Who will question our drone policy besides Glenn Greenwald?

Monday, November 14th, 2011 @ 7:41 pm | Barack Obama, War on Terra

A reminder that our drone strikes, generally good at nailing people we think are terrorists, also rack up huge numbers of dead people we know next to nothing about. My position is that a few thousand dead by drone is at least an improvement on a hundred thousand dead by botched invasion ala Iraq, but that both are tragic, and we must soon use the numbers of al Queda we’ve killed as an opportunity to clear out of the Middle East as much as is physically possible.

Glenn Greenwald will say so, I’ll say so, but who else? Obama’s drone strike policies have completely enamored the Beltway and have even managed to wrest praise from Michele “Batshit” Bachman, who surprisingly couldn’t come up with an argument that drone strikes prove how pro-terrorist Obama is. Democrats are understandably proud that President Obama has notched some huge victories against Islamic terrorists and Middle East dictators, notably bin Laden and Gaddhafi, agreed to remove troops from Iraq (hey, Glenn, let’s just remember that Bush signed that deal after Obama won the election promising to end the war…Bush was only reading the writing on the wall, and it’s ridiculous to pretend it would have happened had McCain won or that McCain would have felt bound by any such agreement), and gently handled the Arab Spring revolutions. But it’s important to remember there is no such thing as a clean war that spares the lives of innocents, and that power unchecked will naturally grow deeper and wider in its reach. It seems we’re subject to President Obama’s conscience to choose a better path, but there’s little cause to expect the Nobel Peace Prize winner to do anything significant before his second term. But perhaps he will hear the discontent out there with these drone strikes, note their growing counter-productiveness, and lessen their frequency.

-hw

4 Responses to “Who will question our drone policy besides Glenn Greenwald?”

  1. Dana Says:

    Well, we always could, if you preferred, return to the World War Ii strategy of firebombing whole cities. To destroy rail terminals and ammunition plants, we razed whole cities to the ground, not only destroying the targets and the German and Japanese workers who ran the railways and built the planes, but their wives and sons and daughters and grandparents and dogs and virtually everything but their cockroaches.

    President Obama, and President Bush before him, have tried to wage the war against the Islamists while killing as few of the non-combatants as possible, but that number isn’t zero and never will be zero.

    Or, we could do it your way, and just quit, while the number of Islamist fighters has been significantly reduced, but is not zero. Then, three years or five years from now, when they build themselves back up, and launch another successful attack, why it’ll be all President Perry’s fault, not President Obama’s for quitting before the job we’re over there to do now is done.

    You’ve been in the Pyrite State too long, Mr Whistler; you seem to think that our enemies will treat us with nothing but love and respect if we just leave them alone. That never worked.

  2. Henry Whistler Says:

    I love how many clichés Dana used in such short time. The rhetoric of endless war becomes rote, does it not?

  3. AJKamper Says:

    1) I don’t think our record of killing civilians without drones is much better than our record of doing it with drones. Drones aren’t the problem. War is the problem.

    2) I really doubt that “Islamists” will be a threat to the United States if we stop trying to be a global hegemon. We don’t need “love and respect,” but the only reason we’re on the hit list is because we’re trying to spread The American Way rather than letting people find it for themselves.

    3) I’d much rather focus on homeland defense, not killing them where they live. And Obama is about a dozen times too warlike for my tastes. (Not that this was a secret when he was running, but I’ve become more dovish in the last three years, or at least more isolationist.) Added bonus: Slashes spending too!

  4. Henry Whistler Says:

    Yes. If anything, the continued collateral damage is the only thing guaranteeing renewed attacks on America. But to Dana, if we can’t rest assured that the number of people in the Mideast is zero, we must continue bombing, even if we don’t know who the hell we’re bombing.