IAN Bell's article (“Compelling case for clarity amidst the fog of drone wars”, The Herald, September 9) and correspondence (Letters, September 9) on the morality of the recent drone strikes against British citizens are poignant, as data shows not only are these strikes effectively meaningless, they make the situation worse.

As late adopters of this strategy it is perverse that the UK Government struck just three weeks after the publication of an informed book by Andrew Cockburn, Kill Chain: Drones and The Rise of The High-Tech Assassin. The US has followed a strategy of targeted strikes against named individuals by drone, and by armed raids and military actions led by JSOC (Joint Special Operations Command), eliminating those deemed to be combatants and linchpins in terror cells and the like. The legality is questionable, but shockingly all the data – usually ignored by the military and political upper echelons – highlights those killed are readily replaced, usually very quickly and by a person with similar reactionary views fuelled by a renewed zeal and a desire to prove himself. The net value of these targeted efforts is to make things worse, and that's before one considers any collateral damage, human or otherwise.

It does not take a data scientist or Clausewitz to go far beyond anecdotal evidence to reasonably surmise that in a flexible, organised yet asymmetric army like Islamic State, any leader or key personnel death results in a rapid replacement (battlefield promotion, if you will), continued and / or new campaigns of war and terror, especially when many of these combatants' desire is to actually die. We may scoff at the promise of multiple virgins in paradise, but it's a compelling force for the believer. As tragic as the legal and moral dimensions are with these drone strikes on UK citizens, it's all the worse because, yet again, the UK erodes its moral high ground for extremely questionable results, and ultimately it will be the armed forces and citizens of the UK who may be the ultimate price, not David Cameron or Defence Secretary Michael Fallon.

Kenneth Reid,

6/9 Oxford Terrace, Edinburgh.

THE UK Government has joined the long list of despicable regimes, some friendly others not, when it executed two of its citizens without trial (“Two British jihadis killed by RAF in Syrian drone strike”, The Herald, September 9).

They do seem to be dastardly people but we have not recently executed dastardly people without specifying their crime and trying them. Beside, has not the UK abolished the death sentence?

It has been claimed that they plotted to commit terrorist acts in the UK and that those attacks were imminent. We do not know what acts because it is not in the national interest for us to know. Who decided the national interest and who decided to conceal it? Who recommended the execution and why? Will MPs squeeze out the answers?

It is claimed that opinion from the Attorney General is that the execution was legal. We have not seen this opinion. Why should we both trust it and believe it? Trust and belief in a government’s attorney was damaged irrevocably when the then Attorney General gave Tony Blair assurances that the invasion of Iraq was legal.

The killing without trial can be construed as an act of terror by the UK government. It presumably believes that this act will deter other people. It is quite likely that it will have the opposite effect. Revenge is a powerful emotion.

John Scott Roy,

42 Galloway Avenue, Ayr.

BILL Brown (Letters, September 9) draws comparisons between David Cameron and Sergeant Blackman. Sergeant Blackman shot a wounded Afghan fighter in the chest with a pistol after he had been dragged across a field. Detailed arguments in mitigation were made on his behalf in court, such as the stress and strain of being involved in a vicious war and leading young troops. However, he was sent to prison. I would add, lest we be overly judgmental, that most of us have not been faced with the trying circumstances endured by Sergeant Blackman while serving his country.

I would invite Mr Brown, while sitting in his armchair in Milngavie, to consider this. The Prime Minister is sitting in his seat in Whitehall. His security advisers convey to him their assessment of what is perceived to be a very real threat to the people of the UK, being planned by British jihadis in a part of Syria, war-torn and dysfunctional. It is explained by his military advisers that there is a means, at the disposal of the RAF, to have these particular individuals eliminated. He then asks faced with this information: would it be legal ? He is assured by his top legal adviser, the Attorney General, that it would be. Failure to take action could have serious consequences for the UK in the form of another serious terrorist outrage.

