Sen. Murphy is incorrect. "Drone strikes create more enemies than they kill" might make sense in the abstract, but it's not supported by the available evidence. If no longer trying to kill terrorists would make terrorist groups go away, the problem would be simple. But it isn't.https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1044649325849186305 …
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.