Studi Strategici ed Intelligence… for dummies

Pro e contro nell’uso dei droni

Published by Silendo on Giugno 27, 2014

Cari amici, vi avviso: ho un bel po’ di documentini da smaltire. Una pila di report accumulatisi in queste ultime settimane e che non ho avuto il tempo di leggere.
Ho deciso quindi di iniziare dalla fine, dall’ultimo che mi è capitato sulla scrivania (perchè dire che un documento “capita sulla scrivania” fa tanto di boss a capo di un team di analisi, no? 🙂 ). Si tratta delle conclusioni frutto dell’attività annuale di un gruppo di studio sui droni organizzato dallo Stimson Center.
Veramente un bel report, molto dettagliato peraltro, nell’ambito del quale la task force, valutando l’esperienza americana, arriva ad alcune importanti conclusioni formulando precise raccomandazioni rivolte al governo statunitense.
In estrema sintesi, la task force solleva perplessità sull’utilità strategica dei droni affermando che:

 

While tactical strikes may have helped keep the homeland free of major terrorist attacks, existing evidence indicates that both Sunni and Shia Islamic extremist groups have grown in scope, lethality and influence in the broader area of operations in the Middle East, Africa and South Asia. Furthermore, US targeted strikes also create new strategic risks. These include possible erosion of sovereignty norms, blowback and risks of a slippery slope into continual conflict.

Benchè utili da un punto di vista tattico, inoltre, l’uso spregiudicato dei droni nel contrasto al terrorismo qaedista rischia di causare contraccolpi agli Stati Uniti e, soprattutto, di creare un pericoloso precedente che potrebbe ritorcersi contro gli interessi di Washington qualora, fra non molto tempo, anche altre potenze (Cina, Russia?) disporranno di una flotta di UAV da impiegare, secondo un’interpretazione estensiva del diritto internazionale, in scenari operativi:

The US use of lethal UAVs for targeted strikes outside of hot battlefields is likely to be imitated by other states. Such potential future increase in the use of lethal UAV strikes by foreign states may cause or increase instability, and further increase the risk of widening conflicts in regions around the globe. […]
From the perspective of many around the world, the United States currently appears to claim, in effect, the legal right to kill any person it determines is a member of al-Qaida or its associated forces, in any state on Earth, at any time, based on secret criteria and secret evidence, evaluated in a secret process by unknown and largely anonymous individuals — with no public disclosure of which organizations are considered “associated forces” (or how combatant status is determined or how the United States defines “participation in hostilities”), no means for anyone outside that secret process to raise questions about the criteria or validity of the evidence, and no means for anyone outside that process to identify or remedy mistakes or abuses. US practices set a dangerous precedent that may be seized upon by other states — not all of which are likely to behave as scrupulously as US officials.

Da notare, infine, che tra i consigli che il gruppo di 10 esperti formula all’amministrazione americana c’è quello di far gestire i droni al Pentagono e non alla CIA (se non in casi eccezionali) lasciando che l’Agenzia si occupi solo di raccolta ed analisi informativa.

The Task Force on Us Drone Policy

Posted in: Blog
Tagged:
al qaeda, guerriglia, stati uniti, terrorismo

Chi Sono

Silendo

Un appassionato di relazioni internazionali e studi strategici. In particolar modo di questioni connesse con l'intelligence.
Per contattarmi:
info@silendo.org

Leggi tutto...

Accedi

Tweet di @Silendo_org

Archivio

Categorie

Tags

affari strategici afganistan algeria al qaeda arabia saudita australia cina criminalità organizzata cyber-mf difesa egitto estremismo francia germania gran bretagna guerriglia hamas hezbollah india intelligence iran iraq ISIS israele italia Leadership e classe dirigente libano libia libri medio-oriente minkiate nato nucleare e risorse energetiche pakistan palestina russia sentimenti sicurezza nazionale siria somalia stati uniti strategic foresight studi di intelligence terrorismo turchia

