Headlines

Mark Jacobson

Five myths about Obama’s drone war

2.Drone strikes cause inordinate civilian casualties.

Armed drones are some of the most precise weapons used in conflict; we hit what we aim for. But any lethal force results in some civilian casualties, and the use of drones beyond “hot battlefields” means that the civilian-combatant distinction is harder to make.

The New York Times has reported that the Obama administration counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants — an approach that would underreport civilian casualties. But the New America Foundation’s Peter Bergen argues that, since 2008, the civilian casualty rate from drones has declined dramatically and as of last summer was “at or close to zero.”

While many dispute this figure, civilian casualties in drone strikes are clearly fewer than if massive bombs were used instead.

Read the Article

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

5. Obama will be remembered as the drone president.

He’ll just be remembered as a drone…as in droneing on, and on, and on…

Schadenfreude on February 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM

He’ll just be remembered as a drone…as in droneing on, and on, and on…

Schadenfreude on February 9, 2013 at 4:05 PM

And for the drones who made up the 51% who voted for him.

2.Drone strikes cause inordinate civilian casualties.

Let us not pretend that innocent people don’t die in these strikes.
-

Most of his myths aren’t even widely believed.(likely none of them) Where in the frick did he come up with this?

CW on February 9, 2013 at 4:11 PM

#2′s “busting” of the myth depends entirely on ones definition of both “inordinate” and “civilian.” Among the left the definition of both seems to change depending upon who is in office.

29Victor on February 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

#2′s “busting” of the myth depends entirely on ones definition of both “inordinate” and “civilian.” Among the left the definition of both seems to change depending upon who is in office.

29Victor on February 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Which means that they only have a realistic view of them when the President is a Democrat. But, then again, everything is about scoring political points to Democrats.

Count to 10 on February 9, 2013 at 5:18 PM

6. Obama would never used them against American citizens in the USA.

The Rogue Tomato on February 9, 2013 at 5:23 PM

Myth 6:

The media treat Republican And Democratic presidents impartially, on this and all issues.

juliesa on February 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Myth 7: WaPo “readers” are intelligent. To wit, from the comments:

We were attacked on our own soil on 9/11 — that happened because GWB etal were asleep at the wheel.

He than started a pre-emptive unnecessary war in Iraq based on a pack of lies that he propagated.

He cooked the books to pay for that war while telling us he’d pay for it with Iraq-oil.

We lost over 4,000 servicemen and women — ON Iraq soil — and 1000s more on the way out of Iraq — and Johns Hopkins estimated that that little war cost ~100,000 Iraqii lives as collateral damage — mostly women and children.

When Obama took office 4+ years ago, in addition to averting an ECONOMIC NOSE DIVE, he

- he shut down torture
- he beefed up CIA agents
- he established massive counterterrorism efforts
- killed bin Laden
- and eviscerated Al Qaeda by using drones.

He told every American during the Democratic primary that he would go into other countries and take out terrorists to Americans.
Every one laughed — said he was naive.

The hair on the back of my neck stood up when I heard him say it.

What the GOPers hate is that Obama is an actual hawk — not a chickenhawk like Cheney

Much to the chagrin of the Democrats.

Bottom line — we’re safe with Obama.