Battleland

How Drones Can Reinforce Failure

  • Share
  • Read Later
General Atomics

An MQ-1 Predator unleashes a Hellfire missile

Gaeta, Italy — This report by independent journalist Gareth Porter is extremely important.  Porter, one of our finest investigative journalists, highlights one of the central problems in drone warfare:  how its imperfect feedback loops drive our perceptions of effectiveness, and thereby distort our decisions regarding the follow-on strike operations in the drone campaigns now underway in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

The result is a self-referencing phenomenon known among Pentagon reformers as incestuous amplification.

 The process is quite simple: imperfect feedback distorts the Observations flowing into the Orientation of the Observation – Orientation – Decision – Action (OODA) loops of the strategists and decision makers who are making the tactical and strategic decisions regarding future drone strikes.

This disconnects the entire decision process from reality, because Orientation is the analytic/synthetic activity in the mind that makes sense out of the Observations, including the feedback on a strike’s effectiveness.  The disconnect of Observations from Reality allows preconceptions and belief systems  to hijack the synthetic function of Orientation.

This produces a kind of ideologically-based self-delusion that biases the analyses leading to tactical and strategic decisions.  Put bluntly, the decision maker sees what he or she “wants” to see rather than “what is,” and acts accordingly.  The decision-making result is almost always a decision to do “more of the same,” thereby amplifying the mismatch further.

Without explicitly saying so, Porter has provided us a case study on how the entire strategic decision process has folded inward on itself, and in so doing, has disconnected the flow of decisions from the unfolding reality.

But there is more.   Porter describes how that disconnect has flowed out of the White House, the CIA, and Pentagon into the Orientation of the think tanks and the mass media, and by implication, into the collective mind of the population at large.  The delusional power of this incestuously amplifying OODA Loop is one reason why apparachiks in the White House, the CIA, and the Pentagon are telling reporters that drone warfare is the “only game in town.”  They literally cannot think of anything else.  Fighter pilots have a term for the death spiral created by this mental state: they are out of altitude, airspeed, and ideas.

And, so it is not at all surprising that Porter shows how the only game in town is producing a series of tactical and strategic blunders — i.e., killing of innocent civilians and children.  These blunders will increase the resolve of our adversaries and blow back to violate the criteria of a sensible grand strategy.

This self-inflicted wound is feeding a still-expanding strategic and grand strategic debacle that any student of the seminal work by the American strategist, Colonel John Boyd  would recognize in an instant.  (Readers interested in learning more about Boyd grand strategic, strategic, and tactical theories will find a compendium of his briefing papers here.)

wiki

A debacle is now inevitable, because, as Boyd demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt, our decision makers have made precisely the kind of disconnect in their own OODA loops that they should be trying to inflict on their adversary’s OODA loops.

In so doing, they are writing themselves a prescription for increasing disorientation, which will increase the confusion and disorder among the drones making these decisions, resulting inevitably in a failure at the tactical and strategic levels of the so-called counter-terror war.

40 comments
Wolseley
Wolseley like.author.displayName 1 Like

To cut through the baffle-gab: the assertion is that (1) the US does not appreciate the true effects of all the drone strikes it is making, which (2) makes US decision makers prone to undertaking more strikes than they would if they did appreciate the true effects of all their drone strikes.

An interesting theory that may well be true.  Pitty, then, that the article didn't offer some examples or evidence.  Easier, I suppose, to recycle some PowerPoint slides of jargon...

Papa Foote
Papa Foote

Usually, the "Tactical Operations" that come about with "New Technology", usually follow, sometimes later than "we" want, with "Better, Thoughtful Thinking, and Follow-up  - that's part of the "puzzle" that keeps "us" on our "toes", MAYBE?

-The Old Goat- 

spwright1
spwright1

Sat 8/25/12

Well lets see ?  Use un-manned Drones or Boots on the Ground ? DUH !

Those Drone Pilots just need more Training with Target Identification before they pull the trigger.

Even Bin Laden feared the Drones amp; that's a good thing.

What's that tiny little Glimmer Up in the Sky ?   BOOM You are  Dead !

Next ?

SPW "Airborne"

John_Schubert
John_Schubert

This article uses a lot of jargon to obfuscate what should be a very clear idea:  when, through a combination of ideological blinders, stupidity, stubbornness and honest mistakes, you create false information and then act on it, bad stuff happens.