Blogroll

  • Affari Internazionali
  • Agentura
  • American Enterprise Institute
  • ANSSI
  • AOL Defense
  • Arms Control Wonk
  • Asia Centre
  • Asia Times
  • Aspen Institute Italia
  • ASPI
  • Atlantic Council
  • Baker Institute
  • Banca d'Italia
  • BBC
  • Belfer Center
  • Bellingcat
  • Bertelsmann Foundation
  • BESA Center
  • Bibliografia sull'intelligence
  • Bloomberg
  • Bloomberg View
  • Brookings Institution
  • Bruegel
  • Carnegie Endowment
  • Carnegie Middle East Center
  • Carnegie Moscow Center
  • CASD
  • Center for a New American Security
  • Center for Economic Policy Research
  • Center for European Reform
  • Center for Naval Analyses
  • Center for Nonproliferation Studies
  • Centre d'Analyse Stratégique
  • Centro Einaudi
  • Centro Studi Confindustria
  • CEPR
  • CF2R
  • Chatham House
  • China Leadership Monitor
  • CISAC
  • Combating Terrorism Center
  • Comparative Strategy
  • COPASIR
  • Corriere della Sera
  • Council on Foreign Relations
  • CSBA
  • CSFRS
  • CSI – CIA
  • CSIS
  • CSS
  • CSS Strategic Trends Analysis
  • Danger Room
  • DCAF
  • Defence News
  • East online
  • ECFR
  • ECIR
  • Economist
  • Egmont Institute
  • Epistemes
  • EsadeGeo
  • ESPAS
  • EU Institute for Security Studies
  • Eurasianet
  • European Policy Centre
  • Fareed Zakaria
  • FAS
  • FAS – CRS
  • FAS – DNI
  • Fas – Strategic Security Blog
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Affairs
  • Foreign Policy
  • Foreign Policy – National Security
  • FPRI
  • FRS
  • FSI – Stanford
  • Geneva Centre for Security Policy
  • German Council on Foreign Relations
  • German Marshall Fund
  • Global Trends 2030
  • Globalsecurity.org
  • Governo italiano
  • H-Net
  • Harvard International Review
  • HCSS
  • Heritage Foundation
  • Horizon Scanning Centre
  • Horizon Scanning Centre – Toolkit
  • House Armed Services Committee
  • House Committee on Homeland Security
  • House Committee on International Relations
  • House Intelligence Committee
  • HSPI
  • https://sinocism.com/
  • Hudson Institute
  • IAEA
  • IDSA
  • IEA
  • IFRI
  • IHEDN
  • IISS
  • IMF
  • INET
  • Infinity Journal
  • Infoguerre
  • INSS – Israele
  • INSS – USA
  • Institute for Government
  • Intelligence & National Security
  • Intelligence Studies Section
  • IntellNews
  • International Crisis Group
  • International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence
  • International Security
  • International Security Studies
  • IRIS
  • ISIS
  • Istituto Affari Internazionali
  • Istituto Italiano di Studi Strategici
  • Jamestown Foundation
  • JFK School of Government
  • JFQ
  • Joshua Rogin
  • Journal of Military and Strategic Studies
  • Journal of Strategic Security
  • Journal of Strategic Studies
  • Kings of War
  • Lowy Institute
  • LSE IDEAS Blog
  • Macro Polo
  • McKinsey Global Institute
  • Mercator Institute
  • Merlin
  • Military Review
  • Miller Center
  • MIT Center
  • Munich Security Conference
  • National Bureau of Asian Research
  • National Defense Intelligence College
  • National Intelligence Council
  • National Interest Online
  • National Security Archive
  • National Security Journal
  • Naval War College Review
  • NCTC
  • New America Foundation
  • New York Times
  • Newsweek
  • Nixon Center
  • Notre Europe
  • OCSE
  • ODNI
  • On Think Tanks
  • Orbis
  • Oxford Analytica
  • Oxford Intelligence Group
  • Papers – APSA
  • Papers – ISA
  • Parameters
  • Perspectives on Terrorism
  • Peter Bergen
  • Peterson Institute
  • Phillips P. Obrien
  • Proceedings
  • Project 2049
  • Project Syndicate
  • Public Intelligence
  • RAND
  • Real Instituto Elcano
  • Reuters
  • Robert Kaplan
  • RSIS
  • RUSI
  • Secrecy News
  • Security Studies
  • Senate Armed Services Committee
  • Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
  • Senate Committee on Homeland Security
  • Senate Committee on Intelligence
  • Sentinel
  • SGDSN
  • Silicon Continent
  • SIPRI
  • SISR – Intelligence italiana
  • Source&Methods
  • South Asia Analysis Group
  • Spiegel International
  • Stephen Walt
  • Stimson Center
  • Strategic & Defence Studies Centre
  • Strategic Studies Institute
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly
  • Strategika
  • Stratfor
  • Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
  • Terrorism and Political Violence
  • The Back Channel
  • The Diplomat
  • The Interpreter
  • The Overoholt Group
  • The Strategist
  • The Strategy Bridge
  • Time
  • Transatlantic Academy
  • U.S.-China Commission
  • UN Millennium Project
  • Venus in Arms
  • VOX
  • Wall Street Journal
  • War on the Rocks
  • Washington Institute for Near East Policy
  • Washington Post
  • WCFIA – Harvard
  • Wilson International Center
  • World Economic Forum
Locations of visitors to this page
© 2026 SILENDO Design & Dev by Artemida Srl