Reading The Pictures: Lara Logan And The Predator

"What if you get it wrong?" Logan asked.

"We don't," Gough replied.

"Ever?" Logan asked.

"That's a tough question," Gough said after a pause. "Yeah. We have the resources to make sure we're right. In battle, in combat, in the fog and friction of war, there are always gonna be times that your judgment isn't with hindsight, you can see things with more clarity."

"But you're not there in the fog and friction of war. You're sitting here in your cockpit in Nevada," Logan remarked.

"And that's what makes us more powerful and have that clarity, because I'm able to distance myself from the fight and use resources that are otherwise unattainable to the combatants," Gough replied.

What better way for 60 Minutes to shill for the military -- in this exclusive, suddenly-declassified look at the all-too-surreal Predator technology (the week after we blew away almost a hundred Afghan children) -- than to soften the reality of hell-from-the-sky by focusing on the lovely Lara Logan from 10,000 feet?

At the same time, however, you could also read these images as the media being used by military PR for target practice.

... If you watch the report, by the way, just remember not to draw any analogies between "doing bad things to bad people" from 7000 miles away and playing video games.

America's New Air Force (video/60 Minutes)

For more visual politics, visit BAGnewsNotes.com (and follow us on Twitter).

Comments

[RobotRockRod]

I want to know the statistics comparing Live Pilots in F16s "Getting it Wrong" and these Predators "Getting it Wrong".

Cuz i really can form a opinion that matters here, Im anti-War because civilians make the vast majority of casualties, ALWAYS no matter what kind of weapon being use on either side(s),.

However if my country is(unfortunately) at War somewhere and they're using a weapon that is increasing civilian death more than before, i'd gladly oppose it.

So i dont understand yet what some people are objecting to, i'd like to know if using F-16s and Gunships for these missions results in less Civilian casualties than using thse "Predators".

[JerryLevy]

If we can go after genocidal terrorists, their supporters, and their infrastructure and not endanger our brave servicemen, who could argue? Well I actually know who could. The same people who have no problem with suicide terrorist attacks on discos, but are furious over the security barrier erected to stop the murder. The people who have no problem with Somali pirates attacking our shipping, but have a big problem with our sinking their attack boats. And people who have no problem with those who would blow up the World Trade Center but really hate wire tapping and "profiling" to ensure against it.

[JimReed]

The more basic problem is after 9/11 we let OBL go because we wanted to continue our WOT, and we used our WOT as an excuse to go after Iraq oil fields. Now people around the world see what we have done and many are fighting back. I guess OBL was pretty smart to attack while we had Crusader Rabbit as our commander in chief, although nobody could be that smart to predict what a total disaster his responses would be.

[JimReed]

"just remember not to draw any analogies between "doing bad things to bad people" from 7000 miles away and playing video games"

How about after some other countries start flying their own pedator killers, and we go to the next step of both sides using their machines in the sky to shoot the other machines in the sky, and no real people get hurt? Then can we draw analogies to playing video games?

[JimReed]

No, the game will not be about machines shooting machines. The game will be about jamming communications.

[iridium53]

Wow. I don't think it is possible for me to disagree with you more.

If you disagree with the objectives of or prosecution of any combat actions within a legally authorized action, then go after the POLITICAL leaders who created this war. Afganistan is rapidly becoming Obama's war. If you don't like the execution of the war, you can go after him. Obama, Bush and others put these individual in harm's way - ostensibly for our collective benefit. If you don't like it then that's the place to complain.

The military personnel are following legal orders. They are delivering ordinance on target in a very precise way. The result is supposed to kill the enemy. Ordinance delived from predators is likely to be more readily available, more timely and more accurate than ordinance delivered by conventional aircraft.

Unless you know of some intentional illegality on their part - then you are way out of line.

If the enemy decides to hide behind children and mix with their non-combatant population, that is their choice - a conscious choice they make to create just this kind of reaction from people like you. The prosecution of this war is a political decision, don't be a hater of the military because they are good at their work.