  It takes so much energy tripping over its own jargon that there's no actual reporting on examples of false information.  What a shame.

Niklas
Niklas

I think the rules of Warfare need to be updated with all this new technology and non-human elements on the battlefield. No one in the target area is safe, and the target aquistion and evaluation of weapons effect is more or less like a videogame.  Now it is also possible to oppress a country without "feet on the ground" and all the negativa media coverage and bad publicity  that is politically related to traditional soldiers in another country. 

paul46
paul46

Anybody understand this story? Maybe I just need another cup of coffee...

Swiftright Right
Swiftright Right

Drones are a tool, nothing more and nothing less.

Just like with a  rifle what really matters is the man/woman behind them.

Jane Dsouza
Jane Dsouza

The US must consider employing smaller spy planes instead of drones - such as say, a 3 gram spy plane (See http://spygadgets.blogspot.com.... The objective is to form a small team of these spy planes, and these spy planes relaying information to a central spy plane - maybe a drone. This would minimize the chances of failure

davidi1329
davidi1329

The alternative to Drones is live soldiers. Given the alternative, I prefer drones.

miket23
miket23

There are other alternatives rather than bombing sovereign countries or invading them.  Regardless, if you view the world as such with the US only having one of those militant alternatives, then how exactly would you justify this: 

http://www.thebureauinvestigat... 

Note that this happens on a varying scale regularly in Pakistan as well.

And to further put this into perspective, would you have the same view if China was justifying bombing raids for the same reasons if they took place on American soil that resulted in thousands of civilian deaths?

davidi1329
davidi1329

>> Not to engage in semantics here, but we do not have

democracy.  Democracy is very dangerous

as it explicitly implies majority rule over the minority.  We have a republic that does contain

democratic elements, but not pure democracy.

+++This is a bizarre statement as, from my standpoint, every

meaningful change in U.S. policy from 1900 through the 1970’s was the direct

result of public pressure. Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, the end

of the Vietnem War to name a few, was imposed on the Federal gov’t by the

People. If you believe that democracy is dangerous, we have very little common

understanding of history.

"First you need to create a new political paradigm in

the United States that makes the federal government accountable to the

citizens."

>> Never going to happen when the federal government

wields so much power.  In my humble

opinion, every effort needs to be made to drastically reduce this power center.

+++If we are going to argue for a drastic reduction in power

at the federal level. It has to be across the board. Are you willing to concede

that we should also castrate the Defense Department so as to be virtually

defenseless against Al Qaeda too? You have to maintain some intellectual

honesty here.  Its disingenuous to lament

the over-reaching of federal power without recognizing the over-reaching of the

military-industrial complex. Unless you choose to deny its existence.

"One critical piece in that effort includes

over-turning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case which

declares that money=free speech."

>> I actually tend to think this is more of a red

herring.  I don't disagree that this

creates problems.  But then again, how do

you address the corporate owned media? 

They have arguably more political influence than any other entity.  Most news networks have succombed to simply

being the PR mouthpiece for administrations and other pols.  I think this is more dangerous than the

Citizens United ruling, because the public is deceived with a blurred line

between journalism and propaganda.  There

will always be well-funded individuals and companies attempting to buy

political influence so long as we have a central government that auctions off

so many benefits/privileges.

+++Are you denying also the role of money in politics? I

think we are living on different planets! Clearly the media are a problem, to

the extent that the corporate ownership crowds out dissenting voices. But there

is little if any meaningful distinction between corporate ownership of the

media and, the corrupting influence of money in politics that I mentioned.

Money buys media outlets AND polititians. It’s the ordinary citizens whose voices

are stifled by lobbying.

"How about publicly funded elections."

>> I don't see how this solves any problem.  And why should my tax dollars be

involuntarily taken from my paycheck to subsidize a candidate whom I do not

support?

 

I don't disagree with much of what you say here and you

raise important points.  I just don't

think there will be any significant change so long as the public abdicates so

much responsibility to a centralized government.  Only if the power wielded out of DC is

drastically reduced (and I concede, this is no easy task), then these problems

will be minimized. Otherwise, there will always be special interest groups

lobbying for special benefits/privileges regardless of how officials are

elected or their campaigns funded.

Just my humble opinion. 

Thoughts?

