Drone haters scored a few boring asseted inappropriate handwringing points w/ a guest drone hater resident from Yemenlicious drone magnet turf who made everyone cry at the recent Senate conference on How America Is Runing The World With Drones Gone Wild.
Late last year, I was with an American colleague from an international media outlet on a tour of Abyan. Suddenly, locals started to become paranoid. They were moving erratically and frantically pointing toward the sky. Based on their past experience with drone strikes, they told us that the thing hovering above us -- out of sight and making a strange humming noise -- was an American drone. My heart sank. I was helpless. It was the first time that I had earnestly feared for my life, or for an American friend's life in Yemen. I was standing there at the mercy of a drone.LOL!!
What radicals had previously failed to achieve in my village, one drone strike accomplished in an instant: there is now an intense anger and growing hatred of America."
For almost all of the people in Wessab, I'm the only person with any connection to Great Satan. They called and texted me that night with questions I could not answer: Why was Great Satan terrifying them with these drones? Why was Great Satan trying to kill a person with a missile when everyone knows where he is and he could have been easily arrested?"
Now, however, when they think of America they think of the terror they feel from the drones that hover over their heads ready to fire missiles at any time.
Gee, Batman - AQiP did up an old school bomb blast in Yemen"s Cap Cap Capitol city Sana'a in 2012 that was like the scene of the most deadliest suicide bombing ever in Yemen's history (over 100 killed, 200 wounded). Ne"ry a worry bout that, eh?
And while it may be tempting to lol Skippy's expertise on Especial Ops or, uh, unconcur that it"s would be far more humane to launch Ranger Raids, Green Beret strikes or inserting SEAL Teams into the turf to tote off captured creeps - the truth
is the fact that many of those for whom there is reliable evidence of engagement in terrorism-related activities are located in places such as North Waziristan. In other words, these terrorists are in areas where they cannot be captured -- which of course is necessary for them to hauled before an American court -- without imposing very great risks on our troops, invading other countries, and risking considerable collateral damage. Do the critics really mean to suggest that if these suspects cannot be captured, they should be granted a free pass? If not, how do these critics suggest we deal with them?
Some critics worry that relying upon drones will engender significant resentment and potentially aid terrorist recruitment efforts. However, those who are inclined towards terrorism already loathe the United States for a thousand other reasons. Pew surveys show that anti-Americanism thrives in regions where there have been no drone strikes (for example, in Egypt) and, where drones have been active, high levels of anti-Americanism predated their arrival (for instance in Pakistan).
Most important, critics often conflate two distinct issues: Should we kill terrorists that cannot be captured and -- should drones be employed? I contend that once one agrees that kill we must, critics should acknowledge that drones are the much-preferred tool of warfare. Unlike cruise missiles and bombs (which, by the way, when first used faced the same criticism as drones), unpiloted aviation systems allow for long and careful surveillance before a strike. By using drones, one can wait until the children are away from the area, allow both multiple layers of command and lawyers time to review the life feed, and take other measures necessary for minimizing collateral damage.
As true as that may be in theory, the critics reply, in practice the use of drones has been reckless and caused significant collateral damage. However, it is difficult to reach conclusive judgments, as neither critics nor proponents of drones are actually there to observe the effects of drone strikes. Instead, we often have to rely upon reports from locals, who are notoriously unreliable. Contrary to these claims, the military insists that they take all possible precautions, and those on the front lines report that that the review process is rigorous to the point of causing delays that allowing terrorists to escape. Moreover, even if these claims are true, drones at least have the potential of being carefully reviewed; this cannot be stated about other means of warfare.
Finally, critics worry that drones make going to war too easy. Drones are said to represent "the final step in the industrial revolution of war -- a clean factory of slaughter with no physical blood on our hands and none of our own side killed." In response one must ask: Would the people involved in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and now in Africa be better-off if terrorists were killed in "hot" blood -- say, knifed by Special Forces, blood and brain matter splashing in their faces?
Would the world be better off if our troops, in order to reach the terrorists, had to endure improvised explosive devices blowing up their legs and arms and gauntlets of fire from AK-47s and rocket-propelled grenade launchers -- traumatic experiences that turn some of them into psychopath-like killers?
Beyond such considerations, there is so far no evidence that the extensive use of drones has made going to war more likely or its extension more acceptable. Anybody who has followed Great Satan"s withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq despite the recent increase in drone strikes should know better.
"Drone strikes are the face of America to many Yemenis"Excellent!! Maybe Yemeni cats can keep that in mind whenever AQiP treks to their hood to huddle and hang
Great Satan got fangs be- otche
Pic - "Now, we’re lighting these people up all over the place. Every drone strike is an execution."