So what is it exactly? Let's assume it's not just the fact that we are killing al Qaeda affiliates. I opposed the Iraq war. I was fine with Afghanistan. I will leave aside for the moment the group of you that don't think we should be taking military action against al Qaeda at all.
So given that, what is it exactly?
When we send troops into an area it's based on some kind of intelligence about al Qaeda or Taliban activity in that area. Often we may even know the identity of the leader that's there. So in that sense it's every bit as much a "targeted killing" as the drone attacks, right? I'm guessing in almost all cases it's not an American citizen (I personally don't see why that makes a difference if he's fighting with the enemy in a war, but I know that complicates things for some people - so let's just leave that aside too since in most cases it will not be an American citizen).
So it's probably not that we're killing them. It's probably not that we are targeting who we are trying to kill based on intelligence.
So what is it? Collateral damage? I could be wrong, but I'd assume collateral damage is much lower for drones than for boots on the ground. That seems to be one of the key points recommending drones!
Not collateral damage. Not the targeted killing aspect.
The other thing you hear is that because it's all by remote control it doesn't put us at risk so we are more reckless with it.
But this sounds like an absurd argument at best and an offensive one at worst. If what we want is skin in the game, then we don't we bring back the draft and send them into combat in boxer shorts weilding paintball guns? I mean, seriously. Are people being genuine with this one? Is conducting war less safely for our troops really the moral high ground?
I don't get it - on what level are drones not morally superior to normal military operations?
April Fools' Festival: Day XIX: Clifford Asness Smackdown
40 minutes ago