
Obama’s drone war is a shameful part of his legacy - okket
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamas-drone-war-is-a-shameful-part-of-his-legacy/2016/05/05/a727eea8-12ea-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html
======
pnut
I totally disagree.

Drones are the most precise tool (limiting collateral damage) in the history
of war.

Do you seriously think that if drones didn't exist, they wouldn't be
conducting air raids or sending in legions of troops to do the wetworks?

The US had an obligation to get out in front of the rest of the world, and set
some de-facto and de jure international standards for how drones should be
used in a military capacity.

There are legal memoranda and strict procedures being followed. Nobody is
unaccountable - to the contrary, the consequences are more visible and
individually attributable for accidents during war now, than ever before.

I heard a quote one time, to the effect of "If you told the average US citizen
during Vietnam era, that the President of the United States personally signs
off on individual military raids after verifying intelligence data, during the
prosecution of a war, they would think we now live in a liberal utopia."

~~~
DominikD
And you're totally missing the point. Drones are as precise as intel they're
dispatched on. And this intel has nothing to do with thorough work, it's
mostly based on signal, with no real reconnaissance whatsoever. There's a
village with a phone that's related to a person related to some shady group?
Send drones!

Your argument is like saying "sniper rifles are awesome, would you rather use
grenades to dispatch bad guys?" Of course not. But sniping everyone wearing a
tie at a banquet just because you know your target has a tie isn't at all
better than setting up explosives to the building.

------
Amorymeltzer
A friend of mine frequently says that he appreciates the fact that Obama got
into office, assessed the situation, and made these decisions once having all
the information the office has provided. I don't buy that entirely, as I think
that the years spent in Iraq combined with our newfound ability to actually
make drone strikes feasible meant that 2008-onward was always going to see a
dramatic increase in drone usage rather than troops. I will admit to having
said that, if this program was going to happen, I'd rather a cerebral
Constitutional lawyer be the one calling the shots than anyone else, but
that's certainly not a justification and I'm certainly less confident in
saying so.

It is worth noting that one year ago, the Post's Editorial Board[1] wrote that
"Drone strikes are bad; no drone strikes would be worse" and that "What
shouldn’t be up for review is whether drone attacks will continue to be a
weapon in the U.S. counterterrorism arsenal... [T]here is little question that
drones are the least costly means of eliminating militants whose first aim is
to kill Americans."

1: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-continuing-
value...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-continuing-value-of-
drones/2015/05/01/5938eaac-ecf9-11e4-a55f-38924fca94f9_story.html)

~~~
goalieca
"No drone strikes would be worse"

Well, that's the assumption isn't it. Can anyone validate that assumption?

------
okket
"Then there are the legal and constitutional questions. The leaked documents
show the disturbing ease with which an innocent civilian — American or not —
can be added to the U.S. government’s main terrorist database, such as on the
basis of a single “uncorroborated” Facebook or Twitter post. In a 2014 court
filing, the government admitted that 469,000 people had been nominated in 2013
for inclusion in an additional government database of “known or suspected
terrorists.” Only 4,900 were rejected. Presumption of innocence this is not.
And although Osama bin Laden’s name was in a terrorist database long before he
was killed, so too was the name Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — innocent, 16 years
old, an American citizen and killed by a U.S. drone strike."

------
omonra
The article is long on opinion and short on data. I appreciate that's why it's
in the opinion and not news section - and that the actual #s are hard to come
by.

For me to have an educated view on the matter (as opposed to just climbing on
top of a moral soapbox that violence is bad), I have to know how many people
were killed, how many we _meant_ to kill (under what criteria) and how many
were killed by mistake / as collateral damage. For a sane observer to conclude
that drone war is 'shameful', one has to have these numbers. Otherwise you can
might as well consider WW2 and say 'We killed millions of Germans - how
shameful of us!'

The numbers cited in the article are nonsense - what is the relation between
the 'easy to get on' terrorist list and people targeted for drone strikes?

~~~
bediger4000
* I have to know how many people were killed, how many we meant to kill (under what criteria) and how many were killed by mistake / as collateral damage. For a sane observer to conclude that drone war is 'shameful', one has to have these numbers.*

Isn't that at least part of the issue? US citizens vaguely know that drone
strikes take place, against people designated as "terrorists". But we know
darned little else. It's all classified for various reasons.

I agree with your point, but I believe that is a side issue. First, the US
government has to do some major disclosure. Otherwise they're effectively
acting without any restraint or debate or consent.

~~~
omonra
But did we have this information during _any_ war? Ie that seems to be the
standard MO for any theater of war.

We as a society just write a massive benefit of the doubt check to the
military and hope for the best.

------
alistproducer2
We should be ashamed that this goes on in our names.

