Strong indications have emerged that the Federal Government might enlist the services of international intelligence experts in its bid to arrest the raging Boko Haram insurgence in the country.

SATURDAY PUNCH investigations showed that the FG was considering the engagement of some United States troops, who are grounded in asymmetric warfare to complement the efforts of Nigerian security operatives.

An intelligence source told one of our correspondents on the condition of anonymity that while the FG was exploring several options to deal with Boko Haram’s threat to peace, the security chiefs had not briefed operatives of any such decision to bring in US Marines into the country to assist their Nigerian counterparts.

The source stated, however, that there were verbal discussions in security circles about the likelihood of engaging the US Marines in a concerted bid to combat the Boko Haram onslaught, the deadliest of which saw the killing of more than 200 people last week in Kano.

It was learnt that the leadership of the nation’s security had not circulated any signal in relation to the coming of the US troops.

The source stated, “The issue of the moves being made to bring in US Marines into Nigeria is being discussed in security circles.

“But I can tell you that no document relating to that has been circulated though people have been saying that the government is perfecting moves to engage the services of American troops because of the Boko Haram issue.

“What I’m not sure is whether the American troops will be coming to join us for combat or they are coming to team up with us in the area of intelligence and monitoring; that is, to play a discreet role. Those are two different things.”

On Monday, some prominent personalities from Borno State, who described themselves as Borno Elders and Leaders of Thought, placed an advertorial in a national daily, in which they cautioned the FG on the implication of bringing in US Marines into the country.

They advised the FG against engaging the American troops in the fight against Boko Haram on the premise that the nation did not have any defence pact with any country.

“We’re very much disturbed by newspaper reports echoed by international media houses and corroborated by certain clandestine statements by some highly-placed persons that American soldiers or Marines would be deployed in Nigeria.

“Though we feel that it is false, we hasten to caution that it is very much uncalled for. Since the Vietnam War till date, there has never been anywhere in the world American forces did anything good but destruction…”

The statement was signed by Alhaji Shettima Ali Monguno, a former Minister of Internal affairs, on behalf of 20 top Borno elders.

Some South-West leaders of thought also kicked against the FG’s move to forge a defence pact with the US as a way of ridding the country of the Boko Haram menace.

When our correspondent contacted the Minister of Defence, Dr. Mohammed Bello, on the telephone on Thursday, he said that he was not aware of such a move.

However, Bello said that he would find out if it was true or not.

He stressed that as the minister of defence, he would be aware if foreign troops were to be deployed in Nigeria to combat the Boko Haram insurrection.

“I can tell you categorically that I’m not aware of such a move and I can tell you also that the Nigerian military is not aware too.

“It cannot be true, but give me time to find out. I’m not aware of it because troops would not be mobilised to the country without my knowledge,” Bello said.

Similarly, the Director Defence Information, Col. Mohammed Yerima, said he was not aware of the planned deployment of American troops in Nigeria.

“I’m just hearing this from you. This is a political issue; it is a policy issue, we don’t know anything about it,” Yerima told SATURDAY PUNCH.

“I also read it from that advertorial by the Borno elders and I think that is their opinion.”

Shortly after the devastating attacks on security formations in Kano on Jan 20, the United States Deputy Assistant Secretary, Mr. William Fitzgerald, said in a critical meeting with the National Security Adviser, Gen. Owoye Azazi, and other FG officials that the Boko Haram insurgence had assumed a different dimension.

Fitzgerald said the US government had separated the Niger Delta from the regional security cooperation with the escalation of the Boko Haram activities in the North.

In his address, which was widely reported, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary conveyed the readiness of the US to render assistance to Nigeria to restore peace to the troubled North.

However, he was not specific on what manner the American intervention in the escalating terrorist attacks in the North would take.

“Today marks a new beginning, security issues in the North have taken up a new significance, so we have chosen to split the regional security cooperation and the Niger Delta. The regional security cooperation has its own working group, which will meet today and tomorrow.

“I bring on behalf of the US government, the deepest condolences on the heinous attacks that have taken place during the past few days; first in Kano and then Bauchi State.

“We deplore swiftly the reign of terror that has existed in the North of the country for many months. And we stand with you to work together to find a way to bring peace to the North,” Fitzgerald said.