+++I come to this dialogue with a premise that the public

has a duty to express itself and impose its will on the people we send to

Washington or a Statehouse. It seems that you do as well, so why then do you

make the claim that democracy is dangerous? Which side are you on? Democracy is

clearly a messy business and we do not always get the laws we want as

individuals. You can side with the money and allow the money to dictate policy,

or you can side with democracy and encourage civic participation. The two

concepts are mutually exclusive.  As far

as publicly funded elections are concerned. The underlying principle here is

that you pay a little in taxes to finance campaigns so as to avoid getting

people who are elected to represent General Electric and Halliburton.

miket23
miket23

"Women’s Suffrage, the Civil Rights movement, the end

of the Vietnem War to name a few, was imposed on the Federal gov’t by the

People. If you believe that democracy is dangerous, we have very little common

understanding of history."

>> The federal government denied these rights to people because of majority opinion.  The federal government didn't come in and "grant" these rights to women and minorities.  They repealed bad laws (eg not excluding women's right to vote, Jim Crow laws).  All those things you mentioned were problems *because* of government, not in spite of it.  Slavery was instituted thru government laws.  Jim Crow laws were held up by the federal Supreme Court for over 100 years.  The federal government decided to intervene in a civil war in southeast Asia.  Private citizens fought thru these injustices in various ways (eg nullifying federal Fugitive Slave Laws in the 1830's-50's in Massachusetts and Wisconsin, protesting the Vietname War, etc).  Just because the federal government finally came around and repealed its own bad laws/policy, doesn't make it the institution responsible for solutions.  

My point is one on principle.  A law is not just or good simply because 50% + 1 people agree to impose it on 50% - 1.  But that is pure democracy.  The majority imposing their will on the minority.  Our country was founded as a Constitutional Republic where the minority have equal protection and rights under the law.  Obviously, this wasn't practiced all that well for a large period in our history, particularly with respect to minorities and women.  But at least the principle was affirmed.  

"Are you willing to concede

that we should also castrate the Defense Department so as to be virtually

defenseless against Al Qaeda too?"

>> Of course the Defense Dept should be drastically reduced, because most of what it does is not "defense." It wouldn't make us defenseless against a band of rogue, stateless thugsin Al Qaeda.  That's hyperbole and silly.  There's no reason our government shouldn't be able to defend the country on half what it spends on military/defense right now.  The US currently accounts for 1/2 of the entire world's budget on military and defense. 

"Are you denying also the role of money in politics? I

think we are living on different planets!"

>> No, I'm not denying the role of money in politics.  I fully recognize it.  I'm suggesting we spend too much time focusing on the wrong thing.  You're suggesting we go after the demand side of the problem (those attempting to purchase political influence).  I'm suggesting we should go after the supply (those politicians/bureaucrats auctioning off benefits/privileges).  So long as there is such a huge power center in the federal apparatus in DC, this will always be a problem no matter how much you want to try and regulate money in politics.  In other words, in my opinion, so long as there is a centralized power center, there will be somebody on the outside attempting to influence it.  Why not break up the centralized power center?  If you look throughout history, nothing good has ever resulted from a society with an increasingly strong centralized government.  

"It seems that you do as well, so why then do you

make the claim that democracy is dangerous? Which side are you on?"

>> Because I don't advocate violence and initiation of force.  I don't agree that solutions must come from the legislative process.  Government operates on the premise that it has monopoly power on the use of force.  I don't want to impose my will on you, just as I would hope you wouldn't want to impose it on me.  Democracy is especially dangerous, because as I previously mention, it allows majority control over the minority.  Who protects the minority in democracy? 

davidi1329
davidi1329

I won"t dispute that the U.S. is inclined to deny or obfuscate when it comes to collateral damage. That makes us just like the rest of the worlds nations. We could certainly debate the merits of intervention, its unclear whether or not what we are doing in the Middle East is actually making us "safer". I am not claiming that we are in fact better of  as the direct result of meddling in that part of the world. Strictly speaking, if we are going to intervene, let it be remotely in the first instance with boots on the ground as a last resort. We can fight them over here, or we can fight them over there..which is the lesser of two evils?

miket23
miket23

"I won't dispute that the U.S. is inclined to deny or obfuscate when it comes to collateral damage."

