 56-7f85d103-2b66-4d2a-8281-e1a30493ef10_0000bb [login to see] [login to see] 0000-f9457db8-4f23-4e58-83af-d819ac1b470b&bcmt_s=u

Response by TSgt David L. made Nov 20 at 2015 3:26 AM

TSgt David L. — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 03:26:46 -0500

They are effective and necessary. They are needed to take out the cowards...

Response by PO1 Brian Austin made Nov 20 at 2015 3:33 AM

PO1 Brian Austin — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 03:33:02 -0500

No different than launching a missile from a ship or plane. They're a good way to reach out and touch someone.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 20 at 2015 7:35 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:35:33 -0500

Over the last several years there has been an attempt to change the use of the word Coward (et al) into something it isn't.

1) a person who lacks the courage to do or endure dangerous or unpleasant things.
2) excessively afraid of danger or pain.
3) (of an animal) depicted with the tail between the hind legs.

We do not use drones because we are afraid of danger or unpleasant things. We use them because they are pragmatically better, and they are more risk adverse than doing it in the traditional way. Just like we use oven mitts when reaching into a stove. We would not call someone cowardly for when using the best available tool reduces risk.

We are not afraid of pain. The usage does reduce risk, as above, but again that is not the primary reason we do it.

Finally, we do not do it to retreat, the classic depiction of a tail covering ones nethers. We do it to advance.

So no, drones are not "cowardly" in and of themselves. They are a tool. Our use of the tool is generally not cowardly either, but pragmatic and risk adverse. Even our philosophy around drones tends to be neutral in this regards. We fly in the open. We have public policies. We advertise. It's hard to call it "cowardly."

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 7:56 AM

PO3 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 07:56:19 -0500

lol I remember a question asked in a novel ... the good guys use high tech imaging equipment to basically shoot every bad guys without them even know the good guys are there, and one of the good guy ask their team leader ... isn't that an act of a coward?

The team leader answer:"Call me coward everyday you want, I am bring everyone home"

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 8:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:19:19 -0500

perhaps they are but i do think that they are effective

Response by PFC David Ryba made Nov 20 at 2015 8:19 AM

PFC David Ryba — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:19:20 -0500

While we're on the subject... Are drone operators combat veterans and should they be eligible for membership in the VFW. Traditionally membership in Veterans of Foreign Wars is limited to those who served in a tactical theater of operations during a period of war (boots on the ground) and not to those that served in strategic theaters. Drone operators today do their job right here in the United States and go home to their families at the end of the day. They do, however, engage weapons with the enemy in the tactical theater. Are they combat veterans?

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 8:20 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:20:17 -0500

no an effective tool in the War on Terror where we do not want to put large troop strengths ashore.

Response by SGT David T. made Nov 20 at 2015 8:44 AM

SGT David T. — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 08:44:05 -0500

War isn't about a fair fight. War is about winning and killing the enemy to compel them to do our will. Any tool used towards that purpose can and should be used.

Response by Capt Brandon Charters made Nov 20 at 2015 9:17 AM

Capt Brandon Charters — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:17:31 -0500

No. Ever since warriors were using bows and arrows, man has strategically distanced himself on the battlefield. Autonomous systems are no different.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 9:31 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:31:42 -0500

Not as cowardly as seeking out and grabbing unarmed civilians and shooting them, because you don't have the balls to fight the good fight.
Not as cowardly as seizing little girls as sex slaves, because you just don't have the mojo to strike up a conversation and win one with your charming personality.
Not as cowardly as killing schoolteachers because they have the temerity to teach children how to read and know something other than your filth.

If Islamic State wants to draw up on the field of battle and do this the old fashioned way, I'm sure we would oblige.

Response by Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth made Nov 20 at 2015 9:32 AM

Lt Col Scott Shuttleworth — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:32:25 -0500

Websters defines coward as "someone who is too afraid to do what is right or expected : someone who is not at all brave or courageous: one who shows disgraceful fear or timidity." Our drone pilots and operators are definitely not cowards nor is using a drone a cowardly act. Absolutely not. A weapon is a weapon is a weapon. Doesn't matter if it comes off the wing of a drone, manned jet, ship, artillery, or directly from the hands of a infantry man...somebody in the loop made the decision to send that weapon on its way. The enemy is just as dead. It reduces risk, is cheap to operate, and we get the same result. Cowardly no!!! Smartest thing we could do...absolutely. War isn't fair, it is about exploiting your capabilities to win and ensuring our guys come home safe. This is an effective way to win.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Nov 20 at 2015 9:41 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:41:57 -0500

It might be good to ask 11B's in contact with the enemy if the drone pilot that took out an enemy emplacement that they faced if they thought that the drone pilot was part of the combat team.