Meanwhile, investigations showed that the Nigerian Army is undertaking a major troops deployment and movement of equipment in the north-western part of the country in response to the escalating activities of the Boko Haram in the region.

Before the Kano attacks, it was the belief in governmental circles that the security agencies had been able to restrict the activities of the Boko Haram to the North-East.

That perhaps explains the establishment of the Joint Task Force to focus on security maintenance in the North-East, where Boko Haram was believed to have its root and main operation base.

It was learnt that the army authorities had directed the additional deployment of soldiers to secure their barracks and to protect the civil populace from attacks in their areas.

The Director of Army Public Relations, Maj.-Gen. Raphael Isah, told one of our correspondents on Thursday that the army was only involved in some restructuring in some formations to curtail the emerging Boko Haram threat in the area.

He said that the army had a responsibility to complement the efforts of the police and other security agencies if they were overwhelmed.

Isah said, “We’re restructuring our formation around there to cope with the threat. Where more troops and equipment are required, they will be done.

“I won’t tell these boys that this is what we want. When the police and other security agencies have been overwhelmed, you expect the soldiers to complement the efforts of such agencies. That is the meaning of internal security operations.

“What do you expect when our sister agencies were attacked? It is nothing unusual,” he said.



http://www.punchng.com/news/boko-haram-fg-may-engage-us-marines/

Borno council of elders.
The marines are coming for you.

The americans are welcome. We need them more for intelligence gathering and combat strategy. Boko rams can easily be "ambushed" with the right strategy. Akso, with the right intel, the sponsors of the group can easily be fished out and extinguished. We need to turn on the heat.

I'll have the SSS investigate those Mullas or chiefs or whatever they call themselves. They sound mighty suspicious to me.

We don't need de marines,the drones will do

amaham:

We don't need de marines,the drones will do

Nope, it doesn't work like that, it's a package deal, either you take it all, or you get nothing.

@darapture: are there US foot soldiers in somalia fight al-shabaab with de drones parading it's skies?

Quite clearly, our security forces lack that oomph to combat this religious mad crackheads.

All the military hardware they've been stockpiling and training received over the years has come to nowt
Funny how we claim to have one of the strongest armed forces in Africa yet BH seems to be running rings round them.

Now is the time to start set up a Squad in the guile of an Anti-Terrorist unit drilled especially in guerilla warfare,covert operations et al

I laff at how many people here drool over US military landing, It simply shows poor knowledge.

First, US military will only deploy boots on sub Sahara Africa only and if only America security is threatened. They learnt from Somalia and wld never repeat dt mistake. Can someone explain y a US battle group sat offshore Liberia and watched her former colony butcher themselves only to get In an evac high priority individuals only and stay off again until Nigeria got paid to do d dirty job ? Stop day dreaming, all u hav heard do far from america is Jst political talks, if Nigeria falls today, they will persuade Saudi, UAE, Iraq and Brazil to cover up Nigeria's supply deficit and d world goes on while we foolishly keep dieing in millions here. Best is the send down their lates models of CIA drones for field test on our people.

Has US marines defeated Taliban in Afghanistan? They r looking to abandon d war while some people here hope same US military will come and start another forever war here in Africa. Y do u think they will do dt ?

Do u even realize dt d US is cutting down its troops size by 100,000? What does dt tell u? They aren't planning any major deployments in immediate future. They r also closing bases, yet u expect they will come and open shop in Nigeria. I laff. If u can't secure ur country, then keep ur oil, Libya and Angola alone can cover up ur quota.

Lastly, is d US ur father? Must u walk into shackles of colonialism again? When shall we grow up to solve our own problems? Nations r getting independent of bigger nations yet we keep praying and wishing to b able to grovel at feet of almighty America who gives less dn rat arse to us. Something is fundamentally wrong wt Nigerians, honestly.

Let's Sri this fooolish "we Christian south against them Muslim north" thing. It's just too stoooopid to think dat way when we all face same dangers. The earlier we accept dt we hav a common enemy, d better our individual chance of survival. We need to evolve beyond ds selfish and bestial thought level.