[JimReed]

That seems like the issues we have been trying to deal with for years here on huffingtonpost. You have a point, but the military doesn't get a free pass. America needs a system of checks and balances. We can't just allow everyone to transfer blame. The soldiers are just following orders. Their leaders won't talk to us because they answer up the chain of command. The president answered to his base of haves and have-mores. He got power by appealing to conservative voters. The rich wanted things tilted so that they could become richer. The conservative voters wanted a chance at rapture. Congress wants what brings the most money to their home state so that they can get reelected. Where does it stop? I don't think we can get the soldiers to stop agreeing to fight wars for greed, so I think our best hope is to somehow help religion to see they only made things worse by selling out to the party of the rich. That should keep huffingtonpost busy for a while longer.

[GEM-592]

You've missed the point, and the fact that you see either report as an attack on military personnel confirms this.

[WinterParkMom]

I watched this report and was left with one question.

If they can have the predator sit out of sight and see insurgents about to attack, why do they not launch the strike before they attack our troops? Everything they showed was after an attack. Can anyone tell me why?

[Lobe9485]

There could be a variety of reasons, but mainly two come to mind.

First, being so high up works both ways: You have a lot of ground to cover, and it seems to me that you can't zoom in everywhere.

Second, ROE (Rules of Engagement) can vary wildly from location to location, and even mission to mission. The authority to fire, and under what conditions you are allowed to engage, would change with it. Also, the assignment of air assets to units on the ground sometimes gives priority to one unit over another. So, a unit being attacked may not have access to an asset nearby, if there is another unit who is deemed to have a greater need for it.

[Citizen54]

We love our wars.

[GEM-592]

It's not my war, it's the corporation's war; the shareholder's war.

[RickCoMatic]

Predator Graduation Ceremony
Location: CLASSIFIED

"Remember, just because you aren't in the cockpit; you're still responsible for mayhem you can bring down on the terrorists."

Later. During the Media Tour.

"There are the Units who are tracking high value targets right now."
'Can they shoot the bad guys?"
"Duh. Like that's totally what this is all about."
"Anybody ever make a mistake?"
"Nope. You can't be a Predator Pilot if you make a mistake."
"Boy. The need to be perfect could drive a guy crazy."
"If any Predator Pilot thinks flying missions is making him crazy he asks to be grounded."
"Do many get grounded?"
"None."
"None? How can that be?"
"Because there's a catch!"
"A catch from the job driving a guy crazy?"
"Yes. Catch-22."

[PiscesPrincess]

declassified look at the all-too-surreal Predator technology (the week after we blew away almost a hundred Afghan children) -- Are you absolutely SURE it was our drone that killed all those Afghans? AbsoLutely Sure? hmmm. take a closer look. you may see some folks with Grenade rocket launchers not too far away.
They even spoke about how they can Tell the folks running away have actually Fired those awful things in the last few minutes.
Try harder, next time you want to be self-righteous and so Sure of your position that you have all the facts first.

[WarSkeptic]

The Afghans civilians say we did
So do the afghan authorities
So do independent organizations like Afghanistan Rights Monitor
and we admit to it. although we claim lower number of deaths then everyone else.

Infact I believe that we are even going to pay about $2000 out to each victim's families

[GEM-592]

Predator isn't perfect, no technology is perfect, is all wars innocents are lost. If the cause was truly just, you wouldn't feel the need to qualify every action, and explain away every contentious situation - but you do, because it isn't.

[pahpah25]

somehow.....sitting in nevada and killing people in afghanistan seems rather cowardly....i hope the guys stay in the military..i'd hate to have the among our civilians....he is having too much fun with his killing machines........

[PiscesPrincess]

would you rather they were right up in the sky above the fight where they could actually be shot down.? think before you talk pahpah25
and he didn't appear to be "having fun" I watched this episode. Those officers appeared to be taking this very very seriously.

[up420oz]

shoot down by what???

Having 20 years in the Air Defence Artilliery, as an AD Tech and 2 tours in the first gulf war, I know about the Threat to maned AC.

THERE IS NO THREAT IN EITHER IRAQ OR A-STAN TO MANNED AC!!

