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 -
Replying to @market4neolib @NGrossman81
Sorry, one request while we're at it. I'm familiar with Bob Pape's work saying that perceived occupations lead to suicide bombers. Do you know of any academic work investigating whether drone strikes are viewed the same way? Drone strikes may be too new to examine, I guess.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @market4neolib
I'm not aware of anyone claiming drone strikes cause suicide bombing, or something similar. Also, I should note that Pape's work is heavily disputed within poli sci circles and I'm quite skeptical of it. Might help explain why others don't try to apply his theory to other things.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @NGrossman81
I'd be willing to read a probing of Pape's work if there's one you like. I found Pape compelling because it jibed with my personal experience. When Americans feel we're being "occupied", some of us also push back. See Timothy McVeigh, the Bundys, etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
There's many options (search on http://scholar.google.com ). Here's one https://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000676/document … Feeling occupied can motivate a terrorist. But Pape's understanding of occupation is way too broad, he selected on the dependent variable, and withdrawing forces rarely stops the attacks
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.