Its a welcomed idea, but to be sincere, we dont need U.S foot soldies in Nigeria, it will only escalate the current problem on ground. The hausa/muslim community hate the Americans and so there presence will end up given boko guys more recruits. IMHO, the best should be the use of drones and also to help in gathering of intelligence, then let our soldiers do the combat. Else, 9ja will end up like Afgan.

Wrong move! US marines are not better than Nigerian military (The US marines know this). The only defect in the Nigerian military is that they behave like the society they found themselves, society where corruption is honoured and gallantry is mocked.

Nigerian leaders should engage US leadership, not marines only because the problems we are facing in Nigeria today are caused by bad leadership.

Ohhhhhhhhh?am tired of hearing US will do this US will do that, i want to be seeing US droops deploy to nigerian , we need them before those bastard, BH, wipe out the whole country?

Yes we need US support in terms of training on counter-terrorism and intelligence gathering, eqipment, sattelite imageries. But their soldiers should not touch down on our soil. I also don't support drone operations in Nigeria, before you know it they will start blowing up innocent citizens as they have been doing in pakistan

People calling for US troops seriously need to visit Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia, to see the result of US presence.

homerac!
I doff my cap to u for the sanest and the most intelligent reply to the story,
@ all the sheep, continue to mastu.rbate to the thought of America, galloping to save ur a.rse,
Too bad, it will only happen in ur wet dreams,
ask urself honestly, has the marines landed in Syria yet with over 10k dead and still counting,
Why not get ur head out of America's arse and concentrate on dealing with the issue at hand intelligently, instead of using crude and archaic way of fire for fire, even the so called Americans are presently in a dialogue with the Taliban, because they are getting to realise that force is worse!

I always knew the Hausas migrated from Afghanistan. Its time for them to denounce terrorism or face the drones

Also we need jack bauer even for only one season loan

TO MY OPINION I DONT THINK WE NEED THEM,THEY ARE IN AFGHANISTAN WITH NATO  AND OTHER PRIVATE SECURITIES,YET THE TALIBAN ARE WINNING WITH THEIR CASUALTY FIGURE RISING EVERYDAY.one aljazeera reporter even said,"the taliban are one step ahead while the allies forces are 2 steps backward"THEY WERE DEFEATED IN SOMALIA,THEY LOST IN IRAQ,IN PAKISTAN THE STORY IS THE SAME,ALL THE COUNTRIES MENTION ABOVE ARE NOT AS BIG AS NORTHERN NIGERIA.LET JONAH FIGHT CORRUPTION,CREAT JOBS FOR THE YOUTH SO THAT BOKO HALLAM WILL NOT SEE IDLE YOUTH TO RECRUIT.

Tired of dis BH menace,I dnt suppport d US military invitation although they wld hv wiped out all those barbaric animals BH, infct dt wld hv bn lyk a trainin for d US marines. I stil think SNC is d best, let evry region goes her way dat all,so those BH cn kip killin their fellow almajiris.Stupid BH

All u guys saying the marines will wipe bh out, I think you've all been brainwashed by Hollywood movie industry.
The fact is out there, the marines are not better than our army,
I'm not canvasing for bh, but the truth is that asymmetric warfare cannot be won by brute force alone,
Us involvement in bh insurgency will only make Nigeria a somalia or an Afghanistan, at dat level, the war will no longer be restricted to the north alone, the marines should also bring lots of body bags and you, asking for them, get ready to be part of the collateral damage!

I think Boko haram as the nigeria military as part of it.

Look Nigeria is at war. there is a civil war already in nigeria. And let me explain why there is danger in all of this. And it is important to remove Edo, delta and Yorubas from Nigeria.

You have state in Nigeria producing the same number of military personnal to join the army or airforce or police.

Jonathan Goodluck state of bayelsa produce the same number of personal to the army as Oyo state. can you look at the satellite pictures,  and ask if this is fair to Oyo state.

So do you expect the nigeria army personal who have been cheated to support this. When Oyo state is more than 20 times the population of bayelsa state but the Nigeria law force the people of Oyo state or the western Niger to produce the same number as people they are more than. You are call for for,  Boko haram is childplay to what you will see next in Nigeria. You are going to see revolt in the army. army officer may end up joining the people to force for their right.