As to the four airmen in the article, we had the same thing back in the '60s and '70s - the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War. This is more a political statement than an objective analysis, IMHO.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made Nov 20 at 2015 9:47 AM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:47:33 -0500

I wonder if soldiers in WWI asked the same question about tanks and flying machines.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 9:54 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 09:54:59 -0500

No. I don't see it as being any different than high altitude bombing, cruise missile strikes, or naval bombardment.

Response by SGT Francis Wright made Nov 20 at 2015 10:06 AM

SGT Francis Wright — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:06:03 -0500

No, they are not cowardly. Throughout history the only reason a country committed troops to a conflict was to gain real estate. We have no interest in these countries. So drones make perfect sense.

Response by SSG Todd Halverson made Nov 20 at 2015 10:09 AM

SSG Todd Halverson — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:09:24 -0500

Drones are just the Military's way of being like AT&T. It is an easy and effective way to reach out and touch someone.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Nov 20 at 2015 10:13 AM

SSG Audwin Scott — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:13:13 -0500

If drones are helping us get the advantage of taking out the enemy and saving more of our troops, of course not!

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 20 at 2015 10:26 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:26:55 -0500

This topic requires a very careful and exact definition of terms which puts us in trouble right away. Islamists have very different definitions than those who follow Western philosophy. Those on the opposite sides of the Left/Right ideologically can't debate because they too have vastly different concepts that skew the meanings they ascribe to words. (This is why debate most often devolves into shouting matches.) So, here goes. I believe...

A coward is a person who fails to act or speak out of fear.
Courage is the ability to act or speak in spite of fear.
The person who does not fear when danger is present is neither a coward nor a hero, merely a fool.

Drone operators who do not fear the consequences of their acts are thus, fools.
The drone operators who have acted and spoken out have demonstrated courage in two ways.
I applaud them.

Now, that leaves us at the doorstep of those who make the decisions: Our leaders.

One of the greatest tests of leaders' courage is sending others in harm's way. It is their greatest responsibility and the one that carries the greatest consequences. It seems obvious (to me, at least) that an over-reliance on drones in place of direct action may be construed as an act of cowardice on the part of leaders. They are avoiding risk. They are also fools in failing to recognize the increased danger of collateral damage.

And, yes, I am saying that I believe that President Obama is a coward and a fool. I believe he has demonstrated this in many ways. His over reliance on drones is just one, maybe one of the most obvious. It also demonstrates that he is a fool or simply doesn't care about the collateral damage.

Response by SP5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 10:34 AM

SP5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500

The mission is to achieve and objective with minimal loss of friendly resources (lives!). Sorry for the double entry - fat fingers!

Response by SP5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 10:36 AM

SP5 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:36:59 -0500

The objective is to accomplish a mission with minimal loss of friendly resources - lives, in particular. Drones are a mechanical extension of the sniper on the ground. So, an effective way of getting the job done. Not cowardly.

Response by SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA made Nov 20 at 2015 10:49 AM

SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 10:49:18 -0500

There is no cowardly way to kill an enemy in battle. There are effective ways to kill the enemy, and there are ineffective ways.

If you can kill the enemy by playing dead and stabbing him in the back after he passes you, that is not cowardly. That is effective.

If you can kill the enemy by playing video games in the American desert and thereby dropping bombs on the enemy thousands of miles away, that is not cowardly. That is not heroic, either, but it is effective.

Certainly there are cowardly actions on the battlefield, such as hiding behind innocent civilians

Response by SGT William Howell made Nov 20 at 2015 11:27 AM

SGT William Howell — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 11:27:10 -0500

I think there is a comparison here. During the Revolutionary War the US had begun using Kentucky Long Rifle compared to the Brown Bess the British were using.

