WHY ARE WE DRONING ABOUT DRONES?

“No pilots shot down over enemy territory .” That is a good headline – but never seen! “Senior fighters from terrorist groups have been killed.” Also, a good headline. And that is one that we have seen. So, why are we handwringing over the use of drones? I think it is because there is a president that has the courage to use weapons at his disposal and the legislature wants in on it and some that only want to criticize.

The due process of law is not followed, according to some law makers , regarding the use of drones that may kill combatant enemy terrorists who happen to have been born in this country. I cannot remember a time when confronted with an enemy who has a rifle and it is loaded and pointed at you on the battlefield, where the US soldier stopped and said, “Show me your passport and said, you have the right to remain silent. . . . “ That is due process of law as ridiculous as it is. That is the argument, we are killing terrorist that kill innocents, and yes, even American citizens, but we must follow the due process of law. Is the difference here we can’t see the passport from 30,000 feet?

This is a war machine being used in a war risking less lives, on both sides, than if we had a F16 fighter in the air. The drones limit collateral damage, there are much fewer mistaken targets, the strikes are more surgical and more effective. Yes, unfortunately, innocents are getting hurt and killed. It is the innocents that are allowing the terrorist to operate in their territory. It the government of those innocents that creates the atmosphere in which the terrorist operates. So, who takes the responsibility for that?

The War Powers Act supplies enough authority to use weapons that will reduce the enemy, maximize their casualties and reduce our casualties. That is moral to me. If the previous president was in power you would hear a very different tune. Actually, we did! We had a cowboy mentality and everything that was done was done with the attitude, if you are not with us then you are against US! How would he have used this power if he had more drones in his arsenal? I am afraid to think about it.

In every report I have read or heard, it is stated that the President has taken every precaution and legal means to employ these drones. The argument is “what about the next president?” That is an unknown and I think that reflects on the actions of the previous president (and vice president).

I am quite happy to hear – or not hear – about pilots that have not been shot down or crashed their planes. That is one casualty statistic that is quite good. In a war there are casualties that are not relished. That is war and it sucks. But does it suck as bad as a 500 pound bomb doing in a whole neighborhood?

My feeling at this point is Bin Laden is dead. Now “Mission Accomplished.” Time for us to go home and let the people run their own country. If the area becomes a safe haven for terrorists, bring in the drones again. Will the drones eliminate the need for combat pilots, I think not. But you can have more drones on an aircraft carrier than planes. You can bring more firepower and effective fire power with a fleet of drones than a squadron of airplanes. What about the intelligence that the drone brings home – in most cases – in real time?

Let’s look at how many of the critics are running for re-election. Yeh, they are trying to say to their constituency they are for oversight, they stood up to the president and yes, I am for more dead pilots! These guys have so much crap coming out of their mouths, I don’t see how they can continue to speak out of both sides.

I have to ask, why is it immoral? What makes the drone an immoral tool of war? The pilot is quite a distance away from the target, but there is still someone at the controls. Because the person at the controls is not in jeopardy of losing their life it is not a fair fight? It is OK by me! Was it immoral to start using bullets instead of arrows?

Why does the Judicial Branch of government have to be involved with the Executive Branch when carrying out military missions? Then the Legislative Branch wants to have oversight.  This then becomes a cluster @#$#! There has to be rules of engagement. We have the Geneva Convention – however that did not stop the Bush-Cheney torture and rendition program. Where was the outrage and the oversight then?

The drone is a relatively new tool of war and we need to figure out the best way to use it within the rules of war. It is a moral tool – there is no doubt about that. The machine gun fires more bullets than a rifle – where was the outrage when we started using machine guns. The Gatling Gun was used against the American Indian – where was the outrage then? (But he AR15 is OK  in the hands of anyone – is that moral? i.e. Ted Nugent)

My point is that the drone is useful tool of war and it needs to be used within the rules of war. The immorality is when the drone is used beyond those rules. I haven’t seen or heard any evidence of that.

That is my take – you decide!