Question for drone critics: Would you prefer boots on the ground?
The bewildering array of drone technology available to modern‑day battlefield commanders is certainly a far cry from the cumbersome structure the Austrians used to attack Venice on August 22, 1849 – the earliest recorded use of a UAV in combat. On that occasion, balloons fitted with bombs were directed towards La Serenissima, where they were set on fire by means of an electro-magnetic charge passed through a long copper wire, causing the explosives to fall on the city below.
The balloons proved ineffective as, more often than not, they were caught by a change of wind and blown back over Austrian lines. But had they been successful, the human rights lobby would no doubt have been queuing up to bring Emperor Franz Joseph I before the 19th-century equivalent of the International Criminal Court for war crimes.
In the modern age, though, it seems the drones are at risk of becoming victims of their own success, as human rights campaigners intensify their efforts to limit their use in targeting al-Qaeda terror cells.
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
You know, that’s a pretty good question. For years we keep hearing about how we need to “bring the troops home.”
Guess those Libs who were screaming that slogan weren’t really looking out for the welfare of the troops after all. Huh.
JohnTant on February 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM
This
Schadenfreude on February 8, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Not me. I’d prefer B-52′s and carpet bombing the low life’s back to some previous point in evolution.I’m sort of old school and still think that when you hold a rat killin’ you do your damnedest to kill them all.
MikeA on February 8, 2013 at 4:02 PM
They want the bad men to go away, not be inconvenienced by having to actually see bad things.
.
Same kind of people who think steaks are created in some magical factory.
LincolntheHun on February 8, 2013 at 4:04 PM
I prefer we capture SOME of these guys.
BigGator5 on February 8, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Until Drones start getting used against us. Then what’s next?
portlandon on February 8, 2013 at 4:11 PM
Hmmm what’s that smell? Oh I know: Hypocrisy.
CW on February 8, 2013 at 4:12 PM
No. I also prefer not having the Executive having unilateral authority to determine which American citizens get to live and which get to die.
Oh. And I also prefer not having to respond to brain-dead strawmen presented by imbeciles.
besser tot als rot on February 8, 2013 at 4:14 PM
FIFH.
CW on February 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM
Without the requisite spinal column to torture them – f*ck PC ‘enhanced interrogation’, I mean wring them for intel like Spongebob Squarepants run over by a steamroller – snagging live ones isn’t much use.
MelonCollie on February 8, 2013 at 4:15 PM
If I have to chose between the farcical War on Terror or the Bill or Rights I choose the BOR and due process without any reservations whatsoever.
FloatingRock on February 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM
Because the only alternatives are a kill list of American citizens that must die based on the president’s whim, with no judicial or congressional oversight, and sending in the Marines.
Ted Torgerson on February 8, 2013 at 4:16 PM
In addition to the strawman, the author also relies on the false dilemma fallacy.
besser tot als rot on February 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM
http://washingtonexaminer.com/mark-tapscott-would-lincoln-have-droned-robert-e.-lee/article/2520893?custom_click=rss
Asks a good question, though the answer (implied) is absolutely wrong…as the comments point out. As a statist, war-mongering, chicken hawk neo-con; I really don’t ahve a problem with drone campaigns, up to and including Al-Alawki (sp.).
I do have issue with the PROCESS, not the substance campaigns. I wold prefer signed Presidential Findings based on signed Cabinet-level requests for the termination of certain people.
JFKY on February 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM
The biggest threat to our freedom and liberty isn’t Islamist terrorists or the Chinese, it’s our own fascist ruling class.
FloatingRock on February 8, 2013 at 4:20 PM
To the tune of “Send in the Clowns”
LegendHasIt on February 8, 2013 at 4:21 PM
They are the perfect weapon for our squishy prez. Send in the drones, whack a few bad guys, maybe a handfull of kiddies, never have to see the carnage first hand, call in a tee time for Thursday, have dinner with Beyonce, fly off to Vegas for the weekend.