Up till this time, men lined up across from one another at short distances and shot volleys at one another. The officers hung out in the back, out of range, for command and control. Then comes the Kentucky Long Rifle. Somebody figures out we can shoot the officers in the back of the formations and the troops don't know what to do. Then we figured out if we just hang out in cover we can shoot the guys in the front line before their Brown Bess is even in range. We were called cowards by the British. We did not stand and fight in the traditional method.

Because of technology (The rifled barrels of the Kentucky Long Rifle as opposed to the smooth bore Brown Bess) we were able to deploy a much more lethal force without the losses that the enemy was experiencing.

Patton said it best, "The object of war is not to die for your country, but to make the other bastard die for his."

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 20 at 2015 12:13 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:13:36 -0500

So he admits to killing 5 unidentified people and an identified camel. Sounds like he was part of the problem. I always used the ROE of positive ID of the target, or knowledge nothing in front is friendly to give the command fire. If you don't positively ID the target there will be collateral damage.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2015 12:54 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 12:54:12 -0500

No. Drones are a combat multiplier! Better to be on the sending side than the receiving!

Response by MSgt Darren VanDerwilt made Nov 20 at 2015 2:27 PM

MSgt Darren VanDerwilt — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:27:36 -0500

"If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck." - John Steinbeck

Response by MSgt Matthew Meindl made Nov 20 at 2015 2:34 PM

MSgt Matthew Meindl — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 14:34:47 -0500

Tactical Efficiency.

Response by MSgt Curtis Ellis made Nov 20 at 2015 8:50 PM

MSgt Curtis Ellis — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 20:50:27 -0500

I think drone strikes are quite genius...

Response by CPO Andy Carrillo, MS made Nov 20 at 2015 9:14 PM

CPO Andy Carrillo, MS — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:14:56 -0500

No more so than a Spectre gunship or Cobra Longbow or cruise missiles launched from offshore. Perhaps when dealing with ISIS and those who support a world-wide caliphate this administration has come to Niccolo Machiavelli's belief that "It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both. If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared. The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him..." Just sayin'...

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Nov 20 at 2015 9:19 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Fri, 20 Nov 2015 21:19:09 -0500

No, but they are the lazy mans way to fight a war.

Response by SSgt Phil Sigman made Nov 21 at 2015 2:45 AM

SSgt Phil Sigman — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 02:45:23 -0500

If they save the lives of our military by not putting them in harms way then no.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2015 9:21 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 09:21:24 -0500

Oh give me a break.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2015 1:58 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 13:58:25 -0500

There are no cowardly ways to kill your enemy. Any one that thinks differently can fight the enemy at knife fighting range, and see how much fun that is. With that said, we should only use drones when we are sure that civilians are not in harms way.

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Nov 21 at 2015 2:11 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 14:11:12 -0500

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member No

Response by PO1 Jose Roman made Nov 21 at 2015 5:16 PM

PO1 Jose Roman — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 17:16:26 -0500

Nope. While on the subject, lets bring back the Flamethrower.

Response by 1SG Nick Baker made Nov 21 at 2015 7:01 PM

1SG Nick Baker — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 19:01:54 -0500

So our bomber is a drone.

Response by MAJ Alvin B. made Nov 21 at 2015 11:40 PM

MAJ Alvin B. — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 23:40:45 -0500

No. However, it may be a matter of perspective.

I would say the correct term is UAS, (formerly UAV, UCAS, etc...take your pick) are not truly drones as they are controlled. That said, they are no more cowardly then an manned aircraft or a cruise Missile.

We have been working thowrds the ability to conduct precision warfare at great standoff distances since at least the end of the Vietnam War. In this we now have some level of success. Strinkjng from a distance is not cowardly. However, it is not the first time such an accusation has been levels at stand off weapons. Archers were hated by Knights. Artillery has received similar treatment as well. It is not a fear of combat or fighting, it is a desire to project power in the most effective (and safe manner). I can see why an opponent would perhaps see it as a cowardly act, especially given the general inability to fight back.

The second point they make, civilian casualties, unintended victims, is not about cowardliness. It is a separate issue. As precise as our weapons may be, they are not perfect and that leads to u intended deaths. However, I suspect the unintended deaths are lower the in the past when you compare them to convential bombing, artillery strikes and rocket attacks. It is one of the reason we go to great lengths to keep human decision makers in the sensor to shooter chain.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 22 at 2015 12:29 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 00:29:30 -0500

No more then other air strikes they are a tool that we use. I would be more worried about are we using air strikes properly more then if there is a pilot in the aircraft.

