Drone Aircraft: Are There Assassination Implications?
The President is taking a long time deciding how to support the troops in Afghanistan but has little problem killing folks with Drone aircraft. The decision concerning the support of the troops on the ground is a continuing political discussion with decisions nowhere in sight.
In the meantime the increased use of drones to kill the enemy has not received the Presidents attention concerning critical aspects of this activity. The drones were used for surveillance purposes until they became armed with missiles. They now are flown from distant safe locations and used to attack terrorist opponents. A few problems occur from time to time.
While the Drone technology being used is perfected the people killed are not always the target being sought. A quick review of the program makes it seem like a useful way to fight a war. The drone pilot can have breakfast at home with his family drive to work and then sit down to search out and kill the enemy from a safe location thousands of miles away from any retaliatory danger.
I wonder if the Drone control locations have a cafeteria where the pilots take a lunch break. What are the lunch conversations like? What is the dinner conversation at home with the kids after a day of Droning. This is the tough duty that is probably not yet covered in Drone flight school.
The administration does not seem to be addressing the implications that this program can be described as assassination approval by the President. The Drone pilots seem to resemble long range snipers picking off the enemy one by one with a few bystander casualties as frequent collateral damage. In the meantime our troops on the ground seem to be undermanned to do the job required
War is changing. Drone pilots don’t have to land on a heaving carrier deck in adverse conditions. It is like a video game with real death as the score card of the game. The pilot is not in danger but the distant prey faces serious consequences as does any nearby innocent bystanders. Believe me, that I see the attractive nature of fighting without being subjected to personal danger. That’s the easy part to understand, there are issues involved that are not so easy.
I hate to give the President more to think about when he has so much trouble dithering over whether to support the requests of the troops that are in harms way. He has spent a lot of time apologizing for American actions in the past. Who will he apologize to for his current lack of decision on important issues of troop levels, while increasing the use of what may be described as assassination tactics as his principle current strategy for fighting the enemy?
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
It is interesting to me that Bush drew much criticism (justifiably) for not listening to the commanders on the ground and sending more troops to Iraq to do the surge much sooner. Had he sent in enough troops to truly secure cities the results would have been much better much sooner.
Obama has frequently said his goal is to get out of Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. If that were the case, then why have we not acted in Afghanistan already? Why are our casualties in Afghanistan increasing? Our casualty rate is much higher in Afghanistan now than it was in February when Obama would have begun implementing his policies.
Obama’s tactic du jour seems to be apologizing to the Muslim world and appeasment of their leaders. Nothing says, “apology accepted” like a few more IEDs, RPGs, suicide car bombs, and 7.62 x 39 mm ammo. Clearly the Nobel Peace Prize recipient has not found the right tactic. Perhaps he should try listening to the commanders on the ground.