[GEM-592]

Cowardly, but profitable.

[terramartom]

Let's use the drones on Drug dealers in the USA then!

[robert234]

FINALLY! Truth in all its splendor. One real journalist out of----hell I can't even remember.

[Lobe9485]

apduncan1, Michael, and DelmarkGoldFarb, you can say what you wish. The fact is that American soldiers do everything they can to avoid harming the population. There are times when someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time. It is regrettable, but unavoidable. In short, it happens. It is a fact that soldiers deal with daily, so that the good people of our nation don't have to. Demonize it as you wish, but civilians die in war, and there is no way around it.

[martinchill]

"There are times when someone is at the wrong place at the wrong time"

good grief.

[Lobe9485]

*shrug* Like it or not, that's the way it is. You can't control every bullet in a fire fight, you can't control every grenade or rocket, and you cannot prevent every death. These are the facts of war, any war.

[JimReed]

"If you're talking about Iraq, the goal was to remove a homicidal and genocidal dictator, and replace him with a civilian government sympathetic to our cause who would be more useful to our interests in the area."

Lobe9485,
Exactly right. Or to shorten it a bit, we invaded Iraq to steal oil.

[Lobe9485]

We did not go anywhere to "steal" anything, or if we did, we have done a very poor job. Certainly if a free government in Iraq were in place and producing oil it would be beneficial to us, and the world (and the Iraqis, I might add). Why should this be a bad thing? Oil is the basis of our civilization such as it is. Without it we go back to the pre-industrial age. Why should we not act in our own best interest, if doing so also benefits others?

When other nations act in their own interests it is accepted and expected. When America does it, she is reviled and demeaned. The only difference between the US and the more malignant powers of the world is that simply because it serves our interests is not enough. In other words, oil being there (and also the strategic placement of Iraq close to Iran and Israel) is not enough. There had to be more, namely, the liberation of an oppressed people, for us to enter the arena. Had Iraq been a free government of the people, instead of a dictatorship, we never would have entered the fight.

[JimReed]

Lobe9485,
Certainly it is a moral dilemma for our nation, when is is appropriate to steal? I think it was not so much a poor job as it was the politics overran the situation. We built the green zone, the strongest fort in history, to stabalize the oil fields for 40 years. Then it became apparent they couldn't maintain power here, and the next administration was going to leave, so plans started to change. Having a hated dictator there certainly worked to our advantage to help justify it. They were the oil rich nation that we could most likely get away with attacking, and then Afganistan put us in the region anyway. The war was not so much to help America as it was to help those who would profit from the oil industry. In a world without these wars Iraq was supplying oil to the world market and that was doing their part to help America keep a stable supply of oil.

I see your point about other nations acting in their own interests and it is accepted, but America is reviled. Since we are a moral nation, that is probably the way it should be. Now we have created a situation where our moral authority (Christianity) is involved in supporting war for greed and torture, and they seem to have no idea how to atone for what they have done.

[JimReed]

"A peaceful, democratic Iraq was in our best interests, in the Iraqi's best interests, and the region's best interests"

Lobe9485,
We started a war and risked destablizing the region. The war was not in the best interests of America, but we risked it because the potential upside for profits to the global oil industry was so huge, and the war could be fought by American soldiers and funded by American taxpayers. Those who decided to start the war are no longer in power, so everything is starting to look different. If we were actually concerned about Radical islamists known to be in the region who would love a chance to disrupt our oil supply we never would have started these wars in the first place. That is because when we start a war, the other side tends to fight back.

[JimReed]

"When it comes to radical Islam, we did not start that war"

We started the war in Iraq. After 9/11 we had Bin Laden pinned down, but we let him go. Capturing or killing him might have prematurely ended the WOT, and our real intention was to attack Iraq. We couldn't have done that so easily if we already had captured OBL. We created most of our enemies.

[JimReed]

The CIA had oBL pinned down at Tora Bora, and then Rumsfeld decided to hold up for months to move his army into the region. We can now see the real goal was not OBL, but rather the oil fields in Iraq.