Response by Sgt Ed Padget made Nov 22 at 2015 1:24 AM

Sgt Ed Padget — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 01:24:17 -0500

No, I'd say drone strikes are accurate.

Response by LTC Francis Irwin made Nov 22 at 2015 2:27 AM

LTC Francis Irwin — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 02:27:27 -0500

Every advance in warfare has been called cowardly by the people using the last generation weapons. Unless the drones run away from combat it doesn't really apply does it?

The crossbow is a coward's weapon.”- Jaime Lannister (A Storm of Swords) ”

Response by Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA made Nov 22 at 2015 9:59 AM

Lt Col Timothy Parker, DBA — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 09:59:43 -0500

I hesitated to enter this discussion but feel the need to make a comment or two. I feel for the airmen who feel they killed innocent people in the fight to end terrorism - no one wants unnecessary deaths. But war is not clean or without collateral damage. At least the western powers are aware and concerned about that (see the numerous media accounts that point that out). If war was easy and precise we would have no accidental deaths - but it's not.

Then consider the alternatives to "remote weapons" like drones (or bombs, or throwing rocks or anything except hand to hand combat). Would it be acceptable to put others in harms way instead of using remote weapons that are readily available and saves the lives of friendly forces? I would not want to be the one to have to defend the idea of sending in ground troops to do the job a drone could have easily accomplished to the parents of lost soldiers.

Now to the point of the loss of innocent lives due to drone strikes being a cause of recruitment for ISIS. In some small way and to some it probably is - but its not the overriding issue for them. Recall the big event that instigated all of this - 9/11 where the other side killed 3000+ non-combatants (innocent lives) and continue to do so (Paris, Mali, etc.). And if you really want to study the overriding reason for their position, read this article: (https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/12921736/WhyTheyHateUs.pdf?sequence=1). It seems they really don't care about innocent lives.

Is it cowardly to launch a remote weapon? Is the use of a bow and arrow more cowardly than hand to hand combat? That concept suggests any approach beyond hand to hand combat is cowardly. If all combatants would defer to hand to hand combat, that would be great although I suspect they won't select that approach. Until they do, I think the use of drones and other "remote weapons" is fair and justified (knowing we are concerned about collateral damage and loss of life, and trying to limit that as much as reasonable).

War is not clean and never has been. Our task is to limit the loss of innocent life as much as possible and I think we do a pretty good job of it overall. The other guys - not so much.

Just my humble opinion.

Response by SMSgt Clyde Hunter made Nov 23 at 2015 12:02 PM

SMSgt Clyde Hunter — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 12:02:59 -0500

No...it's efficient...

Response by Sgt Joseph B Campbell made Nov 24 at 2015 6:46 AM

Sgt Joseph B Campbell — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 06:46:13 -0500

If a bomb was dropped from a B-2 at high altitude this wouldn't even be a question! It would actually remove the risk of lost lives to use drones!

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 7:39 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:39:46 -0500

Is this a serious question? ALL is fair in war. If it accomplishes the mission with minimal or no casualties I do NOT care.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 7:56 AM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 07:56:41 -0500

I expect this same argument has come and gone with every increase in firepower. It probably goes back to the first person who used a knife instead of bare fists, called a coward because he wanted to end the fight in less than two hours.

Some people aren't suited to the military, but join anyway. So I feel sorry for the author of the article, because he is trying to separate himself from the guilt he feel over taking lives, so he calls his profession cowardly.

We have animal control officers, which among other things, pick up and euthanize rabid animals. They aren't cowards either, simply because they don't get down on all fours and try to bite the rabid dog to death. I'm in the rabid animal control business. If your stomach isn't strong enough to control rabid animals, you don't belong in the military.

