No one will say it in formal circles: Use of drones outside the US is all about bombing paupers or -- ahem -- the impoverished places of the world, if something less blunt sounding is needed. That's the US strategic plant coupled to the story on budget cuts. It's a strategic triad with two of legs -- drones and special forces -- aimed at going after people who largely cannot defend themselves in any serious way. They're always poorer, weaker, and generally of different color and religion, in desperate regions. And the third leg of the triad -- the Navy -- is aimed at people who definitely can shoot back, the Chinese. But whom we won't get into a war with for the obvious reason that they make all our pipe and wires and telephones and computers and underwear and everything else except drones and most of the kit that the special forces use.
Here's a thought question: Do you really think those places where drones now operate freely threaten the existence of the civilian populace of the US in any meaningful way?
Exclude incitements to commit violence against Americans from Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia.
Exclude kidnappings by pauper/pirates unless you actually believe such things may eventually threaten people in, say, Pasadena, CA. These are bad but people get shot near my neighborhood by gang members about once a year and you don't see the governor going off and demanding pinpoint assassinations from the air in retaliation now, do you?
What are the ramifications, not internally but worldwide, of being seen as using remote-control technology to erase handfuls of paupers (and civilians who are in the wrong place at the wrong time) in places where people don't have a chance of shooting them down? Because, like, they have no money to afford a modern military for national defense.
On a scale, with 1 being an image as a villain and 10 that of someone someone riding to the rescue, where do you think the current usage and future trending of drones falls?
Discuss where domestic drone operations are necessary but only where they aren't already used.
Exclude use on the Mexican border which also falls under chasing paupers. However, do discuss how deep into Mexican airspace operate or should be allowed to go.
Do you think drones are necessary, for example, over southern California highways, to monitor traffic? If so, how would a drone alleviate bumper to bumper traffic during hours of peak congestion?
If there was a natural disaster, how are drones superior to a helicopter or manned plane, for example, if looking for people stranded by rising levels of water?
Are drones necessary to hunt down meth labs in abandoned shacks and barns in the hinterlands? Is this a new innovation/application or just using a more expensive technology to chase paupers?
On a scale, 1 being "it's just chasing/persecuting paupers" and 10 being it's "a new way to keep everyone safe", rate what you think the increasing domestic use of drones means.
On a scale, 1 being "it's just wealth preservation for arms manufacturers" and 10 being "it's a cutting edge of innovation and technology and needs to be supported," rate what you think the desire for more drones means.
Remember what I said about nobody in formal circles coming right out and saying the strategy is to bomb paupers? It's true. Over ten years they've come up with another way to describe it.
Here's an example from what you've come to know as the Empire's Dog Feces beat, from the famous Internet magazine/blog, The Dangerous Room of Examining US Tech for Killing Other People, All Smaller and Poorer (no link):
"When Adm. Eric Olson, the former leader of U.S. Special Operations Command, wanted to explain where his forces were going, he would show audiences a photo that NASA took, titled "The World at Night." The lit areas showed the governed, stable, orderly parts of the planet. The areas without lights were the danger zones -- the impoverished, the power vacuums, the places overrun with militants that prompted the attention of elite U.S. troops. And few places were darker, in Olson's eyes, than East Africa."
Instead of "The World at Night," the new strategy calls out for an acronym, something national security staffers, wonks and military men could grab onto.
First I thought of Defending Against Those Who Hate Us For Our Freedom (to Bomb Them). But it has too many consonants to acronym-ize. It also doesn't quite cover all the people who don't yet know we're coming for them because they're not having money and electricity are markers for America-threatening terrorism.
Instead, here's an alternative: the GWOP, or Global War on Paupers. It had a neatness to it, superseding -- as it does, the Global War on Terror.
If you have gold and your a-- don't smell/We won't bomb you straight to hell...
This post was originally published at Dick Destiny blog.