>> That wasn't my point.  The main point was the effectiveness of drone bombing campaigns.  If you read that article, you'll understand what I mean. 

"We can fight them over here, or we can fight them over there.. which is the lesser of two evils?"

>> I reject the premise of that question, because it's pretty clear that our intervening over there is the motive they use for coming over here.  That's the whole point.   We've been intervening in the Middle East region ever since we overthrew the freely elected democratic government of Iran in '53 (allying with Saddam in the Iraq/Iran War, funding/arming the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan which became Al Qaeda, enforcing ruthless sanctions on both Iraq/Iran, invading occupying Iraq/Afghanistan, overthrowing Libyan govt, etc, etc). 

With that said, when does a 3rd alternative enter your consideration:   stop intervening in the internal affairs of other countries. 

Shopping Directory
Shopping Directory

This is the ONLY game in town, because all other, from the boots on the ground thru massive air raids, to doing nothing produce MORE

killing of innocent civilians and children. 

Mob Ash Err
Mob Ash Err

No one is here making wise comparisons: Why? Because everyone has  forgotten the fundamental belief in the creator of our universe. We now are opted to listen to only what is broadcast to us, the script, the true lies, the invented side of the picture. What is there on the flip side? Ever pondered? Afghans are those who even can not make basic machinery, they are incapable to design any technological item at all; They can just make paper kites; They have been living catastrophic lives for the last +30 years - just feeding on the financial aids, illegal/ smuggled home appliances, etc. from the close-by borders. Even a school going kid can understand who has been supplying weapons to the Afghans, making hide-outs for them, guiding them from the satellites where to move, supplying weapons and food through aerial support - That is how the superpower is exploiting the uneducated technological deprived and financially crunched nation just to accomplish its own hidden agenda by making strategies, by defining all by its own the enemies amp; friends, by destroying amp; creating leaderships of the world, defining its own limits of good ethics and bas ethics. Yes, by taking control of everything like God. When will the long-slept society wake up? Knock knock!!!!!!!!

passivevoices
passivevoices

According to international law,

it is illegal to use drones to kill non-combatant civilians. As per American

law, it is illegal to drone a US-born terrorist. American taxpayers, whose

hard-earned dollars are used in war efforts, and particularly in drone

killings, are generally very sensitive to sense killings and destruction. Since

9/11, they are being fed on the phobia of America’s security. The US public is

internationally naïve geographical location of the US and is generally unaware

of the political and military developments around the globe. They believe what

is being fed to them by the American establishment through a obliging media.

The indiscriminate killing by the drones is now presented as a business case;

the drones enterprise is cost-effective; it ensures killing of terrorists

without losing a single American life. Those killed alongside the terrorists

are a normal business loss, a collateral damage, which can be written off the

books. Read more at: http://passivevoices.wordpress...

IronButterfly
IronButterfly

When we see the pictures of the President, Secretary Clinton and  others all huddled around a TV monitor that was showing the Bin Laden raid you see the top decision making team with their "heads looking down in the cockpit".  What I mean is they were loosing focus on the grand strategy by looking at the little operations.  Yes, yes, I know that killing Bin-Laden was a big deal but in the grand strategy only one more operation.  The president would have served himself and the grand strategy by simply having dinner with the family as if it was just another day in the long war.  His big announcement that same night only reinforced the OODA distortion by making it look like this means we are almost at the finish line in this war, which we are not.

sgtbilko
sgtbilko like.author.displayName 1 Like

"Obviously, any attempt to defend ourselves results in defeat.  Look!  I have a Powerpoint slide that proves it."

GrandpaTarkin
GrandpaTarkin

In Afghanistan there's an almost perfect inverse correlation between number of drone attacks and number of terror attacks: if number of drone attacks increase, number of terror attacks drop.

And the other way around.

Make of that what you will, but in the meantime, consider that ALL battlefield feedback is imperfect. Modern technology have not, will not and can not eliminate the fog of war. Drone campaigns are no more prone to "incestuous amplification" than any other type of campaign.

