Foreign Affairs, Government, Intelligence, Military, United States

Drones and the unproven efficacy of these weapons…

U.S. DRONE POLICY

The unedifying and continued use of drones has once again brought the issue to the door of the United States.

Nabila Rehman and her brother Zubair, aged 9 and 13 respectively, were picking okra in their garden. They posed no threat to the U.S. or anyone else, but their innocence did not keep them safe. The pair were injured by shrapnel from a drone-missile that killed their grandmother and wounded five other children at the family home in North Waziristan, in Pakistan’s north-western border zone.

Earlier this week, they confronted the U.S. Congress with the ugly and devastating reality of the drone attacks. Under President Obama, use of drones has become an increasingly important weapon in response to dealing with terrorism.

Attack from the air is always terrifying, but unmanned aerial vehicles – controlled and guided by faceless operatives thousands of miles away – are in a definite league of their own. The ethical objections to their use, however, not as battlefield weapons but as tools of assassination with inevitable collateral death and injury to the innocent, have been swept aside by their ostensible military effectiveness.

For both the U.S. and the Pakistani government, which have secretly colluded in the drone strategy, drones may have seemed the perfect answer to liquidating dangerous militants and extremists in Pakistan’s treacherous no-man’s land. North Waziristan is a notoriously difficult region for western intelligence services and monitoring the movements and activities of insurgents always risks others being unwittingly caught up in the crossfire.

But the fury and anger drones provoke, as Nabila and Zubair’s testimony bears out, can make them counter-productive. As President Obama and other western leaders know, far from helping to secure peace in the West, drones frequently embolden its enemies. Indeed, those flocking to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) in their droves were done so in seeking refuge and protection from the continued onslaught of U.S. drone attacks.

A RESPONSE TO THE ECONOMIST

On 8th February, 2013, MD responded to an article on The Economist, ‘The debate over drones’. That response is reproduced:

“The Fifth Amendment to the US constitution protects “any person” (not just US citizens) from being “deprived of life . . . without due process of law.”

Until the 9/11 attacks, the legal position was unambiguous: in war, active combatants could kill and be killed, subject to rules governing surrender and the use of banned weapons. But the ‘law of war’ applied only to conflicts between armed forces of opposing states, invoking the right of self-defence. Confrontations with insurgents and terrorists were strictly governed by human rights law, which requires state use of force to be reasonable in the circumstances. This ‘reasonable force’ requirement invokes a necessary and human restraint over soldiers’ actions and, as a direct extension, must surely apply to drone targeters. The rule of war is not being adhered to in places where drones are operating as “suspects” are being killed without much compunction.

The states that deploy drones argue that they are operating under war law, where human rights are less relevant. The US argues that it is in an ‘armed conflict with al-Qaeda . . . and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defence . . . including by targeting persons such as high-level al-Qaeda leaders who are planning to attack us.’ However, this statement prompts many questions. For instance, how can you have an ‘armed conflict’ without an enemy state? Or, what criteria is being used for putting names on the secret death list or what is the required degree of proof before suspects are targeted and killed?

There are no accountability mechanisms for the use of drones – no inquests, and often not even a casualty list which is a direct contravention of the normal rules of war and engagement. The US does, though, announce and celebrate when it hits a ‘high-value target’.

In aerial drone warfare, there is no fairness or due process to enable potential victims, their relatives or any outside body to challenge the accuracy of the information on which the targeting decisions have been made.

Some analysts may suggest that drone strikes are an exercise in self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter. But Article 51 applies only to attacks by other states, not by terrorist groups. Yet, what is becoming increasingly of concern is that the record of drone attacks demonstrates that very often individuals are targeted when they constitute no clear or present danger.

Drone killings in tribal areas of Pakistan and Yemen have taken the lives of targets who are armed and who presented a clear danger, but others have merely been attending weddings or funerals or emerging from hospitals or mosques. ‘Decapitation strikes’ in Pakistan have resulted in families being killed by mistake and which have severely damaged US relations with a politically tense and nuclear-armed nation that is not at war with the US.

