The article makes a valid point, but we use this style of stand off attack too much. We appear to do this because "we have to do something." The author notes this later in the article, but fails to note that we don't have to bomb everything or nothing. We can create a higher bar for stand off strikes, with the idea that we would create less anti-American feeling and still get the targets that actually matter.Ego wrote:Best case for drones I've heard yet.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ver-heard/
When you look at the guys who are executing this, they say, "Well I can't do any of these other things, but I have to get rid of bin Laden and his support network, so I'm gonna go with this." And it was super effective.
Yes, there are new threats coming up, but Bin Laden and that support network are long gone. I would bet the current connections are so loose that they would hardly qualify as a network.
The author also notes that not all strikes are drone strikes. Drones seem to have developed a "magical" tech quality when they are rather simple and are only really effective against 3rd world or rag-tag military groups.