Per Laurie's request, we are going to talk about the use of armed drones. (MinnPost Targeted Killings Using Drones?) It is an excellent topic, I once explained to a friend that we have to keep paying hunting license fees (ie aid payments) in Afganistan, Pakistan, etc so they will let us keep hunting their citizens.... It is interesting that Obama is still supporting this policy.
Imagine if Iraq started flying drones over the USA, and then began picking off the folks that are really pissing them off. I assume that idiot church leader who keeps burning the Qurans in Florida would be near the top of their list. And who could blame them...
Then we have Hezbollah sending unarmed drones into Israel's air space, which I really can't imagine being a good idea. Since the Israeli military seems pretty protective and prone to taking retribution...
Of course, we also have to wonder if the NRA would lobby to let us buy one of those armed drones. Just imagine... I could go deer hunting from the warmth of my living room...
Guardian Drone Stocks
National Journal World Has Drones
WP Drone Debate
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The WP blog story was very informative. A question raised at the very end of it tipped my opinion into opposing the use of drone strikes. It seems possible that their use will motivate more new terrorists recruits than what the strikes kill.
I am also glad that I am not the President, who is held at some level responsible if there is another successful terrorist attack. It is easier for me to take the moral high ground, so to speak, when I am not reading intelligence briefings.
So what do others think. I suspect there will be little agreement with my weak opposition.
Would your disagreement be as weak if Bush was the President?
I think my opposition would likely be somewhat stronger if Bush were president. As I recall Bush had a less respectful tone in international relations than Obama. I think I would find the argument that we create more terrorists than we kill more persuasive under a Bush presidency. Also I would be more likely to question Bush's judgement as I view Obama as more intelligent or deliberate.
It is amazing how strongly our views can be biased by our affiliations...
I am pretty sure the locals that have their innocent relatives blown up because they were near a terrorist leader will be pretty indifferent to who was President when it happened. Our how polite they were during their time in office.
In fact, they may appreciate Bush more. At least they knew he was at war with people in their country. Whereas Obama saying nice things while blowing people up may easily be considered showing a lack of integrity and character. Something that angers many more than a violent act.
It seems to me my comment represents a weak bias. Speaking of Bush here is my most interesting news/blog find for today:
George Bush Was No Dummy, But How About if We Leave it at That?
I can agree that Bush has at least average intelligence, he did win the presidential race twice after all. I also agree with Drum's assessment that Bush is impatient and not especially curious. I think that is what I was trying to get at when I described Obama as more deliberate.
Lastly, people impacted by drone strikes likely would not care who is president or how they communicate. I just think Obama has better relations with a variety of foreign leaders. And I new have a slight bias which I think I owned upto.
I was just making a note how people in general tend be easily biased. I was not attempting to pick on you in particular.
Apparently Bush was in about the 95th percentile.
Bush IQ
And it sounds like Obama and him are about equivalent... Presidential IQ's
I was really trying to avoid the subject because my bias between the two presidents is so strong. But I have never sat down to clarify my own thinking on the subject of drone strikes from that perspective. I therefore offer the following: first, I agree with Machiavelli that, in foreign relations, "it is better to be feared than loved." I don't think the world's terrorists respect the United States at all, and under Obama they do not fear us as they should. Bush invaded Afghanistan and kicked butt, while Obama sets a hard timetable for withdrawal and throws a few drone strikes. I think drone strikes, properly used – that is, targeting terrorist leaders outside the battlefield, are a very important tool in the "asymmetrical warfare" that terrorism is. I am sure the US military is much better prepared and willing to kill these evil-doers in a large tank battle, but that is not the way terrorists "fight," if they can be said to fight at all. If we could fire missiles that could not have collateral damage that would be better, but we shouldn't let these terrorists use innocents as a shield any more than necessary.
J. Ewing
The challenge of course is, doesn't this set precedent for other countries arming drones and using them in a foreign country's air space?
I guess the big issue here is do we only operate them in countries where the country's government has sold us a hunting license? (ie their gov't has approved our firing missiles at people within their borders) If they have and we abide by the agreement, then technically their people should be angry at their own government, not the USA. Not that people are always that logical.
I assume that is why we invaded Afganistan in the first place, the Taliban government would not sanction our hunting trips and partner with us to kill the terrorists.
I think the only precedent set is that nations have the right to attack those who attack them. Perhaps Obama was too quick to abandon the term "war on terror," because it is the blanket justification for these drone strikes. Yes, doing it on somebody else's soil should require at least notice, if not permission or outright cooperation. I would rather we be allowed to send in a sniper team to take out just the one guy, but somehow drones seem to be less bothersome to other governments than "invaders."
J.
Post a Comment