I want to say without no fear of any man, not even the fear of nigeria government. it is an unfair system in the nigeria army,  This is what I am fighting for. And I want every God fear person in the army to support me.

take for example the western niger of Nigeria, which consist of 10 state of kwara, kogi, delta, edo,oyo, osun , ekiti, ogun, lagos and oyo.  it has more population than the North niger. You can not classified kwara state  or Kogi state as the north. when there are mostly Yoruba. when Bukola saraki wanted to run for president. Then the north remember who was a northerner. You cant replace Obasanjo with bukola saraki or With an Itsekiri man from delta state with a name like Ayo Orisejafor Omatsola.  or a Tunde akogun from Edo state,  or Yakubu aiyegbeni of Edo  state.   the rest of Nigeria will not agree. They will claim they are Yorubas.

The need to classified where people are from. kwara or kogi state, delta and edo are part of the western Niger. There are only three God given  geopolitical zone in Nigeria.  Which God use the river Niger and benue to create.  Anyone who is creating its own is a bias as unfair person who want injustice to other to continue. It tell you that person is not a fair person and should not be elected into office.


we have had a situation when Yar adua from the North niger rule, Jonathan Goodluck from the eastern Niger is ruling, and we would have problem if After Jonathan Goodluck the western niger is not allowed to take over from him,  the satelllite pictures shows that that western niger is more populated than the North niger.

Another clear example of garbage journalism without any form of research.

If those fools at Punch had done their research well, they shouldve known that the USMC will definitely not be used. Rather, the US government may decide to offer more training in counter-insurgency and counter-terror operations to Nigerian Army, or deploy the Special Forces Operation Detachment Alpha (ODA)/Green Berets, a Tier 2 special Ops unit specifically trained for COIN and CT Ops. The detachment deployed will only serve as military instructor only.

However, I'm sure the CIA and possibly NRO, will provide the FG with intelligence reports

musiwa,,.:

I think Boko haram as the nigeria military as part of it.

Look Nigeria is at war. there is a civil war already in nigeria. And let me explain why there is danger in all of this. And it is important to remove Edo, delta and Yorubas from Nigeria.

You have state in Nigeria producing the same number of military personnal to join the army or airforce or police.

Jonathan Goodluck state of bayelsa produce the same number of personal to the army as Oyo state. can you look at the satellite pictures,  and ask if this is fair to Oyo state.

So do you expect the nigeria army personal who have been cheated to support this. When Oyo state is more than 20 times the population of bayelsa state but the Nigeria law force the people of Oyo state or the western Niger to produce the same number as people they are more than. You are call for for,  Boko haram is childplay to what you will see next in Nigeria. You are going to see revolt in the army. army officer may end up joining the people to force for their right.


I want to say without no fear of any man, not even the fear of nigeria government. it is an unfair system in the nigeria army,  This is what I am fighting for. And I want every God fear person in the army to support me.

am not trying to get into ur hair but why should you remove Edo, Delta and Oyo from Nigeria? If I remember correctly it was only Eastern Nigeria that wanted to opt out of this union, and am sure Edo, Oyo and other ganged up with the BH to forcefully keep them back. Now there is fire on the mountain you want out and to leave those whom made their intend clear long time ago to stay in the sinking ship while you take a walk. In as much as I understand your pain and the point you are trying to make, I think it is good that all that fought to keep this failed nation together are feeling heat. If only you guys had allowed the easterners to quietly walk away am sure whatever union the west and south may have formed then would also have experience what Nigerians are experiencing today. The bottom line is these BH people can not live with other people they are better off by themselves.

the western niger also wanted out of nigeria

musiwa,,.:

the western niger also wanted out of nigeria

If they actually wanted out what was there reason for taking side with the BH guys during the civil war? Maybe there is another side to the whole civil war gist which am not aware of, without any prejudice I would like you to share such info if there is any. Thanks

If this story is true, our leaders are even more stupid than I thought. If Nigeria invites a foreign power to fight an enemy on her territory, we might as well sign away our independence. Are these the same people who go to the UN and warn Western powers against interfering with the "sovereignty and territorial integrity of African countries? Have you ever heard of Israel, surrounded by hostile countries as she is, asking for American troops to come and fight on her behalf? Once you start inviting a man to come and kill a snake in your house, don't be surprised if he starts trying to sleep with your daughter

If we are going to bring US Marines to fight for Nigeria, we should also get the US President to be President of Nigeria.

amaham:

@darapture: are there US foot soldiers in somalia fight al-shabaab with de drones parading it's skies?