Obama has no idea what real war is like. His eyes nearly popped out of his head as he watched our Navy Seals take out Osama in real time. That was a tell. Dude probably cries if he gets a splinter.
fogw on February 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM
I love it when you talk sweet.
arnold ziffel on February 8, 2013 at 4:25 PM
They are, a mobile processing factory truck. Cow goes in, steaks come out, it is magical.
Bishop on February 8, 2013 at 4:31 PM
Nope, no need for the bootsies bit.
If you are going to target people then have a public policy and doctrine which you can state, that allows for everyone on said list, by group and individual, to come forward and surrender themselves to civil authorities in a set period of time. After that time expires they can be targeted and if they want to get a civilian trial they can walk in to an Embassy and surrender (or to a US ship, come to that) and get one. Those who join groups that have already attacked the US really should be offered a trial for treason… or that they are targeted by such attacks.
Really, is that so hard to do? Take out the list of groups put out by the State Dept. that are terrorist organizations, plus notorious terrorists and add in anyone who is a US citizen who has joined, aided or given comfort to these groups on the list as well and tell them to stop doing that.
Charge ‘em with Piracy when they surrender themselves, there is plenty of doctrine and cases going back centuries for that… no need for spiffy ‘terrorism’ laws that no one can decipher. I mean the USC Piracy codes are, what, a total of six or seven sentences for five crimes? Cut and dried stuff, that. We’re nice and just hand out life sentences for it… and only 10 years on the aiding and abetting part… your choice, forever or a long time in the pokey, or vaporized. Mind you if you openly committed treason, then you might get something more severe.
No need for bootsies for that deal. And US citizens can even be granted a chance to inflict harm on said groups that have harmed us, up to the amount of damage they have caused to us. Lets people have some incentive when you openly grant them Letters of Reprisal to go after these suckers.
ajacksonian on February 8, 2013 at 4:37 PM
I’d prefer boot to the head.
Christien on February 8, 2013 at 4:47 PM
I tend to agree with you when the war is for a just cause but that is different from the targeted assassination of American citizens without due process. Personally I’m glad that Awlaki(sp?) is dead, based on what I know of him, but my opinion is based on 2nd hand information that I’ve read/heard from various “news” outlets which may or may not be the straight truth. Frankly I’m not very impressed with the American media, and although I believe that Awlaki was a bad guy who deserved what he got, I want a transparent judicial process by which guilt/innocence is fairly ascertained before individual Americans can be assassinated by our corrupt, crony elitist federal government in Washington DC.
FloatingRock on February 8, 2013 at 4:55 PM
Answer for Idiots: YES!
All these people we’re killing know things, killing them wastes that intel.
We’re trying to Win a War, not Maintain an Even Keel.
jaydee_007 on February 8, 2013 at 4:59 PM
My preference is to rid the earth of Islamists. Little puddles or completely vaped, no matter to me. I want them all dead.
Bmore on February 8, 2013 at 5:11 PM
While I think Awlaki ultimately deserved what he got, for all I know my opinion is based on erroneous information bought and paid for by vested interests and fed to me by the state media. Perhaps all Awlaki really was was a business rival in the way of some crony(ies) of the American government. I doubt that that’s the case but I want a transparent process consistent with the Constitution and BOR in place to help safeguard against that happening.
FloatingRock on February 8, 2013 at 5:11 PM
Yes. Because maybe — just maybe — we’d take the committing of our military into combat more seriously than when we can press a button and launch a drone. Maybe — just maybe, mind you — we’d be more judicious in choosing when to put our military in harm’s way. And maybe — just maybe — some of the people on the battlefield would choose to surrender rather than be killed, allowing us the opportunity to extract information from them.
Shump on February 8, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Obama has no idea what real war is like. His eyes nearly popped out of his head as he watched our Navy Seals take out Osama in real time.
fogw on February 8, 2013 at 4:23 PM
But-but-b-b-but I heard obama bin laden took out barack osama with his bare hands or something … did I get lied to?
cableguy615 on February 8, 2013 at 7:20 PM