American officials also say that the Fifth Amendment could not avail a US citizen who joined an enemy force. This is correct as far as it goes, but the Fifth Amendment must entitle a citizen or his family to know whether he is on a death list and to apply to have himself taken off it.

Those who press the Hellfire buttons in Nevada do not pause to consider whether their targets are engaged in combatant missions or not. The criteria for drone use are covert CIA prerogatives, beyond the jurisdiction of the courts or the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.”

© MarkDowe2013: all rights reserved

Standard
Britain, France, Government, Intelligence, Middle East, Military, Politics, Russia, Syria, United Nations, United States

U.S. and France prepare to strike Syria over chemical attack that killed 1,429…

SYRIA

U.S missile strikes against Syria could start tomorrow after U.N. weapons inspectors left the war-torn country earlier than expected.

The team of chemical weapons inspectors left their Damascus hotel early today – possibly for neighbouring Lebanon – fuelling speculation of an imminent attack.

It came as the White House delivered an astonishing snub to Britain following Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, with sources saying David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action and that Britain ‘cannot be counted on’.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry last night paved the way for war by saying the American intelligence community had ‘high confidence’ that the regime launched a chemical weapons attack on the outskirts of Damascus last week.

Britain has been left sidelined in any U.S military action against Syria following the humiliating Commons defeat – placing strain on the ‘special relationship’ with the U.S.

Mr Kerry pointedly made no mention of Britain during his speech and instead lavished praise on its ‘oldest ally’ France – which looks likely to join the U.S in a missile strike.

He paid tribute to the French for standing ready to join the U.S in confronting the ‘thug and murderer’ President Bashar Assad. He also praised Australia and even Turkey for their support.

In a passionate speech in Washington, he urged the world to act as he warned ‘history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’.

President Barack Obama yesterday said he is weighing ‘limited and narrow’ action as the administration put the chemical weapons death toll at 1,429 people – far more than previous estimates – including more than 400 children.

Downing Street insisted the U.S special relationship was still intact following a telephone call between the Prime Minister and Mr Obama.

However, White House sources told The Times newspaper in London that David Cameron had ‘bungled’ securing British support for military action.

Another source with knowledge of how the White House reacted to Thursday’s shock Commons defeat, said: ‘It came as a real shock to them. They now know the Brits, because of their political system, cannot be counted on.’

Speaking to Channel 4 News, Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, expressed his frustration. He said: ‘I’m disappointed, because we have a very close working relationship with the U.S.

‘It is a difficult time for our Armed Forces – having prepared to go into this action – to then be stood down and have to watch while the U.S acts alone or perhaps acts with France.’

Halfway around the world, U.S. warships were in place in the Mediterranean Sea. They carried cruise missiles, long a first-line weapon of choice for presidents because they can find a target hundreds of miles distant without need of air cover or troops on the ground.

Seeking to reassure Americans weary after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama insisted there would be no ‘boots on the ground.’

Military forces targeting Syrian sites.

Military forces targeting Syrian sites.

 

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin said today that it would be ‘utter nonsense’ for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when it was winning the war, and urged U.S. President Barack Obama not to attack Syrian forces.

Putin said: ‘That is why I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States.’

Mr Cameron – who spoke to the U.S. President following Thursday’s defeat –acknowledged that ‘politics is difficult’.

But he said he would not have to apologise to Mr Obama for being unable to commit UK military units to any international alliance.

Setting out the approach he would now take to Syria, the Prime Minister said: ‘I think it’s important we have a robust response to the use of chemical weapons and there are a series of things we will continue to do.

‘We will continue to take a case to the United Nations, we will continue to work in all the organisations we are members of – whether the EU, or NATO, or the G8 or the G20 – to condemn what’s happened in Syria.

‘It’s important we uphold the international taboo on the use of chemical weapons…

…But one thing that was proposed, the potential – only after another vote – involvement of the British military in any action, that won’t be happening…

…That won’t be happening because the British Parliament, reflecting the great scepticism of the British people about any involvement in the Middle East, and I understand that, that part of it won’t be going ahead.’

