What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Drones and Dangerous Shorthand

June 14, 2012, 9:54 AM
New%20design%206

This morning Ibrahim Mothana, an incredibly smart and funny young Yemeni, has an op-ed in the New York Times on Drones, Yemen and blowback.  I would encourage you all to read it. 

The op-ed raises a number of important points and is yet another in a growing number of excellent pieces on the US war in Yemen.  I have tried to highlight several articles here at Waq al-waq. I don't always agree with them, but I have been impressed that as the debate over US involvement in Yemen has grown in recent weeks many smart voices have weighed-in. 

As the debate has expanded, however, I've noticed a couple of potentially misleading pieces of shorthand.

First, as Jeremy Scahill has nearly shouted himself blue saying, US involvement in Yemen is about much, much more than just drones.

Yes, drones are a part of it, but the US is also using fixed wing aircraft, naval ships, Special Forces, contractors and advisers.  As one would except, the technology matters much less to people in Yemen than does the result of the strikes.  This may also explain why the shorthand of labeling all US attacks in Yemen as drones strikes is more prevalent in English than it is in Arabic, and why US commentators seem to make this mistake more than AQAP's pundits.  

A couple of things are being confused here.  People in the US worried about presidential power, international precedent and a new form of technology that makes fighting simultaneously easier and less risky are grafting those very important questions onto a related, yet different debate, which asks if US strikes (in all forms) are working in Yemen.

This, I think, leads us to a second piece of shorthand that often muddies the debate more than it illuminates.  And that is talking about drone strikes and recruitment (I have been as guilty of this as anyone else, probably more so).  It seems to me that when people talk about drone strikes (actually all US air strikes) driving recruitment for AQAP, what they actually mean are mistaken air strikes that kill civilians.

If drone or air strikes always worked like they did in November 2002 when the US killed Abu Ali al-Harithi and essentially broke the back of al-Qaeda in Yemen at the time few of those concerned with the question of - are they working in Yemen? - would have a problem.

But drone strikes and air strikes aren't perfect weapons, as the US' track record over the past two-and-a-half years shows.  It isn't the drone strikes as such, it is the civilian deaths that result from these strikes that are driving recruitment.  (Again, this isn't the only driver, but it is a major one.)

 

 

Drones and Dangerous Shorthand

Newsletter: Share: