The drone arms race

Scott Shane, NY Times:

AT the Zhuhai air show in southeastern China last November, Chinese companies startled some Americans by unveiling 25 different models of remotely controlled aircraft and showing video animation of a missile-armed drone taking out an armored vehicle and attacking a United States aircraft carrier.

The presentation appeared to be more marketing hype than military threat; the event is China’s biggest aviation market, drawing both Chinese and foreign military buyers. But it was stark evidence that the United States’ near monopoly on armed drones was coming to an end, with far-reaching consequences for American security, international law and the future of warfare.

Eventually, the United States will face a military adversary or terrorist group armed with drones, military analysts say. But what the short-run hazard experts foresee is not an attack on the United States, which faces no enemies with significant combat drone capabilities, but the political and legal challenges posed when another country follows the American example. The Bush administration, and even more aggressively the Obama administration, embraced an extraordinary principle: that the United States can send this robotic weapon over borders to kill perceived enemies, even American citizens, who are viewed as a threat.

“Is this the world we want to live in?” asks Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “Because we’re creating it.”

What was a science-fiction scenario not much more than a decade ago has become today’s news. In Iraq and Afghanistan, military drones have become a routine part of the arsenal. In Pakistan, according to American officials, strikes from Predators and Reapers operated by the C.I.A.have killed more than 2,000 militants; the number of civilian casualties is hotly debated. In Yemen last month, an American citizen was, for the first time, the intended target of a drone strike, as Anwar al-Awlaki, the Qaeda propagandist and plotter, was killed along with a second American, Samir Khan.

...

We are still in the infancy of drone warfare.   We are about where the bi-plane was in World War I.  These vehicles will become more sophisticated and lethal.  They have become an effective tool in dealing with people who ignore the rules of war, planning and executing mass murder attacks against non combatants.  It is an enemy who thought he could operate from sanctuaries while sending out human bombs as guided missiles.  The hand wringing of theorist is misplaced.

While drones are very effective against enemies with limited air support, they are still a crude weapon against sophisticated air defenses.  In Israel's recent war with Hezballah, the Israelis shot down at least one Hezballah drone sent over Israel.  It was not that hard.  Someday we might have drones that could engage in a dogfight, but we are a long way off.  Most drones have very limited fields of view.  It is like looking at the ground through a soda straw.  They usually have to know what they are looking for to find a specific target.

The killing of Awlaki is not a cause for concern in my opinion.  He was an enemy combatant and a traitor.  Those are more important descriptors than the accident of his birth.  There was clear and convincing evidence that he was involved in several mass murder plots of US citizens, and that he did push the Fort Hood shooter to murder troops at a US base.  Destroying him and his support network was the right and moral thing to do for a nation at war.  It was clearly within the authorization of the use of force resolution passed after the 9-11 attacks.