"Death to Israel, Death to the West, Death to America. You cannot negotiate with that."

I think you can. When we start wars, people on the other side will say things like that. The war will not go on until one side or the other is annihilated. When we start to have some respect for the other side and stop trying to take what is theirs, the tension can reduce and the hard liners will have less power. The world wants peace, but it can't be a peace built around rich globalists gaining more control and becoming richer. It has to be a peace that lets the other side prosper, especially when it is their resources we are talking about.

[Lobe9485]

Michael, this may be news to you, but here goes: In war, people die.

Shocking, I know. The fact is that that is what war is all about. Killing people and destroying things, in order to achieve whatever your goal. Ideally all those who die and all the things that get broken will be, or belong to, the enemy. Unfortunately, things never go that smoothly. Thus, you have collateral damage. Even if the soldier does everything right, his intelligence could be wrong. A bullet goes astray. The enemy blows himself up, killing those around them. These things happen.

That is not to make it less distasteful. Indeed, it is important that we remember that collateral damage is the death on an innocent. The US military knows this, gets it better than any other in the world. That is why they have spent billions of dollars developing weaponry and tactics that avoid civilian casualty, often to the detriment of our combat effectiveness. This goes from the high-tech, high cost end of using guided missiles that cost much more than conventional weaponry, to the soldier on the ground not being able to use his most casualty producing weapon (for instance, the M2 .50 cal machine gun) because of the high penetration power of the round.

[martinchill]

"The fact is that that is what war is all about. Killing people and destroying things, in order to achieve whatever your goal."

THERE IT IS.

so what's the goal?

[Lobe9485]

If you're talking about Iraq, the goal was to remove a homicidal and genocidal dictator, and replace him with a civilian government sympathetic to our cause who would be more useful to our interests in the area.

What I'm commenting on though isn't truly the war, but warfare in general. It seems that Michael's comments above, and many others who rail against collateral damage, are railing against just that: Collateral damage. We can debate whether a war is justified or not all day. To demonize our soldiers, or to somehow suggest our military is doing anything less than its utmost to prevent said damage, it categorically false.

[iblogleft]

Lobe, first, you would have to remember what War is.

This is not War.

[Paul Sheridan]

Go on....

[Lobe9485]

I suppose, if you must be technical, this would be a resistance or insurgency, since the actual military of Iraq was defeated in weeks. It is a bit misleading, though, because those terms tend to imply that it would be the actual Iraqis who we were fighting. Truthfully, we fight Jordanians, Iranians, Czechs, and every other manner of nationality, as much as any Iraqis. The actual people of Iraq are fairly tolerant of our presence, and are grateful, though understandably anxious to get back on their own feet.

In any case, the same rules apply. Substitute "violent conflict" with "war", and it comes to much the same thing.

[Paul Sheridan]

Civilian casualties will always be impossible to eliminate when fighting an enemy who hides among the civilian population. If we attack then there will be tragic mistakes and if we don't then the enemy knows that using civilians as shields is an effective tactic. The Predator strikes are the most effective weapon we have for targeting Taliban and AQ leadership especially inside Pakistan where ground troops can't be used. 10 years ago our best weapon would have been a comparatively clumsy cruise missile or conventional air strike, we wouldn't know whether the person we were targetting was even at the location. 30 years ago it would have been an artillery barrage that would flatten the entire village. The US military of today tries harder than any armed force in human history to minimize civilian casualties, they don't get enough credit for their successes.

[apduncan1]

Ahem ... who invited us there?

[Paul Sheridan]

The Northern Alliance, Hamid Karzai, anyone in Afghanistan who was tired of living under Taliban rule; take your pick. Generally, in warfare your enemy is not going to invite you to invade his territory.

[robadeaux]

apologists for war mongering and war profiteering. The innocent dead fall on your shoulders also.
Chcken Hawks or just fools?

[shadowgm]

Her name is LARA Logan.

It is neither pronounced nor spelled like LAURA.

(I had a coworker named Lara, and it bothered her no end that 99% of the people here couldn't pronounce her name right. I explained, "It's LARA. Like Superman's mom.")