Behind the Scenes With America's Drone Pilots 419
An anonymous reader writes "As President Obama meets with advisors on an Afghanistan strategy today (who are now leaning more toward Joe Biden's more-drones policy), and even as Al Qaeda claims it's not all that scared of drones, the new issue of Esquire takes the first real in-depth look at the American military's UAV build-up. Defense geek Brian Mockenhaupt spends some time on the ground in Afghanistan, as well as back at the Pentagon, where the pilots ('more like snipers than fighter pilots') are playing a kind of role-playing game, getting to know terrorists' daily ins and outs. Looks like these Reaper drones are the real wave of the future, eh?"
ChAir Force (Score:2, Interesting)
Another Benefit of Traditional Planes (Score:2, Interesting)
Look at the USAF... (Score:5, Interesting)
...Chief of Staff's reading list [militarypr...glists.com]. Short on fighter pilot stuff, long on strategy and counterinsurgency. They see the way things are going, no doubt about it.
Re:ChAir Force (Score:4, Interesting)
That's the Air Force as a whole not just the drone pilots.
What is laughable though is that the drone pilots get their time flying drones counted as flight hours which count toward their career gates. So for being at less risk than most anyone else and essentially playing flight sim games all day they get bonus pay.
Re:ChAir Force (Score:1, Interesting)
Who is the bigger coward? The one who straps the bomb to himself and kills innocents. He won't have to face the consequences of his actions when he's dead.
The person piloting the drone will have to wrestle with the thought that maybe innocent lives were lost as a result of his or her actions.
Sorry. The "stupid bomb" (suicide bomber) is the coward.
Re: Air power never wins wars (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd be tempted to say there's a good half of the west that doesn't have this luxurious blindspot America has. If anything big we to happen, they were on the frontline. Casualty previsions from the cold war in European countries basically ran in the high 80% range, and I'm pretty sure most major powers (India, China, Japan, the Soviets) in Eurasia had pretty similar things - sure, there's probably some of it in what are considered "side conflicts", but that blind spot is something you can't afford to have when you're not sitting an ocean away from where the shit will inevitably hit the fan.
Re:Interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:infernal machines (Score:2, Interesting)
Compared to the *millions* killed by the other participants in that war.
Dropping the a-bomb on Nagasaki and Hiroshima is akin to dropping nerve gas on Frankfurt and Hamburg. We could have done it, but it would not made a great difference in the military effort of the German war machine.
One could argue that that Japanese military leaders could have written off the civilian loss in those two cities (after all they lost more due to the firebombing of Tokyo) but were more inclined to surrender after hearing the news of the loss of 2 million Japanese troops due to the Soviet invasion in Manchuria.
At that point there was no longer any standing Japanese army worth mentioning nor a Navy to ship them back to Japan for a last ditch defense. So in order to save face they most likely used the pre-tense of the bombs to surrender to the Americans rather than the Soviets.
To be fair... Truman had ordered the bomb dropped without coming to understand what it was or could do (radiological wise). The people who advised him on the matter had no understanding either other than suggesting it as to bring about a quick end to the war for political reasons (namely the Stalin's response leading up to the Postdam conference to how he was going to treat Eastern Europe and the overtones that the Allies might be next on the agenda)
Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower were actually critical of its use because they believed the war had already been one in Japan as Japan had no navy as the suicidal attack of the Yamato and that 6 months into 1946 Japan would be critical of food supplies and would simply surrender due to the naval embargo.
Re:infernal machines (Score:5, Interesting)
The Armed forces are still giving out medals that were originally produced in anticipation of that invasion.
