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 …
"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 -
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.