Somalia and Djibouti is equally same country with bother separating them and US has military base in Djibouti.

@Homerac7.

I applaud your contribution here. It always amazes me how Nigerians, including very well-educated ones, can show a disconnection with reality that reveals a bastardized mentality even the most comprehensive education cannot reform.

What tough decisions have we demanded to be implemented before we back this madness that will turn our Nation into Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia et al perhaps for a very long time?

Are we uncompromisingly insistent on an SNC so , if we must, all can seperate and those who treasure killing innocent folks can do so within their own borders if others will not challenge them to stop doing so?

Have we demanded the resignation of a C-in-C and the team he has convened that , clearly, are not up to the task?

Have we seriously clamoured for a model of Governance conferring more powers to regions so some, if they wish, and if moderates folks will not stop them, can turn their region into a theatre of religious extremism and mindless butchering of "unbelievers" and "enemies"?

Have we demanded, in a united voice, for fiscal federalism, better resource control and the immediate weakening of the centre in favour of the States and regions so that the political desperation aiding Boko Haram, because of the lust for the loot at the centre, can diminish drastically? Afterall, if the FG is essentially only a supervisor dispensing virtually everything to States and region, The Presidency and other erstwhile desirable federal positions becomes insipid and unappealing.

There is so much more we have not bothered to do , as would be expected of a mature and serious people able to lead for themselves and produce appropriate solutions, yet we are comfortable asking for Military assistance from the USA as if that concept has left many Nations better off.

Even the deployment of drones is controversial because of the argument it should be used in an environment of war , within the confines of regulatory law governing conflict, yet America deploys them otherwise to aid its age-long agenda of crude assasination that , historically, has not spared many African leaders who could perhaps have made a difference today. Drones deployed in Nigeria simply means , as adults, we have derelicted our own duties of self-rule to make the USA the executioners of Nigerians - guilty or innocent. How will the deployment of drones not radicalise even the most moderate Northerner?

I personally don't see things ending well because events recently , and the attendant responses, show that Nigerians are simply not capable of doing what is simple and effective to tackle festering problem that may destroy our Nation. We would rather, like children unaware of the consequence of actions, suggests sledgehammer versus fly approach that will change our nation for good and ensure we can never go back to sanity.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/pakistan/110822/drone-wars-legal-law-pakistan-yemen-al-qaeda

Drone Wars: Is it legal?

They may be cool, they may be scary, but are the drones legal? No one really knows for sure.
Jean MacKenzieOctober 10, 2011 04:40

Few weapons in the modern arsenal excite the popular imagination like drones.

Sleek and deadly, operated at a remove of thousands of miles by faceless technicians, drones are the harbingers of a new type of warfare: technologically sophisticated, surgically precise, and able to take out the enemy with little or no risk to American troops.

But there is also a darker side to the drone image. The glossy new war toys are often portrayed as killer robots that, in a Doomsday scenario straight out of Space Odyssey 2001, may one day go rogue.

In reality, as numerous experts have pointed out, a drone is just a modern-day tool of war. It can be used as a weapons-delivery system, it can provide sustained and minutely targeted surveillance, and it can take out bad guys with astonishing accuracy.

Complete coverage: The Drone Wars
More From Drone Wars In-Depth Series

But the convenience of the drones has prompted an explosion in their use. Drones are no longer deployed solely in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, where the United States military is party to a declared armed conflict. Drones are now being used in Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and, perhaps most controversially, in Pakistan, a nominal U.S. ally in the war on terror.

Legal scholars, diplomats, military experts and activists have all weighed in on the issue, but to date there is little consensus on whether drones are acceptable under international law.

Both sides of the question have ardent champions. Christine Fair, assistant professor at Georgetown University’s Security Studies Program, calls drones “the most successful tool that the United States and Pakistan have to eliminate dangerous militants that threaten the security of both states,” and she derides those who seek to limit their use.

