Should US Dismantle #Occupy Sites With Predator Drones?

Rarely do we realise that it takes only a few months for the world to change in a *radical* way. Not so long ago, the United States, the world’s leading superpower was concerned about radical extremists, now it seems the #1 threat to national security are radical activists — for no longer is it Al Qaeda sleeper-cells that could do the worst possible damage to the United States, now it seems the #Occupy movement seems to have “occupied” that place of distinction.

If it is given deeper consideration, the two threats are not that dissimilar. Both Al-Qaeda and #OccupyWallSt have structural commonalities as disparate networks of discontinuous, yet loosely bound groups acting in some kind of coherence that plays out in the broader scheme of things.

They both are functional at different levels from sleeper-cells, and vacant SoHo lofts in the urban zones, to actual encampments resembling a pre-industrial, tribal type of lifestyle. Not to mention, both operationalize a template form, where chapters can raise their own flag of the movement in complete autonomy from any centralised tactical planning apparatus (if such a body does exist that is). And this is not to mention the most significant factor, for they both resemble the infamous “many-headed hydra”, that is just like how you ‘neutralize’ one Al-Qaeda leader, a dozen more spring up, similarly you #Evict  one occupation, a sleuth of others springs up all over to take its place.

This is a serious issue, whether “occupiers” or “terrorists” as long as they are plotting against the government of the United States, they must be equally regarded as enemy operatives. The US needs a substantive strategy re-think to tackle this emergent threat to the internal stability.

Although at certain points Homeland Security operatives have been deployed at events like protests and marches, so far the dominant US strategy to counter the internal threat of occupiers and occupations is a firm boots on ground strategy. The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, has already claimed that he personally owns the seventh largest army in the world in the form of the NYPD. However, deploying a large militarized police force to quash an occupation site doesn’t seem like the most efficient type of tactic to deploy in such situations.

The Boots-On-Ground Approach

For one, it is nowhere near subtle, occupiers get wind of a large contingent of police personnel in riot gears approaching significantly before the actual operation takes place and they are able to solidify their ranks. Also, in confrontation with more radicalized elements, police officers might get needlessly hurt, insulted, spit on, or bruised, or worse their equipment might get damaged or stained when coming in contact with sweaty grimy occupiers. Furthermore, it is also not a cost-effective mechanism to deploy hundreds of police cars and vans to arrest offenders, these are all unwarranted expenditures especailly in today’s economic climate of austerity.

There needs to be a strategic re-evaluation, but this may not be too far from the homeland.

Predator Drone Firing Hell-Fire Missile To Neutralise Threats

The United States has already developed and perfected a much more efficient technique of silently neutralising enemy operatives from a distance without risking any damage to personell or property. This is the CIA run program to conduct targeted killings in otherwise lawless areas through the deployment of unmanned aerial vehicals (UAVs) or drones. According to the US military this program has proven highly effective in rooting out key operatives, and senior members of the Al-Qaeda network and its terrorist affiliates. Most recently its success has been reported from the mountainous regions of North-West Pakistan where a state-within-a-state is claimed to be in existence.

It isn’t a far stretch of imagination to suggest that the various occupation sites accross the United States are also representative of a whole microcosm of states-within-states (aside from the fact that the United States is a federation of states). Once an occupied site has declared itself “occupied”, it should automatically be considered a state-within-a-state and therefore a rogue non-state actor towards which neither domestic nor international law can apply. Therefore, it would be recomended that the authorities adapt a program that is already in existence in order to quash this meance that is developing within the country itself.

Much more efficient than NYPD or any other policing organisation within the country, a Predator Drone, silently buzzing miles above, invisible to the naked eye, can easily arm and deploy a hell-fire missile to neutralise the radical elements within the occupation site. Through systematic and surgical nature of strikes, the radical elements can be identified and targeted through in-built surveillance technology within the drone aircraft. And all this would be conducted via computerised systems located miles away in upstate New York, Arizona, or Nevada.

Of course, there might be the minor issue of (minor) damage to surrounding buildings and in specific cases unrelated non-occupational civilians might get injured in the operation, however the cost-effectiveness, strategic superiority, and overall efficiency of the drone-attack anti-occupation program in comparison to the boots-on-ground approach far outweighs these minor costs. It is therefore highly recommended that the US aggressively pursue the use of localised, domestically operational Predator Drone aircrafts and adapt them for use against occupation sites within cities and the broader urban periphery including college campuses, and agrarian areas.