As I explain in this article--adapted from my book, "Drones and Terrorism"--we must compare drone strikes to available alternatives.
They disrupt terrorist operations, communication, and recruitment. Downsides too. But not as simple as @ChrisMurphyCT says.https://arcdigital.media/are-drone-strikes-moral-is-the-wrong-question-98e81ae2f343?source=friends_link&sk=fe6c7ed4925e646ec6474abcd4cccfab …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
That's not a fair representation of Murphy's claims. You left out the qualifier "often" and he's saying that secrecy creates enemies, not drone strikes per se.
-
"Often" is a dodge. To evaluate policy, have to judge effort as a whole. No one disputes that better intel/accuracy is better. Less secrecy on drone strikes arguably good for US democracy. But I'm skeptical that more openness would alter how many terrorists such strikes "create."
-
He said secrecy creates "enemies" not terrorists. I don't disagree much with your points, but they're not responsive enough to Murphy's tweet.
-
That's a fair point. I interpreted "enemies" specifically as "terrorists." Enemy is a harsh word--rare to see it refer to, say, non-allied countries growing less supportive. But your broader interpretation isn't unreasonable. Let's chalk this up to nuance deficiencies of Twitter
-
Works for me. It could be that I'm reading into Murphy's tweet my own POV, which would also be a problem.
-
Possible. If his foreign policy ideas gain more traction, he'll explain in greater detail and I'll judge accordingly. I commented because I want to counter the conventional wisdom in some circles that drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill, which he at least implied.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I challenge your 'theory' based on first hand information. My time in Iraq showed that air strikes from any source caused nothing but resentment from native peoples. No explanation, no compassion created mistrust. I am curious in which theater you formulated your opinion.
-
1) "Air strikes from any source" indicates you agree that strikes from drones do not cause a fundamentally different reaction than killing by other means. 2) I definitely do not say they're costless. 3) My focus is on strikes outside of official combat theaters (Pakistan, Yemen).
-
The cost to International relationships utilizing unilateral lethal force inside of sovereign territories is a lose-lose. The physical and emotional damage done is throwing the baby out with the bath water. Any event utilizing a drone could be accomplished with SF and Intel.
-
Not necessarily. SF and intel is high ceiling/low floor. When it goes well, you get the bin Laden raid. When it goes badly, you get Mogadishu 1993.
-
I would propose that Mogadishu was a failure caused by Congressional spending stupidity, not Intel failure. When field teams are empowered and allowed to utilize localized Intel, results are both cleaner and more acceptable to locals.
-
Specifics matter in every case, no doubt. My general point is introducing ground forces creates both higher risk and potentially higher reward than strike from distance. For example: Jan 17 Yemen raid mixed results. 1 US death, 20+ civilians, killed Qaeda fighters, acquired intel
-
From first hand experience, I find the Intel is rarely timely enough to prevent unacceptable civilian casualties from remote vehicle strikes. No explanation can satisfy civilian population when remote strikes fail. Local Intel becomes less reliable with every failure.
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.