Drone debates in legal circles focus so exclusively on the legality of strikes (incl where and against whom), that we never see this prior question discussed or answered. Are drone strike assassinations even plausibly good policy?https://twitter.com/charlie_simpson/status/1033754542196908032 …
Also disrupts communications, movement, and recruitment by increasing targeted group's paranoia. How did they find out who and where [recent drone strike victim] was? Good evidence that al Qaeda's operated less efficiently since drone campaign began. 2/x
-
-
So on the question of whether drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill, the answer, at least in the short- to medium-term is no. Long-term, that's an open question. 3/x
-
However, drone strikes (or a broader targeted killing policy using other tools as well) cannot win conflicts on their own. And sometimes, killing a group's leader opens a path for a more effective leader to take their place (that happened with Hezbollah). 4/x
-
So drone strikes can't defeat a group, but they can weaken it. I'd call that a partial success, though devoid of a path to the long-term success that really matters. NatSec types make a crude analogy to mowing the lawn. It'll grow back, but there's still value in mowing. 5/5
-
Also,
@becingber, if you're curious, I followed you on recommendation from Hannah. We went to college together.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.