Paweł Kasperek
Paweł Kasperek

This is the ONLY game in town, because all other, from the boots on the ground thru massive air raids, to doing nothing produce MORE

killing of innocent civilians and children. 

miket23
miket23

"This is the ONLY game in town"

Sure, if you subscribe to the idea that there is no alternative to American empire and imperialism.  Have you considered there might be another game?  Namely... getting out of town over there?

davidi1329
davidi1329

More lucid arguments. it's hard to argue with any of this. There's only one fatal flaw, that is that WE don't make decisions about where to intervene and when. The decisions are clearly made by people who are beholden to the capitalists and AIPAC. Democracy doesn't work if people don't participate. In order to change the strategic paradigm as you suggest. First you need to create a new political paradigm in the United States that makes the federal government accountable to the citizens. We don't have that! One critical piece in that effort includes over-turning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case which declares that money=free speech. How about publicly funded elections. So long as money buys elected officials, you will continue to see this sort of militarist intervention on behalf of Big Oil or whomever has sway over that particular Administration. We can't just argue the merits of Drones in a vacuum, it has to be done in context. If you want to have a say, you must first reclaim your political voice, then you must educate yourself (figuratively speaking) so that you know what is actually in your own self interest. Then you (we) need to make certain that our leaders are acting on OUR behalf. Simple, right?

miket23
miket23

"There's only one fatal flaw, that is that WE don't make decisions about where to intervene and when."

>> I agree.  I don't think I ever insinuated that we did.  In fact, I made that point in a response to one of the above commenters who casually mentioned "Americans" when challenging my comment about imperialism and empire.  It's important to distinguish "Americans" with US policymakers, as the former (you and I) are often victimized by bad policy.

"Democracy doesn't work if people don't participate."

>> Not to engage in semantics here, but we do not have democracy.  Democracy is very dangerous as it explicitly implies majority rule over the minority.  We have a republic that does contain democratic elements, but not pure democracy.

"First you need to create a new political paradigm in the United States that makes the federal government accountable to the citizens."

>> Never going to happen when the federal government wields so much power.  In my humble opinion, every effort needs to be made to drastically reduce this power center.

"One critical piece in that effort includes over-turning the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case which declares that money=free speech."

>> I actually tend to think this is more of a red herring.  I don't disagree that this creates problems.  But then again, how do you address the corporate owned media?  They have arguably more political influence than any other entity.  Most news networks have succombed to simply being the PR mouthpiece for administrations and other pols.  I think this is more dangerous than the Citizens United ruling, because the public is deceived with a blurred line between journalism and propaganda.  There will always be well-funded individuals and companies attempting to buy political influence so long as we have a central government that auctions off so many benefits/privileges.

"How about publicly funded elections."

>> I don't see how this solves any problem.  And why should my tax dollars be involuntarily taken from my paycheck to subsidize a candidate whom I do not support?

I don't disagree with much of what you say here and you raise important points.  I just don't think there will be any significant change so long as the public abdicates so much responsibility to a centralized government.  Only if the power wielded out of DC is drastically reduced (and I concede, this is no easy task), then these problems will be minimized. Otherwise, there will always be special interest groups lobbying for special benefits/privileges regardless of how officials are elected or their campaigns funded.

Just my humble opinion.  Thoughts?

omegafrontier
omegafrontier

 If American are imperialists, they must be dyslexic.  Imperialists do not promote free trade.  Never mind, it's a waste of time talking to you.

miket23
miket23

"Promoting* free trade is quite different than actually engaging in it.   So, unless you can explain how imposing embargoes/sanctions are a function of free trade, then it is you who is wasting time posting comments that make zero sense. 

And "Americans" are not conducting this policy! It's being carried out by US Government policymakers. Americans are only victimized by this uber-aggressive militant foreign policy.

Swiftright Right
Swiftright Right

Walter while Rome allowed trade it was more of a "sell us grain at our price or we will burn your citys and salt your fields" sort of free trade.

Walter_Peterson
Walter_Peterson

 That's not consistently so.  While Spain and France championed mercantilism, Rome and Britain generally allowed free trade.  Freer trade made Rome and Britain, stronger, more enduring empires

Paweł Kasperek
Paweł Kasperek

Then they will come to you... Just like they did on 9/11. Plus much more innocent civilians will die in local conflicts, with bombs exploding in marketplaces, temples, schools, you name it. Doing nothing has it's blood price too, and its quite big price tag.

miket23
miket23

"then thy will come to you... Just like they did on 9/11"

