Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[jmm99]

I've stayed in plain sight.

from JTF

Dead insurgents or terrorists who have been blown to bits cannot provide much if any intelligence. You certainly can't ask them any question so there is absoulutely no HUMINT to be gained.

Second. there is every likelihood that these strikes - both kinds - will kill some civilian non-combatants and both combatants and non-combatants heve friends and relatives who are sure to be pissed off. so, the question then is how many more bad guys do you create with each drone strike? Do you kill more than you create? or the reverse? In other words, what are the costs v. the benefits of the program - on both issues?

I have no moral qualms about killing bad guys with drones and even with some of what we euphemistically call collateral damage. But I do think that this tool can be and has been very over used to our detriment.

Agree; except as to this: "... and has been very over used to our detriment." The "jury" is not yet in on that.

As far as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is concerned, the first drone strike was "to our detriment" - as if that "esteemed body" gives a damn.

Regards

Mike

PS to PS: "hail of bullets" - not probable, but I'll admit the possibility (e.g., Ruby Ridge). Almost all FBI arrests of terrs in US have gone off without bullets flying (several hundred cases).

[CWOT]

Thanks for your excellent comments.

I've posted a question on the efficacy of drones, related to this post, if anyone is interested. Here's the link: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/5JGSVMC

Do "Drones Kill al Qaeda" or do "Drones Make al Qaeda"?

http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=977