At the opposite end of the spectrum is Mary Ellen O’Connell, a professor at Notre Dame Law School, who told a Congressional hearing in April 2010, that drones were not lawful for use outside of combat zones.

“Restricting drones to the battlefield is the most important single rule governing their use,” she said. “Yet, the United States is failing to follow it more often than not. At the very time we are trying to win hearts and minds to respect the rule of law, we are ourselves failing to respect a very basic rule: remote weapons systems belong on the battlefield.”

Obama's Hidden War: US intensifies drone strikes in Pakistan

But in the war on terror, the globe becomes the battlefield, argue drone enthusiasts.

Not so, say the critics — the United States does not have an unlimited license to kill whomever it wants, wherever it wants.

The question of whose hand is on the joystick is a touchy subject when it comes to determining legality: drones used by the military as an extension of armed conflict are likely to be accepted, while the same system deployed by the CIA to target a specific individual or group raises hackles among many in the sphere of international law.

“There is an important legal distinction here,” said Daniel Rothenberg, executive director of the Center for Law and Global Affairs at Arizona State University. “When the military is operating in a formal theater of conflict, they are guided by the Law of Armed Conflict, with all of it rules and restrictions. They can tell you what laws they follow, even if they sometimes break them. With the CIA, we just do not know — do they engage in legal analysis? What is the process by which they review targeting decisions? What body of law do they see as pertaining to them?”

The CIA has had a “covert” drone program in Pakistan since the administration of George W. Bush, although it is perhaps the worst-kept secret in the agency’s history.

Under President Barack Obama, drone strikes in Pakistan have increased dramatically. According to a London-based organization, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), there is a drone strike in Pakistan every four days.

Related: China's got drones too
   View the Drone Wars: Strike Timeline

The U.S. government portrays the strikes as unalloyed successes, claiming that out of the more than 2,000 people thought to be killed so far, all but 50 were militants.

These figures are hotly disputed, however. According to TBIJ, at least 385 civilians, more than 160 of them children, are among the dead, who total between 2,292 and 2,863, depending on which sources are cited.

The issue of civilian casualties feeds directly into the question of legality. According to the Law of Armed Conflict, two important principles must be observed when making a targeting decision: distinction and proportionality.

“Distinction” requires that attacks be limited to military objectives; “proportionality” prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

According to State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh, a renowned expert in international law, the U.S. drone program is completely legal, under what he refers to as “the Law of 9/11.”

“Let there be no doubt: the Obama Administration is firmly committed to complying with all applicable law, including the laws of war, in all aspects of these ongoing armed conflicts,” said Koh, speaking at the American Society of International Law, on March 25, 2010.

Blog: How many drones does it take to kill a terrorist?

He then delivered what remains the sole justification the administration has given to date for its drone programs across the globe:

“It is the considered view of this Administration … that U.S. targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles, comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war … the United States is in an armed conflict with Al Qaeda, as well as the Taliban and associated forces, in response to the horrific 9/11 attacks, and may use force consistent with its inherent right to self-defense under international law. As a matter of domestic law, Congress authorized the use of all necessary and appropriate force through the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). These domestic and international legal authorities continue to this day.”

He lauds the U.S. targeting practices as “extremely robust” and applauds the technology of drones for allowing ever-greater precision.

Many legal scholars dismissed Koh’s remarks as empty assurances rather than reasoned legal argument, but Rothenberg cautions that the question is complicated, and requires a nuanced response.

“Harold Koh is a giant of international law,” he said. “We cannot just write off his remarks. This is a complex struggle for a legalistic mechanism to justify the drones … the world does not quite know whether it is legal or not. There is no world government, no world court to rule on this issue, no global police force to enforce a decision.”

In the absence of an overarching power, the United States has been able to write its own playbook. This is what Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calls “smart power,” defined as “a blend of principle and pragmatism” that makes “intelligent use of all means at our disposal.”

But not everyone has signed on to the U.S. worldview.

Philip Alston, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, raised the alarm about drones in a report delivered to the General Assembly in May 2010.

“The greater concern with drones is that because they make it easier to kill without risk to a State’s forces, policymakers and commanders will be tempted to interpret the legal limitations on who can be killed, and under what circumstances, too expansively,” he said, decrying what he termed a “Playstation mentality to killing.”