For example, 500,000 Purple Hearts were made in preparation for the anticipated invasion of Japan. As it turned out, they were not needed then. This stockpile has been reduced by the Korean and Vietnam wars and all of the lesser actions (Iraq 1 & 2, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada, and various "peacekeeping" missions), but about 100,000 still remain unused.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:4, Interesting)
Russians carried most of the war and while they lost more soldiers
They lost almost two orders of magnitude more soldiers than the US did. As I understand it, the US conscripted about 18 million people while the USSR conscripted about twice as much. There's at least an order of magnitude more casualties per million in the USSR army than the US. Further, the USSR lost (as in were killed) about a third of its military. That's cutting it fine for a winning strategy. While it isn't particularly relevant, the US-associated fronts did capture more physical territory (including the gains in the Pacific, of course).
And the remark about the USSR opening a new front is silly. They could have opened it in 1935 as well as any time prior to 1945, if they so chose. At the time they opened the front, Japan had abandoned that front. So it was low effort for great gain as far as the Soviets were concerned.
I also think the strategic bombing had greater effect than popularly claimed. While factories might have not been particularly damaged, the bombing disrupted the logistics of the Nazi empire and forced the Germans to occupy territory that spread out their forces (for example, occupying Scandinavia, North Africa and the islands of the Mediterranean particularly Crete and Malta, the latter which was never successfully invaded).
Finally, it's worth noting that the USSR did as well as it did through the somewhat greater incompetence of Nazi strategy. Hitler's obsession with taking and occupying Russian cities, particularly Stalingrad and Leningrad, led to the greatest mistakes which doomed Nazi Germany.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's pretty much been the situation in Afghanistan since recorded history began. Under Taliban rule, the Taliban basically ruled Kabul, and outside the city limits, it was no man's land. The Taliban didn't give up bin Laden because they couldn't, he was 400 miles away in disputed territory and the Taliban didn't have the military to pull that off. There's a considerable difference between can't and won't. What the war did was create enough martyrs to put the Taliban in a stronger position than ever before.
Great, yet we can't talk to Afghans (Score:4, Interesting)
I read the article and was amazed at the great use of technology, that we could beam video and aircraft commands across the world to do surveillance and attacks. But then I saw a special on PBS last night where our ground troops can't even talk with the Afghans. The interpreter didn't speak good english, and his face was blurred out -- no doubt due to fear for his life and his family's safety. So, I wondered, why can't we use the same UAV technology to facilitate better translation?
Simply, give ground troops a video camera, mic, and speaker. Video and audio would be relayed to a translator sitting anywhere in the world. The translator could translate from Afghan to english, speaking into the troops' earpiece. English to Afghan would be broadcast over the speaker the troop carries. It's not nearly as personal, but I'd bet we'd get better and more translators. They can work anywhere and don't have to fear being shot or their family being threatened.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from the war in the Pacific, the US funded the war much more than they fought, let alone win, it. I tend to consider that, dreadful as Stalin's soviet Russia was, and no matter how much help they received, it was mainly its soldiers --along with many others, notably the Britons, who won with their blood.
Umm, the United States lost more troops than Britain did as I recall. Regardless, what exactly is the problem with fighting a war in the manner that the US fought it? Are you suggesting that we can't claim a moral high ground because we settled on a strategy that limited the number of American fatalities? What sane power wouldn't settle on such a strategy? Why should we have expended a single American life beyond that which was needed to win the war?
Today's American people should become aware of this and realize that they never were good at fighting face to face with pretty much anyone
Do you have any evidence for this claim or are you just making this up as you go along? Ever heard of Saratoga? Trenton? Gettysburg? San Juan Hill? Belleau Wood? Omaha Beach? Americans are perfectly capable of fighting face to face when the need arises. The fact that we avoid it when possible does not mean that we aren't capable of engaging in it. It just means that we'd rather conserve American lives and rely on our air/naval/artillery power assets wherever possible. We are rich enough to afford the best Navy and Air Force in the World. Why would we engage in bloody face to face battles without taking advantage of these assets?
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
So, your definition of success in warfare includes getting the crap beat out of you? Interesting. Personally, my definition of success in warfare uses a measurement of how little your guys bleed as opposed to the other fellows.