Following the Prime Minister’s conversation with the U.S. President, a Number 10 spokesman said: ‘The PM explained that he wanted to build a consensual approach in Britain for our response and that the Government had accepted the clear view of the House against British military action.

‘President Obama said he fully respected the PM’s approach and that he had not yet taken a decision on the US response.

‘The president stressed his appreciation of his strong friendship with the Prime Minister and of the strength, durability and depth of the special relationship between our two countries.

‘They agreed that their co-operation on international issues would continue in the future and both reiterated their determination to find a political solution to the Syrian conflict by bringing all sides together.’

After leaving Syria, the international contingent of weapons inspectors are heading to laboratories in Europe with the samples they have collected.

Video said to be taken at the scene shows victims writhing in pain, twitching and exhibiting other symptoms associated with exposure to nerve agents.

The videos distributed by activists to support their claims of a chemical attack were consistent with Associated Press reporting of shelling in the suburbs of Damascus at the time, though it was not known if the victims had died from a poisonous gas attack.

The Syrian government said administration claims were ‘flagrant lies’ akin to faulty Bush administration assertions before the Iraq invasion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Syria affected areas.

Syria affected areas.

A Foreign Ministry statement read on state TV said that ‘under the pretext of protecting the Syrian people, they are making a case for an aggression that will kill hundreds of innocent Syrian civilians.’

Residents of Damascus stocked up on food and other necessities in anticipation of strikes, with no evident sign of panic.

Obama met with his national security aides at the White House and then with diplomats from Baltic countries, saying he has not yet made a final decision on a response to the attack.

Mr Kerry said yesterday that the credibility and security of the U.S. and its allies are at stake.

‘Some cite the risk of doing things,’ he said. But we need to ask, “What is the risk of doing nothing?”’

The U.S. intelligence report said that about 3,600 patients ‘displaying symptoms consistent with nerve agent exposure’ were seen at Damascus-area hospitals after the attack.

To that, Kerry added that ‘a senior regime official who knew about the attack confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime, reviewed the impact and actually was afraid they would be discovered.’ He added for emphasis: ‘We know this.’

An estimated 100,000 civilians have been killed in more than two years, many of them from attacks by the Syrian government on its own citizens.

Obama has long been wary of U.S. military involvement in the struggle, as he has been with turbulent events elsewhere during the so-called Arab Spring. In this case, reluctance stems in part from recognition that while Assad has ties to Iran and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, the rebels seeking to topple him have connections with al-Qaida terrorist groups.

Still, Obama declared more than a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would amount to a ‘red line’ that Assad should not cross.

And Obama approved the shipment of small weapons and ammunition to the Syrian rebels after an earlier reported chemical weapons attack, although there is little sign that the equipment has arrived.

With memories of the long Iraq war still fresh, the political crosscurrents have been intense both domestically and overseas.

Dozens of lawmakers, most of them Republican, have signed a letter saying Obama should not take military action without congressional approval, and top leaders of both political parties are urging the president to consult more closely with Congress before giving an order to launch hostilities.

Despite the urgings, there has been little or no discussion about calling Congress back into session to debate the issue.

Lawmakers have been on a summer break for nearly a month, and are not due to return to the Capitol until Sept. 9.

Obama has not sought a vote of congressional approval for any military action. Neither Republican nor Democratic congressional leaders have challenged his authority to act or sought to have lawmakers called into session before he does.

Senior White House, State Department, Pentagon and intelligence officials met for an hour and half Friday with more than a dozen senators who serve on the Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees, said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del. He described the discussion as ‘open and constructive.’

The White House will brief Republican senators in a conference call today at the request of Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a spokesman for the senator, Don Stewart, said.

Obama’s efforts to put together an international coalition to support military action have been more down than up.

Hollande has endorsed punitive strikes, and told the newspaper Le Monde that the ‘chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished.’

American attempts to secure backing at the United Nations have been blocked by Russia, long an ally of Syria.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has urged a delay in any military action until the inspectors can present their findings to U.N. member states and the Security Council.

‘President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests,’ he said. ‘Now, we know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.’

