General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen [View all]Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)As pertains to the civilian - we assume it is CIA, although contractor involvement is confirmed at this point - assassination program that we are running; we are left to guess that these decisions are made in good faith. If we concentrate on a specific theater of operations, such as Waziristan, we can certainly say that not all of these decisions are made in good faith. The presence of "double dip" attacks and "signature strikes" exposes this undertaking as anything else than something done in good faith; it is Terrorism - it is perceived this way by the people of Waziristan (who suffer living under the drones as a bold experiment for humanity, and my suspicion is that it is intended that way. Coming from the interviews, I now believe what we are doing in Waziristan is only to a part targeted assassinations; to a larger part, it is a campaign of terror intended to send the message of "behave or be gone" to the general populace. It seems like a concerted effort to socially engineer Waziristan away from social structures that are conducive to Taliban and Al-Qaeda operations by using mass terror.
Overall, I agree with your assessment in the OP, almost on all points. Our military has definitely found a reasonable and responsible way to use these drones - checks and balances and all (sure, they too, make mistakes, but I'd wager to say that the system they came up with is as good as it gets). But what the CIA, and that odd cabal of contractors are playing - who really knows? I have stated my reasons for not believing their assertions. "Double Dip" and "Signature Strike" attacks are the very opposite of "surgical strike in a conflict short of war", as the Mighty Wurlitzer would have us believe.