Note that the USA fought the Japanese and Germans, while at the same time supplying pretty much everyone (including the UK) with everything they could possibly want to fight with (tanks, artillery, ships, planes, fuel, ammo, the works).
We did NOT supply the USSR with most of what they needed. We did, however, supply them with most of the trucks they used. And moderately enormous amounts of other material (millions of tons of stuff were shipped to the USSR).
Shiloh. Petersburg. Gettysburg. The Wilderness. To name just a tiny number of examples.
New Orleans. The Alamo. A couple more.
Belleau Wood. Wake. Bastogne. Guadalcanal. Iwo Jima. Okinawa. Chosin Reservoir. A few more.
I can go on with more places you've likely never heard of for a long time. And that's without even counting naval battles, like Flamborough Head, to name one example.
Re:why drones are so BAD (Score:3, Interesting)
They target civilians.
When you say "They" I take it you mean "those brown-skinned people who live in another country" aka "the terrorists".
Better us than them.
You wouldn't happen to live in the USA would you?
Here's a clue... It's not the "freedom" that people from other countries hate...
Re:ChAir Force (Score:3, Interesting)
Insulting him? You need only state one of the many facts about his life, or mention his name -outside- of the state of reverence, and you're jihaded:
* bring note to the fact that a number of his wives were children
* postulate on his use of hallucinogens while in the desert
* consider him lazy for living off of his rich, elderly wife
* bring to note any of the many outright consistencies in the text
* refer to the many verses which say that it is not only acceptable but expected of a Muslim to convert by force, enslave (same thing really), or slay any disbelievers
* etc.
Though, of course, mention that Islam is fundamentally incompatible with Western systems of belief and government, disregards women as property, and so on, it'll be pretty well accepted. (Unless you're in the Western world, where they've encouraged by the Quran to disregard things like social/cultural porhibitions against lying given to being in the den of unbelievers.)
Oh, and they don't "simply believe he delivered the word of God". They believe he is the one, true prophet, and all that have come before and after were lesser and to be either converted, enslaved, or killed.
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:1, Interesting)
"the United States lost more troops than Britain did as I recall": checks your figures. the UK lost about as many men in absolute figures and three times as many relative to their population. And that's without the dominions.
Besides, I'm not claiming that the US should fight a bloody war if they can avoid it. My point is, if they had had to fight without the Britons et al, they would most probably have lost, because (getting back to the original topic) you can't win a war only through technology, a navy and an air force (the true --- and only --- strengths of the American military). At some point you have to fight face to face, and in WWII they mostly did that by proxy. That's why the outcome of the war in Afghanistan looks bleak. And that's in spite of any given battle the US can be proud of: I'm not talking courage but efficiency on the battlefield. Read Liddell Hart's books...
Re:I hate to say this... (Score:3, Interesting)
My point is, if they had had to fight without the Britons et al, they would most probably have lost,
Without the Britons we wouldn't have had to fight the war to begin with.
you can't win a war only through technology, a navy and an air force (the true --- and only --- strengths of the American military)
The "only" strengths of the American military? Again, I think you are out of your league here. Would you want to face American armor? Artillery? Heck, I wouldn't even want to go up against American light infantry -- they are going to be better trained and better equipped than almost any other military on this planet.
That's why the outcome of the war in Afghanistan looks bleak.
The outcome in Afghanistan has nothing to do with the strengths and weaknesses of the American solider. It has everything to do with the fact that we are trying to fight a counter-insurgency war without enough troops and the fact that we aren't willing to use the required force to kill our enemies in large enough numbers to make them quit the fight.
And that's in spite of any given battle the US can be proud of: I'm not talking courage but efficiency on the battlefield.
Now you are saying we aren't "efficient" on the battlefield? Efficient at what? Killing our enemies? Keeping a low rate of casualties? Ensuring a good kill/loss ratio?