He said the U.S. should also feel confident that it has the backing of a number of other nations, including Turkey, Australia, the Arab League and what he called America’s ‘oldest ally,’ France.

Half of Americans say they oppose taking military action against Syria and nearly 80 per cent believe Obama should seek congressional approval before using any force, according to a new NBC poll.

The administration supplemented Kerry’s remarks Friday with the release of the intelligence report.

‘It’s findings are as clear as they are compelling,’ Kerry said.

The report concludes with ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack.

‘Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,’ the report says.

‘We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence,’ the report continues. ‘On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.’

The findings also claim that Assad is the ‘ultimate decision maker’ for Syria’s chemical weapons program and that his regime has used the weapons on a smaller scale against citizens several times in the past year.

‘This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin,’ the report says. ‘We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.’ Sarin is a type of nerve gas.

The report further reveals evidence that the regime had been preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the attacks and protected themselves using gas masks.

‘Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21, near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin,’ the report says.

The report also cited evidence that the attacks were launched from regime-controlled areas into opposition territory or contested areas.

Several senior officials related before the release of the report that the intelligence was ‘not a slam dunk’ in terms of tying Assad’s regime to the use of chemical weapons.

The term ‘slam dunk’ is a reference to the then-CIA Director George Tenet’s assurance in 2002 that assessments showing that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was a ‘slam dunk.’

Kerry assured on Friday that the U.S. will not repeat the mistakes of the Iraq war.

‘We are more than mindful of the Iraq experience,’ Kerry said. ‘We will not repeat that moment.’

He later added: ‘Whatever decision [Obama] makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya. It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway.’

The administration briefed members of Congress on a conference call Thursday evening to explain its conclusion that Bashar Assad’s government was guilty of carrying out a suspected chemical attack on August 21.

Following the call, House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, sided with Republican Speaker John Boehner of Ohio in urging the administration to engage with the full Congress on the matter.

She also said that the administration must provide ‘additional transparency into the decision-making process.’

FRENCH PUBLIC OPPOSED TO SYRIA INTERVENTION, REVEALS POLL

The French people are overwhelmingly opposed to armed intervention in Syria, a new poll reveals today.

It follows President Francois Hollande’s insistence that he is ready to launch strikes on President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons.

As supreme commander of France’s armed forces, Mr Hollande is empowered to go to war without parliamentary approval.

But he will be extremely concerned by the results of today’s BVA poll published in Le Parisien, the French capital’s daily newspaper.

It shows that 64 per cent of the country are ‘hostile’ to taking part in military intervention in Syria.

Major concerns expressed are that such action will turn the country against West and increase the barbarity of Syria’s civil war, which has already claimed more than 100,000 lives.

Of those questioned, 37 per cent believe military action will help turn Syria from a secular republic to an Islamist state.

Thirty five per cent think it will inflame the region, and 22 per cent think it will not change the lives of ordinary Syrians.

Others (17 per cent) express concern at the lack of clear evidence that Bashar has used chemical weapons, and 18 per cent think there will be retaliation against French interests.

Despite such statistics, BVA analyst Celine Bracq said the mood would change if the French do join the USA in military action.

‘Be careful,’ she said. ‘The French are not for getting into a war, but they will largely get behind the head of state – by patriotic reflex – as soon as the operation is triggered.’

Mr Hollande has said that international action against Syria will ‘strike a body blow’ to Assad’s regime, and could start as early as Wednesday.

He said he was determined to act, despite Britain’s Parliament last week rejecting calls for an attack.

In an interview with this weekend’s Le Monde, Mr Hollande said: ‘Each country retains the sovereign right to participate or not in an operation. That applies to Britain as well as France.’

