Should America halt the use of unmanned 'killer' drones? No

09/24/2011 6:49 PM

09/24/2011 6:51 PM

No war can be won by defense alone. There is a reason White House counterterrorism chief John Brennan recently felt confident enough to declare that al-Qaida was "on the ropes." Progress came from taking the offensive. A decade of strenuous effort to disrupt terrorist sanctuaries, take out leaders, pre-empt planning and operations, break up networks, thwart terrorist travel and communications, and disrupt fund-raising and recruiting is paying off.

And, without question, the drone missile strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas have helped put al-Qaida on the defensive.

Successful terrorist attacks on U.S. targets — both at home and overseas — have been on a continual rate of decline since 2005.

The efficacy of drone strikes is unquestionable. As an act of war, such strikes also meet the test of proportionality. That is: they employ a level of force consonant with the goal of the operation; the attacks are not indiscriminate; and the operations take reasonable precautions to safeguard the lives of innocents.

That said, a war plan built principally around playing whack-a-mole with terrorist leaders will likely create more problems than it solves.

That's worrisome, because under President Barack Obama's counterterrorism strategy, that appears to be the path he intends to follow in fighting the Long War.

Without persistent presence and engagement in and around the terrorist's home ground, the United States will lack the real-time actionable intelligence necessary to target terrorists effectively and to suppress insurgencies successfully.

Without that presence and engagement, drone strikes increasingly will become shots in the dark — missing their targets, killing the wrong people and inflaming local animosity.

What's worse, peoples who only see the American presence as a sudden fireball in their neighborhoods will have little incentive or motivation to take sides against terrorists.

Worst of all, Obama's "new and improved" strategy ignores the real problem.

Al-Qaida is not simply another terrorist group. Osama bin Laden's gang trained thousands of mujahidin during the 1990s and spread them throughout the Muslim world for a reason — and it wasn't just to conduct Sept. 11s. Al-Qaida seeks to co-opt or gain control of Islamist groups around the globe. It has been building a global insurgency.

Battling an Islamist insurgency requires more than just more missile strikes. First and foremost, it requires persistent U.S. engagement in the world's trouble spots — not just parachuting in, lobbing a missile at the problem and going home.

U.S. presence may not always mean boots on ground or bucketfuls of foreign aid, but it does mean conducting a range of activities that include economic, political and diplomatic action — and, sometimes, a more muscular military response.

The United States does not have to act as the world's policeman. Even it wanted to, that's too big a job for any one nation. But, it can't safeguard its place in the world by just being a global sniper either.

America has interests around the planet. If it wants to safeguard them and protect the homeland from enemies who roam far from our shores, America must commit all the resources necessary. Drone strikes are a reasonable and efficacious part of what must be done. But they are only a small part.

Carafano is director of the Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation; Web site:


Editor's Choice Videos

Join the Discussion

The Modesto Bee is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Terms of Service