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Nov 24 at 2015 9:38 AM

Sgt Frank Rinchich — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:38:23 -0500

Since when did it become cowardly to defeat the enemy and keep your people alive. we transitioned from the musket to the Gatling gun and on to the bomb. was nothing cowardly about that , was technology advancing. if we can kill 10 and lose none. that's a giant step for man.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 9:51 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:51:19 -0500

WoW you can see this is a touchy point , i would bet mostly for the Combat-Veteran. Very nice to see the service members up in arms over the question. I like the Answers and the Replies , it's great. In any case from one former Marine to another. " Go Get'em , blow the guy's fuck'en Head Off". You see for a Jar-Head , that's what mind set i answer the question from. A former Marine , middle aged , baggy pants , beer belly , Jar-Head. I take the Philosophy out of the matter. I look at the one of the men killed off just this weekend, Specialist Jay Strickland was killed in Afghanistan. He died for us. RIP

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Nov 24 at 2015 9:53 AM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 09:53:14 -0500

War is hell! Drones are just a new version of 'reach out and touch someone' with high explosives.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 10:02 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:02:35 -0500

This BS argument has been going on since the first guy came out with a spear longer than his opponent....

Response by Maj Mike Sciales made Nov 24 at 2015 10:57 AM

Maj Mike Sciales — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 10:57:28 -0500

Advances in Tech always presents this cultural question, because from a warrior point of view it's a proven winner. You ask generally " Is using modern equipment with proven technology wrong?" Is using any "technology" cowardly? I mean we don't need to use drones, but can you explain to all those anxious parents how risking a young American's life to destroy and enemy is braver, more masculine and more worthy of envy? I think better tech is just a tool. Not much different than the introduction of the long bow as a "stand off " weapon system. Some guy inside the castle might have asked your same question. Good philosophical question, but remember what Patton said, war was about "making the other poor bastard die for his country." The how is largely immaterial. Dead is dead.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Nov 24 at 2015 11:10 AM

MAJ Jim Woods — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:10:41 -0500

Heck No they aren't cowardly..... they keep guys like me from having to do more dangerous stuff!!!!!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 24 at 2015 11:56 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 11:56:26 -0500

I reckon it beats the hell out of carpet bombing or dropping napalm.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Nov 24 at 2015 2:41 PM

1SG Harold Piet — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 14:41:11 -0500

No,

Response by Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller made Nov 24 at 2015 3:14 PM

Cpl Don "GUNNY" Miller — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:14:08 -0500

NO NOT cowardly KILLING the enemy is NEVER COWARDLY!

Response by CPL Brian Clouser made Nov 24 at 2015 3:16 PM

CPL Brian Clouser — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 15:16:17 -0500

No more so than IBCM or smart bombs or a sniper's bullet. The only thing that is cowardly is the loser that runs away from their duty

Response by SPC Byron Skinner made Nov 24 at 2015 6:45 PM

SPC Byron Skinner — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:45:34 -0500

Sp3 Byron Skinner, Nonsense. This is the technology evolution of warfare. The unmanned over head delivery of ordnance is the replacement for the tank and tube artillery. It is more accurate, cheaper delivery platform, and recallable. In regard to9 the "poor" Air Force officers who have to pull six 12 hour day at Cheech AFB in Nevada a short ways from Las Vegas and having to see people eyes as they are being killed, welcome to the cull fly boys you just got elevated form a support and service puke to a warrior. At half a world away I wouldn't give a second thought to killing by remote control its a tad bit different at a meter away. As we said in Nam. The whole DoD exist for just one purpose and that is to support the Marine and Army Infantry Rifleman. If the rifleman decided that he/she is tired of dying, getting wounded and killing the enemy, all of you are out of a job. A drone still can't take an inch of ground and keep it.

Response by MAJ F. Patrick Filbert made Nov 24 at 2015 7:41 PM

MAJ F. Patrick Filbert — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 19:41:59 -0500

In no way is use of armed UAS "cowardly" since it keeps our Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen along with civilians (US and otherwise) and contractors alive. Which is the whole point. Our focus is to keep our people alive to fight another day; the extremists/AQ/Daesh/etc in no way want to keep their fighters or even children alive because they have no problem sacrificing them. Using human shields, killing innocents who can't fight back, and sending mostly uneducated young adults to their deaths via suicide vest or VBIED while sitting back and watching is cowardly.

The four noted individuals may have been part of the crews that conducted strikes but they did not, themselves, do the strikes. The pilot on the crew does that not the sensor operators or whatever a "transmissions expert" is. Since they were, at one point, Airmen why didn't they bring up what they allege as killing of civilians through their chain of command? And before everyone piles on and goes "because all officers are corrupt" (read: cop out) they aren't. Is it traumatic to witness deaths during operations? Yes it is. Are civilians caught up in war and sometimes getting killed? Yes they do. Having personally been in a function that reviewed such strike, often in real time, I can say that more often than not the strikes do get shifted away to ensure civilians are not killed even if it means missing a primary target. Constant contact with units on the ground does occur and intelligence is used related to these strikes from the military side (I can't comment on what the CIA is doing since I've never worked there).

