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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @NGrossman81
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @market4neolib
"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."
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
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.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @market4neolib
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
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @NGrossman81
Works for me. It could be that I'm reading into Murphy's tweet my own POV, which would also be a problem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
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.
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.