Would Mr Brown, occupying David Cameron’s chair, really have acted any differently? Is he also prepared to condemn the United States for using its forces to eliminate Osama bin Laden in Pakistan a few years ago?

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

WHILE I have every sympathy for the families and friends of the young boys killed in Syria, I cannot help but think of the old children's rhyme: “Paddy on the railroad, picking up stones. Along came an engine and broke Paddy's bones. ‘Oh’ said Paddy, ‘that's not fair.’ ‘Oh’, said the engine, ‘You shouldn't have been there’.”

Margaret Thomson,

Riverside, Torr Road, Bridge of Weir.

AS EU leaders face up to our widespread refugee crisis, I'm sure many Herald readers, like those of Der Spiegel, Le Monde and La Stampa, must have heavy hearts at the turmoil and desperation afflicting so many thousands of lives. And possibly also at David Cameron's billion-pound plan to help peace descend on Syria, and until 2020 air-lift an average of 12 or 13 people a day into the UK from refugee camps on Syria's borders (“Cameron under pressure over refugee figures”, The Herald, September 9).

There are masses of figures. Germany's ready for half a million new citizens a year in future, says its vice-chancellor. Angela Merkel reckons it could be 800,000 this year alone. EU President Jean-Claude Juncker proposes quota sharing of another 120,000 people, who survived perilous boat journeys to Greek and Italian isles. Mr Cameron may think it wise that the UK excluded itself from such a quota arrangement, and also from any responsibility for the 3,500 souls in limbo around Calais. Maybe they should know an all-parties summit here in Scotland has already set up a task force to welcome 1,000 people now, as a starting point. Not because we feel a burden of responsibility. Obviously help is needed now, and as mums, dads and families we feel that need. We can't walk on by.

Jack Newbigging,

13 Heatherstane Bank,

Irvine.

I THINK it is imperative that the United Nations takes a much closer look at President Putin and Russia's involvement in the Syrian refugee crisis.

Russia is hurting under UN sanctions imposed over its illegal actions in The Crimea and Ukraine and, aside from restricting its gas exports, can do little to retaliate against Europe and the West.

Until recently, Russian involvement in the Syrian war was purely as President Assad's only backer and arms dealer of choice - a foothold in a Syria lacking oil was of no interest to Mr Putin.

Now, however, intelligence sources report a greatly increased Russian presence on Syrian soil as air traffic control equipment and "technical" support operatives are moved into the country.

It seems clear that Mr Putin now thinks the fall-out from a continuing Syrian war is a perfect stick with which to beat Europe, and Germany's Angela Merkel in particular, over the UN sanctions.

If, as expected, the three million-plus Syrian refugees in camps in Turkey and Lebanon suddenly mobilise and head towards Germany, should we not question the true motivation behind this new exodus?

Does it suit Mr Putin to sow seeds of foment across Europe? Does a former KGB officer understand the black arts of destabilisation? Does Mr Putin give a damn about a single Syrian refugee when they are just pawns in a larger, more dangerous game?

The fighting in East Ukraine has gone quiet of late, perhaps the Eye of Sauron is looking elsewhere?

John Elder,

14/8, Howden Hall Road, Edinburgh.

IF you actively encourage migrants to settle in your country as Mrs Merkel the German Chancellor has done, you cannot chide other countries for not sharing your enthusiasm. She has referred to other refugee crises into Europe in the past. However, this migration into Europe is unlike any previous refugee emergencies where the people fleeing persecution were mainly of the same culture. I'm thinking particularly of the Huguenots, the Jews, the Poles and the West Indians. Many of the current influx would be better accommodated in the oil-rich Gulf States who have been silent about this crisis.

Despite the efforts of journalist to find persecuted and down-trodden migrants to interview, a large number appear to consist of fit and confident young men who, with their mobile phones and backpacks, are more like students on a gap year. Where are their parents and their sisters?

I'm afraid that I don't share the belief of our politicians that such an unprecedented migration won't change the social equilibrium of the countries where the migrants settle.

Richard McLellan,

4 Stag Park, Lochgilphead, Argyll.