I think the
Washington Post gets the right position on the utility and effectiveness of drones in targeted killing — including their limits. The editorial principally addresses two different things, both raised in John Brennan’s summary statement of the administration’s counterterrorism policy at Harvard Law School a week ago. The first is the question of whether there is a
“legal geography of war,” as I have put it; the administration’s short answer, as is mine and the Post’s, is “no.” The second is the question of whether drones, just as a strategic matter for the US (meaning, looking solely to US interests, rather than a universal moral or welfare-maximizing policy for everyone, all sides and all civilians), have knock-on bad effects that should put a damper on them.
A few days ago I
criticized the eminent columnist David Ignatius and his view that the US is “addicted” to drones. His view is that the “blowback” effects of drone use can easily, and apparently already do, outweigh their utility to the United States, used to the extent we do today and propose to expand into the future — and that is so, he says, even though he concedes that they are indeed more precise and sparing of collateral damage. I criticized that quite sharply — mostly because he then stops short, without telling us what the alternative is, except to launch fewer or no attacks. After all, he doesn’t seem to want to urge that we launch attacks with less precise weaponry. I guess I’d sum up Ignatius’ view — I think this is fair and a characterization he'd agree with, not snark — that he regards drones as
tactically precise, strategically incontinent.
(
Update: Chris got an excellent discussion of this going on his FB page; one of the comments is posted in the comments below, and I'm going to cut and paste the rest into the comments in the next day, in case anyone wants to follow that discussion or join in. Thanks to Mark Shulman and Dan Goldfisher for taking time to respond, and I'll move their comments from FB here in the next day.)