The article I read in the Times was actually about General McChrystal’s changes to the drone program. While the changes have led to a decrease in civilian casualties, they have also effectively put U.S. soldiers, who had relied on the drones for added protection, at greater risk.

This subject is so complicated and so important to look into. I’m happy that you’re doing just that. I actually think you have a book on your hands, not just a paper. (Papers are still what I think they are, right? 20 pages at the most?)

I mean, the role technology is playing in the war(s) is worth at least a book on its own. (I’d recommend checking out Wired Magazine and the work of William Saletan over at Slate on the subject.)

And the theme of distance and how it relates to the Other is always interesting to explore.

I’m happy that you found my little piece. Please let me know how your research goes. Let’s keep the discussion going. And best of luck with the paper (and future book).

All the best,
Lou

I admit that I was pretty hasty in my attempt to figure out what your posting was all about (the Pew Research Center really through me off). When I went from this posting, which seemed bogus, to your homepage, where the most recent post was “Fine Ass Quotes,” I may have jumped the gun. (Again, had I actually read some of them, I might’ve gotten the fuller picture). I can recognize, having looked through your blog more thoroughly, the more sarcastic nature of your postings.

My paper is actually the culminating project for my Ethics in War class at the University of Washington, Seattle. By “efficacy,” I’m considering all aspects of targeted attacks using drones, from how accurate the strikes are in taking out militants or al Qaeda/Taliban leadership, the civilian casualties associated with these strikes, and whether this “collateral damage” meets the just war principles of necessity and proportionality. The deaths of civilians have actually relatively decreased in Afghanistan, due in part, I believe, to General McChrystal’s input into the ISAF’s counterinsurgency guide, with a renewed emphasis on relationships with the Afghan people. (For me, part of the drones efficacy falls under this category – how well are we winning hearts and minds with drone strikes? Some of the polling data from Afghanistan actually shows a favorable opinion toward drone strikes and NATO/US forces there, despite civilian casualties. On the other hand, Pakistani public opinion of the strikes is extremely low; I’ve wondered if this can be traced to the lack of a state of war with Pakistan). I am also looking into the potential security threats that drones pose, as many academics have posed the idea of a new arms race and, moreover, many models have already been recovered and are being modified by terrorist groups for illegal and dangerous use. Finally, I may address the effects of drone usage on our own soldiers’ mentality and psychological well-being as a result of operating drones from a distance (the frequently cited stories of soldiers making targeted strikes in Pakistan or Afghanistan from a base in Nevada and then going home for birthday parties and soccer games somewhat intrigue me).

The nice thing about satire is that it often generates deeper thought and discussion. Thanks for responding to my post and doing just that.

Regards,
Emma

You stumbled upon a post in the “If This Were My World…” category of my blog. Other posts include an article on the “Genocide in Zamunda” and a casting call for “Bodies: The Exhibit.”

Re: “New Poll…,” at what point did you think something was up? Was it when you read the horizontal line on the bar graph? “Following Goat Off Cliff”? “Rape-Induced Anal-Bleeding”? “Birth”?

Yes, the poll is bogus, but I am not ashamed, nor do I feel that I “should be ashamed.” While I can’t hold myself up to such contemporary satirists as Stephen Colbert or The Onion, I do try every now and then.

From the little I knew of Afghanistan—their long war with the Soviets, life under the Taliban, not to mention the difficult terrain—it seemed as though many Afghans had very little choice in the direction of their lives to begin with. And on top of that, here were all these reports of aerial drones being responsible for civilian deaths. So I came up with this poll to highlight, in a way, their helplessness.

I was also playing on our American poll fetish. If the poll says that a majority of Afghans prefer to die by aerial drone, well then, it can’t be all that bad. We shouldn’t even question President Obama’s escalation of the program.*

In addition to your exploration of “the efficacy of drone attacks,” I do hope your research paper will focus at least a paragraph on their consequences: civilian casualties, of course. But also questions regarding the rules of engagement, assassination, the U.S.’s treatment of Pakistan, “blowback,” etc. It’s an interesting topic. Please email me your final draft. I would like to read it.

Best,
Lou Perez

* I did read an article recently in The New York Times about President Obama scaling back the frequency of the attacks. There are new protocols in place, I believe.

If this is real, I’d appreciate you making your source available (for academic purposes and otherwise). If it’s bogus, you should be ashamed of yourself.