>> Wrong.  The reason why they come here is because of what the US government does overseas.  It's astonishing how many people miss this all-too-easy concept.  When our government bombs their people, props up their dictators, places sanctions on their trade, and invades/occupies their lands, then we should expect retaliation.  Wouldn't we do the same if China had warships in the Gulf of Mexico, conducted drone bombing raids over our country, propped up dictators in the Caribbean, invaded/occupied Mexico/Canada?   Of course we would.  There were 3 reasons given for the attack on 9/11:  1) our Air Force base in Saudi Arabia on their holy land which they considered sacrilige, 2) our 10-year bombing and sanctions of a Muslim country (Iraq), and 3)  our unqualified support for Israel in their conflict with the Palestinians.  That's certainly not a justification for 9/11, but they didn't attack without a motive. 

I'd also suggest reading Robert Pape's study of suicide terrorism which he discusses in a 1 hour lecture that is posted on YouTube or reading his book Dying to Win.  He conducted the first comprehensive study of suicide terrorism (ironically, commissioned by Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Dept).  One of the many conclusions... an overwhelming majority of suicide terrorist attacks are motivated by occupation.

"Plus much more innocent civilians will die in local conflicts..."

>> What evidence do you have that supports this claim?  Their is ample evidence to the contrary that suggests scaling back our intervention inthe internal affairs of those countries would reduce the bloodshed.  One prime example goes back to the Marine Barracks bombing in '82 in Lebanon.  When Israel invaded southern Lebanon in '81 and the US Govt (along with France and Italy) sent troops in, we experienced the first modern cases of suicide truck bombs, culminating with the '82 Marine barracks bombing.  As soon as we left, along with the Israelis, suicide bombings stopped.  Incidentally, Hezbollah didn't even exist until a month after Israel invaded Lebanon.   Occupation is the problem.

If we continue to think we can do whatever we want around the world and not expect retaliation, then we're living in a dream world and will never solve this problem.

"Doing nothing has it's blood price too, and its quite big price tag"

>> Why is the only alternative to occupying their lands, propping up oppressive regimes, bombing their people, and placing sanctions on their trade....   doing nothing?  Why not open diplomacy and opening up our markets?  Replacing a policy of bombs and bribes with diplomacy and trade would go much further into eliminating the motives behind this violence.

GrandpaTarkin
GrandpaTarkin like.author.displayName 1 Like

 This is true. Drone strikes have the lowest number of killed civilians, possibly because drone operators do not experience the same adrenaline high or need to make the same split-second decisions as pilots of manned vehicles do.

Walter_Peterson
Walter_Peterson

 But, how do you know?  One of the points of the article is that, with fewer boots on the ground, your feedback is less accurate.

Tony Heussner
Tony Heussner

If you are going to kill someone in combat, it should be in person.  If you are killing from a safe location, it takes the danger out, as well as the real feelings of what you are doing.  You remove the human aspect which is dangerous. 

Swiftright Right
Swiftright Right

Tony you sound like some kid who's ideas of war are based on fantasy romance novels.

Having served in the intelligence corps in both command posts and the forward lines I can tell you that you are very aware of "what you are doing" when you are directing fire. It doesn't matter if its 100meters or 100 kilometers away.

Fatesrider
Fatesrider

Have you been in combat, Tony?  If you had, you've either got a massive TBI or you got off on it.

 I've been in combat.  I've seen its effects on people.  Being objective about what you're doing is MANDATORY in combat, if the goal is to be achieved.  Eyes on the site are extremely important, but the more objective you are, the better able you are to successfully achieve the goal.

Drones don't suffer from TBI, deafness, sleep deprivation, battle fatigue or any number of a thousand other conditions that can distract a soldier - including trench foot.  The ONLY time you have a "human aspect"in combat is when you AREN'T THERE KILLING THINGS.  Killing other human beings is a patently inhuman thing to do, but the hind-brain takes over when there's danger and mistakes are made in combat - friendly fire, civilian casualties or even wasting ammo shooting at coyotes.

The most humane thing to do in a war is to minimize deaths, apply the right pressure in the right places at the right time necessary to force the enemy from the field.

The simple fix to this problem outlined in the story is to have those boots on the ground to get a more observant determination of what happened and the effects.  That Observation is the first part of any warfare strategy and addresses the major issue with drone warfare.

Robert Hoekstra
Robert Hoekstra

Links send to a outlook web login.  Not very helpful.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,105 other followers