Again, if there was uncertainty of the targets the question becomes, who authorized the strike to occur? Why didn't anyone report the uncertainty to the ground unit? Lets not forget that armed UAS operations are conducted by supporting units to units on the ground which are the supported. Per their own words, "We witnessed gross waste, mismanagement, abuses of power, and our country's leaders lying publicly about the effectiveness of the drone program," the men said in the letter." Great, so they were part of the problem at the time because they kept silent and said nothing. If they could not handle things and "quickly got numb" then why did they not also request transfer to another MOS/ASFC? And linking the Paris attack to armed UAS operations is a stretch

Response by Sgt Justen Ortloff made Nov 24 at 2015 10:13 PM

Sgt Justen Ortloff — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 22:13:14 -0500

"Are Drone strikes cowardly?"
Depends on how they are used, and who they target.

Response by MSgt Barry Fraissinet made Nov 24 at 2015 11:50 PM

MSgt Barry Fraissinet — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 23:50:10 -0500

It's an old saying, but still true, our job is to ensure our enemies die for their cause, and we live for ours.

Response by CW2 Roy Allen made Nov 25 at 2015 10:09 AM

CW2 Roy Allen — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:09:06 -0500

reinstate the draft now!!
remember viet nam

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Nov 26 at 2015 8:39 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Thu, 26 Nov 2015 20:39:06 -0500

What a load of crap. Murderers who send kids into the street loaded with explosives or plant car bombs timed to kill people shopping for food have NO credibility and no room to criticize us for defending ourselves. The Yahoo story is yet another super-size serving of uninformed left-wing beaver biscuits.

Sincerely,
Hugh

Response by MAJ F. Patrick Filbert made Dec 4 at 2015 2:31 AM

MAJ F. Patrick Filbert — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 02:31:06 -0500

Define cowardly. Would that be use of field artillery (canon and rocket artillery) (our guys not present to "man to man fight), airstrikes by CAS platforms like the A-10 (same deal on man to man), bombing from B-1s/B-2s/B-52s (same deal), or use of tanks, Tomahawks cruise missiles from ships and subs...or is it be cowardly to use human shields, IEDs, beheading and setting drugged people on fire while you rape their children? Drone strikes ensure our Soldiers live another day to fight since that is their job and our military is always going to be outnumbered.

As for the sensor operators and maintenance Airman who were interviewed for this article/wrote their letter, they never sent a missile anywhere because only the pilot of the UAS does that. None of them are pilots.

Response by 1SG Harold Piet made Dec 4 at 2015 4:39 AM

1SG Harold Piet — Fri, 04 Dec 2015 04:39:32 -0500

Only if our government uses them to strike our people as a cover up to their underhanded dealings.

Response by CAPT Hiram Patterson made Jul 7 at 2016 1:08 PM

CAPT Hiram Patterson — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 13:08:00 -0400

Hell no, case closed!

Response by Sgt Frank Rinchich made Jul 7 at 2016 3:42 PM

Sgt Frank Rinchich — Thu, 07 Jul 2016 15:42:18 -0400

easy answer NO. need more of them, Obama won't give the military what they need so use all the drones we can get our hands on.

Response by SSgt Justyn Stevens made Jul 15 at 2016 3:06 PM

SSgt Justyn Stevens — Fri, 15 Jul 2016 15:06:25 -0400

Putting warheads on foreheads with an unmanned aircraft! Work smarter not harder!

Response by MAJ Hugh Blanchard made Sep 13 at 2016 9:56 PM

MAJ Hugh Blanchard — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 21:56:58 -0400

No. Do you want our armed forces to have to fight "man to man" without benefit of our technology? Bad idea. My job was always to bring our guys home safe, not stage a boxing match according to the Marquess of Queensbury rules. The rules are, we use everything we have to kill them. If they don't want to die, then they shouldn't shoot at our people.
Cowardly is when terrorists attack unarmed people. If they want to fight and don't wear uniforms or make war according to the Law of War, then they deserve every single bad thing that happens to them.
Regards,
Hugh