Putin said: ‘That is why I am convinced that it (the chemical attack) is nothing more than a provocation by those who want to drag other countries into the Syrian conflict, and who want to win the support of powerful members of the international arena, especially the United States,”

U.S. INTELLIGENCE ON THE SOURCE OF SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS ATTACK

  • U.S. intelligence community has ‘high confidence,’ short of actual confirmation, that the Syrian government carried out the chemical weapons attack on August 21
  • Members of the Syrian regime were preparing chemical weapons in the three days prior to the August 21 attack and protected themselves using gas masks
  • At least 1,429 Syrians were killed in the attacks, including 426 children
  • The weapons were launched from government-controlled areas into opposition-held or contested territory
  • The Syrian government has carried out smaller-scale chemical weapons attacks multiple times over the last year
  • U.S. intelligence officials ‘intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence’
  • On the afternoon of August 21, intelligence officials learned that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations
Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today.

Military intervention: A US Air Force plane lands at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey yesterday. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has said the inspection team in Syria is expected to complete its work by today.

Standard
Britain, Government, History, Intelligence, Military, United States

RAF Cold War missions over the former Soviet Union…

COVERT FLIGHTS

The RAF flew covert spying missions over the former Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War.

After decades of secrecy, CIA documents show British pilots were involved in the U-2 flights in 1959 and 1960.

These missions gathered vital intelligence which was regarded by the American intelligence services as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

Until now the Ministry of Defence has neither confirmed nor denied the participation of the RAF in the controversial missions, a position it will no longer be able to maintain.

The first U-2 flights over the Soviet Union started in July 1956, but despite the valuable information gathered, President Dwight Eisenhower was concerned about the ramifications of such a flagrant breach of Russian air space if they were discovered.

Unfortunately for the Americans, even though the high-tech U-2s flew at more than 70,000ft, the Russians were still able to track the planes.

The Soviets sent a strongly worded protest to Eisenhower, who developed second thoughts about the missions and suspended such flights in December 1956.

But the CIA was extremely keen for the spying missions to continue and looked for ways, in the words of one CIA document, ‘to increase the possibility of plausible denial’.

The solution was to use British pilots for the sensitive missions. During the spring of 1957, negotiations took place between the CIA and the chief of MI6, Sir Dick White, who saw the immediate benefits for Britain.

By the summer of 1958, Prime Minister Harold Macmillan had given his authorisation, and four RAF officers, Squadron Leader Christopher Walker and Flight Lieutenants Michael Bradley, John MacArthur and David Dowling – all of whom were in their twenties and single – were sent to train on flying the U-2s in Texas.

Flying the U-2s, however, was not without risk, and on July 8, 1958, Walker was killed when his plane crashed. The cause was never definitively established, but it is believed the aircraft disintegrated at high altitude.

He was immediately replaced by Wing Commander Robert Robinson. By 1959 all four men had finished their operational conversion to the U-2 and were sent to a secret air base in Turkey. From there they launched their flights over the Soviet Union and the Middle East.

In order to emphasise American denials of the operation, the U-2 planes were formally transferred on paper to the British Government. Eisenhower wrote to Macmillan, stating: ‘British missions are carried out on your authority and are your responsibility.’

And the flights remained a secret in Britain, too. The pilots were no longer paid by the RAF, but by MI6, and the public was told the airmen were engaging in ‘high-altitude weather-sampling missions’.

The first mission was flown by Wing Commander Robinson on December 6, 1959, over the Kapustin Yar missile test range and a squadron of long-range bombers in the Ukraine.

The missions proved to be hugely successful and proved the Soviets did not have as many bombers as they claimed – a vital piece of intelligence at the height of the Cold War. The head of the CIA referred to photographs taken by Wing Commander Robinson as being worth ‘a million dollars’.

The second British U-2 mission over the Soviet Union was flow by Flight Lieutenant John MacArthur the following month. Although his brief was to look for missile sites around the Aral Sea, he ended up uncovering a new type of Soviet bomber called the Tupolev Tu-22 at Kazan.

The Americans later resumed their involvement in the U-2 missions, but this came to an abrupt end in the wake of the Soviets shooting down and imprisoning US pilot Gary Powers in May 1960. The British ordered the RAF officers to leave Turkey immediately.

The following year, all four British RAF pilots received the Air Force Cross, although their citations in the London Gazette did not mention exactly why. After more than half a century, the truth has now been revealed.

Standard