What’s Important, Investigate Drone Strikes or Feed Refugees?

RAF Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System

RAF Reaper MQ-9 Remotely Piloted Air System – Drone

UK Ministry of Defence via Compfight

BBC International news showed an interview with an anguished gentleman from the UN earlier this week.

Why was the poor guy anguished?

Because he was horrified at the effects of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He had computer simulations, fancy graphics and tons of data showing how terrible it is to use drones.

The investigation must have taken hundreds or even thousands of man-hours. Knowing how organisations like the UN operate, you can bet that those man-hours were not spent by people on minimum wage.

Far from it, calculate the cost of the highly paid specialists required, considerable travelling to the affected countries, local travel in air-conditioned, gas-guzzling luxury SUVs, accommodation in top hotels, squads of security guards and local “advisers”.

That little exercise must have cost the equivalent of many day’s food bill for all the Syrian refugees living in neighbouring countries.

Collateral damage, the injury, death and displacement of innocent civilians and damage to their property is an unfortunate consequence of armed conflict, whatever the scale.

Cases of blatant disregard for the safety of civilians should be investigated and where negligence or worse is established, action against those responsible, taken.

However, speaking from personal experience of conflict and being on the receiving end of blatant government instigated violence, it is easy for professional do-gooders and critics of the West to pontificate and point fingers after the event.

It can be argued that drones cause less collateral damage and fewer unintended casualties than older or less technologically advanced weapons.

They are cheaper than larger aircraft, no crew members are risking their lives which means that they can be maneuvered closer to their intended targets.

That in turn means that less powerful weapons can be used, less risk of widespread damage.

Altogether a more precise weapon than large bombs or artillery barrages.

If the UN really wanted to end the conflict and minimise casualties, it should be using its resources to expose the atrocities of the Taliban and other extremist groups. Especially those that shoot schoolgirls, teachers and medical workers protecting children by vaccinating them against polio.

But that just does not generate the same publicity as attacking the USA in particular and the West in general. It doesn’t appeal to the liberal left, rabid environmentalists, and other wearers of rose-tinted glasses.

It is unbelievable t organisations like the UN can spend vast amounts of money, time and energy attacking countries and people who are trying to do a difficult job. Often for a largely ungrateful and unhelpful, population.

While ignoring, excusing, condoning or making excuses for the perpetrators.

Then, the ultimate irony, asking those it is attacking and villifying, for more funds to help the victims of conflict and refugees, in other parts of the region.

But of course, if we look at the history of the UN’s actions from the days when it became hijacked by the newly independent third world states in the 1960’s, it is entirely believable.

It’s time for the Western Nations that finance this circus to hold it accountable, or make it fold its tent and disappear in the night.

 

peter-wright

 

 

 

Leave a Reply