While conceding that the use of drones could be justified in theaters of war, provided the nation deploying the weapons conformed to the laws of armed conflict, he stated flatly that drones could not legally be used outside of that mandate.

“Outside the context of armed conflict, the use of drones for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal,” he said.

“Targeted killing” is the euphemism for a strike aimed at a specific individual; “assassination” is prohibited, and therefore frowned upon. Many of the individuals targeted — Pakistani militant Baitullah Mehsud, for instance, or Al Qaeda leader Ilyas Kashmiri — were killed in Pakistan, a country with which the United States is not at war.

This, then, is the crux of the problem: while, as Koh insists, the United States is in a state of armed conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, it is not at war with Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, or other areas where drones are now being deployed.

Pakistan has at times given tacit consent to the use of drones on its territory. But as popular anger grows over the strikes, the government has grown more reluctant to be seen as supporting the U.S. program, and in April the Pakistani government demanded that the drone strikes be stopped.

Nevertheless, they continue.

The issue of civilian casualties has added fuel to the fire. According to principles of distinction and proportionality, outlined above, drones cannot legally be used if there is a good chance that civilians will suffer unduly.

“With drones, the intention is not Dresden — they are not aimed at punishing civilians,” said Anatol Lieven, professor in the War Studies Department of King’s College London. “They are directed at Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But the majority of militants are living in their own homes or are guests in other people’s houses; any strikes will kill others.”

This already calls the use of drones into question on the grounds of proportionality, say experts. But even more delicate is the question of “distinction” — how does the U.S. identify combatants in a part of the world where its understanding is limited and intelligence is so often faulty?

Time and again, drones have targeted the wrong house, the wrong group, or have caused excessive collateral damage.

On March 17, a drone strike in Datta Khel, Pakistan, killed up to 44 men. While there were Taliban present, the majority of those killed were tribal elders, not militants, according to Pakistani officials.

The timing was also unfortunate, coming as it did just two days after Raymond Davis, a CIA contractor who had been arrested for the killing of two Pakistanis, was released.

“This was seen as highly provocative by the Pakistanis,” Lieven said. “They were convinced that the United States was sending a message: ‘don’t you dare try and put pressure on us.’ It conveys a sense of a military on autopilot, without the slightest idea of the political realities.”

In a region where the United States has a limited window on the intricate mechanisms that shape society, intelligence can often be faulty — the product of malfeasance on the part of informers or simple misunderstanding.

Gareth Porter, an investigative journalist with InterPress Service, released a report in June showing that, of 1,355 suspected Taliban detained in Afghanistan during a 90-day period in 2010, more than 80 percent were later shown to be innocent civilians. He openly questioned whether the data on those killed in night raids and drone strikes was just as flawed.

“The deceptive nature of those statistics, as now revealed by U.S. military data, raises anew the question of whether the statistics released by [Commander of U.S. and NATO Forces General David] Petraeus on killing of alleged Taliban were similarly skewed,” he wrote.

Perhaps more useful than looking at the question of legality, says Lieven, is taking a more pragmatic approach.

“I have looked at drones from the point of view of morality,” he said, “and also of practicality. There is a balance between gains and losses. There have been gains, and they are real, although the reality suggests that the effects are questionable. But the losses are also great — we are alienating the population as a whole.”

I don't think so. This is election year in America.

@ na2day & Gbawe

i thank una jare! its becoming painful to see many people here just furiously type away at their keyboards only to insult common sense at end of day. it has got to an all time low from my observation and i am constantly between anger and laughter at such depth of intelligence. its no wonder we hav GEJ as our president and Patience as first lady, afterall popular opinion as observed here cant justify that we deserve better. every matter to them must end in division, war, willful submission to colonialization, and other very awkward lines of thought. it gets worse when it comes to my kinsmen from SE on ds forum, their opinion on this forum of recent are mostly shameful, selfish and myopic. they forget that what comes around goes around. todat we have a good neighbour as president, so we villify and deride the northerners, what happens when d northerner comes to rule in immediate future? wont our foolishness hav nailed us already? then we start whinning again, isnt it? i'm sure some of them still think that no northerner is electable presently. only true in a foolish mind.