dagblog - Comments for "A Reformist Strategy to Downsize the Drone Strike Policy "

Some of the drone strikes

Aaron Carine — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:27:32 +0000

In reply to A Reformist Strategy to Downsize the Drone Strike Policy

Some of the drone strikes have been war crimes, but killing Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters is within the laws of war(although I for one think we should have left Afghanistan by now).

Our war on Al Qaeda does seem to have made us safer---they haven't killed another 3,000 and they couldn't even launch an attack to avenge Bin Laden.

I am saying that the drone

Elusive Trope — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:03:22 +0000

In reply to The central argument, right

I am saying that the drone policy was put into place to achieve a particular outcome - an outcome (i.e. killing terrorists) that has general support from the country at the moment. A realistic attempt to reform the policy needs to address how the reforms will increase the likelihood of achieving those outcomes.

The five reforms that are offered do nothing about limiting the secretness-"trust us" facet of the policy. Actually by seeking reform of the type outlined in the article, it provides an implicit affirmation of the policy and its goals. What is needed is merely some tweaks to policy - pay civilian victimes, put the DoD in charge, etc. So my response is provided in that context, as opposed to debating whether the agencies and the president should have the powers they have in the first place.

The central argument, right

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 18:16:35 +0000

In reply to The other conventional wisdom

The central argument, right or wrong, against any reform is that it will make the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future.

If you accept the argument that our drone program, as it is being used, is diminishing the strength of terrorists and thereby makes our country safer from their attacks, then you are a holder of the mindset which allows constant expansion of our military's lethal reach, often in secret and without accountability of its leaders, possible. I think it is a profoundly mistaken view that our drone policies will create any greater peaceful stability anywhere in the world that they are used to enforce secret death panel decisions by our leader, the one who has numerous times by now sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

And this ultimately will put American interests and lives at stake.

It is not clear whether you are saying this last sentence is part of the CIA's argument or that it is your conclusion. Of course the secret, unelected CIA will justify their killing just like the our leaders will and both tell us to just trust them. Obama says this even if his recent actions indicate that he doesn't think we will be able to trust the next elected President to secretly kill secretly convicted people based on secret evidence. The next President will need some established guidelines, he says. What is to keep the next President from saying screw you Obama, you set your limits and I will set mine. We both agree, screw the Constitution.

Politicians, including Obama, are not going to make sweeping changes that open them up to accusations they are weak on terrorists and willing to make the US more vulnerable to attacks.

This is correct, so those people who think the policy is wrong must attempt to change the calculations of the politicians as to what gets a vote. That, or keep our reasons updated on why to vote for the presumed lesser evil again next time around.

The other conventional wisdom

Elusive Trope — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 13:44:14 +0000

In reply to A Reformist Strategy to Downsize the Drone Strike Policy

The other conventional wisdom he fails to mention, but needs to be confronted if one is to effectively reform the policy, is that the drones have been very effective in diminishing the terrorists' strength and leadership. The central argument, right or wrong, against any reform is that it will make the US more vulnerable to terrorist attacks in the future.

For instance, the CIA will argue that it needs to have the ability to strike immediately because the windows of opportunity are usually very small. Having to take the time to move intel over the DoD and go through another chain of command in order to get a strike will result in terrorists getting away. And this ultimately will put American interests and lives at stake.

A reform policy will need an understandable alternative approach that can be explained to the American people. Politicians, including Obama, are not going to make sweeping changes that open them up to accusations they are weak on terrorists and willing to make the US more vulnerable to attacks.

Sixth, Obama is re-elected.

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 04:23:09 +0000

In reply to A Reformist Strategy to Downsize the Drone Strike Policy

Sixth, Obama is re-elected. That's done. That should create more political space. The shadow of the election will no longer be hanging over all deliberations.