How long before the blowback to U.S. drones begins?
There are no cost-free military solutions. The drone strikes that killed Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, two AQAP leaders, were well worth the effort; the same should be said of more recent attacks. But when does the cost exceed the value? Bodine said that she recently attended a conference at “an undisclosed location” in which this very question provoked furious debate among security officials. The White House, in fact, pushed back against a CIA request to set the same targeting rules in Yemen that it now operates under in Pakistan, where it is permitted to strike militants who pose a threat to U.S. forces whether or not they include a high-value target. So there is skepticism in high places, if not in the CIA or special operations forces. The new “pattern” rules may still be too broad…
The danger, more broadly, is that the United States will fall in love with drones and thus that targeted strikes become the U.S. strategy rather than an element of it. Of course, that raises the question of what that larger strategy should be — not only in Yemen but in the other places where al Qaeda seeks to exploit weak states to gain a territorial foothold. The answer, from most critics, is that the United States must not sacrifice the long term for the short term. Gregory Johnsen, a Yemen expert who blogs at the site Waq al-Waq, argues that the United States must accept “the really difficult work of diplomacy and counter-terrorism.” The no-shortcut answer is capacity-building, democracy promotion, economic development. The only long-term solution to the al Qaeda exploitation of state failure is to cure state failure.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
2 pm January 20, 2013. Why do you ask?
pedestrian on May 12, 2012 at 4:49 PM
Call of Duty: Black Ops II
AbaddonsReign on May 12, 2012 at 4:53 PM
Two more NATO gunshot deaths from uniformed Afghani policemen attacks.
a capella on May 12, 2012 at 4:56 PM
Sounds good to me.
Not saying these can literally replace everything else in the military, but to the limited extent that they can, go for it.
Targeted assassinations, even if done carelessly and recklessly, would still save more lives, on both sides, than most alternatives.
RINO in Name Only on May 12, 2012 at 5:06 PM
I can think of another cure, actually. It involves a lot of al Quaeda corpses, then leaving the states to wallow in their own backwardness until they decide for themselves that they want to join the modern world.
RINO in Name Only on May 12, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Back to the old clean water and green plants approach to world peace I see. Guess they are getting pre-positioned for the January 2013 world when they can once again condemn the use of the military as evil imperialism.
AZfederalist on May 12, 2012 at 5:27 PM
There is literally no limit to glib, but essentially lame, navel-gazing by the clueless class on national security matters. It’s been going one for many years. It’s inexhaustible – no matter that it’s about 98% wrong, and demonstrably so, time after time after time.
Remember how Coalition forces couldn’t communicate during Desert Storm (hey, a whole special hour-long Nightline told me so, in November 1990)? And there are hundreds of examples like this.
That such idiocy as the “no shortcut” blather above does not draw widespread ridicule confirms how dead, and dumbed-down, the public square is on most public policy. The US hasn’t, and never would, rely on only one instrument or tactic. Drone hits and “diplomacy” aren’t alternatives, they’re components of varying weight in a mix that’s always adapting. And they’re not incompatible.
“Diplomacy without arms is like music without instruments.”
The danger in relying on drones is indirect – and it’s a real danger and concerns not only clueless libs but less foolish wingnuts – and that is in not understanding how they are used.
Does anyone ever stop to think how a drone operator knows which hut to hit, at what time, on which day? Or which SUV in the convoy to hit? This unbelievably precise intel is only possible with an extensive on-the-ground presence and broad engagement with the operational area (i.e., lots and lots of human relationships and lots of bribery and some coercion). Of course we penetrate the ISI and that helps – but those penetrations ALSO rely on a regional presence – the ability to reward and punish collaborators, and to demonstrate will to those who wisely only trust the serious and victorious players.
There’s nothing “remote” about drone strikes (in a theater like Afghanistan or Pakistan, populous and extensive). The drone hit is just the final act in a long effort involving almost entirely local, human activities. The kind you can only do on the ground, with ongoing engagement of the enemy, neutrals, and friendlies (which tend to be, uh, rather “fluid” categories in south Asia).
I recall even some the less clueless Beltway people in 1991, after a few weeks of the air campaign in Kuwait, stupidly wondering aloud (and asking me) – “gee, can’t we just bomb from afar?”.
IceCold on May 12, 2012 at 5:29 PM
Drones mean no more jails, judges and juries.
Drones mean never having to say you are sorry.
albill on May 12, 2012 at 5:33 PM
so basically pump trillions of dollars into 7′th century Islamic cesspools in order to placate the population into not sending men with tnt in their underwear to blow up things.
And what happens when we stop giving them trillions of dollars?, the Quran will still be there, this is politically correct flim flam. Drones are effective, no more nation building for a citizenry that considers pedophilia, religious intolerance and slavery acceptable social norms
golembythehudson on May 12, 2012 at 5:50 PM
I’m sure many of you have already answered the headline question, but just to repeat it: the next time we have a Republican President.
Wigglesworth on May 12, 2012 at 6:07 PM
You should never look at the cost of doing the right thing. If it is indeed the right thing to do then do it. If it is not the right thing to do, then don’t do it.
Odysseus on May 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM
..yeppers! I still cannot figure out why our NumNutz POTUS didn’t put a satchel full of Semtex into that drone that vapor-locked over Iran and push the button on it when AfterDinnerJacket and his generals came to visit the carnival booth those towel-heads set it up in.
The War Planner on May 12, 2012 at 7:48 PM
Pakistan is “developed”, that’s not the problem. The problem is ideology. Nazi Germany was a problem because of national socialism, and it was very developed.
Imagine if we had fought the nazis not for unconditional surrender followed by denazification, but instead denied any incompatibility between classical liberalism and nazism.
These people aren’t merely in denial about this ideological war, but they are literally aiding and abetting the enemy by ruining us with aid to those countries that are always a moment away from being completely overrun by the enemy’s ideology.
ebrawer on May 12, 2012 at 7:50 PM
They cost is a factor in whether it’s the right thing.
ebrawer on May 12, 2012 at 7:52 PM