General Stanley McChrystal cautions against overuse of "hated" drones


#1

Retired general cautions against overuse of “hated” drones - Yahoo! News


#2

McChrystal, who authored the U.S. counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, said use of drones had enabled him to carry out missions with smaller groups of special operations forces because the “eye in the sky” provided backup security.

“What scares me about drone strikes is how they are perceived around the world,” he said in an interview. “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.”

McChrystal said the use of drones exacerbates a “perception of American arrogance that says, ‘Well we can fly where we want, we can shoot where we want, because we can.’”

“American arrogance” can easily be solved: more regular citizens should travel the world, live in another country for some short period, and help others put a face with “American” - one that isn’t seen in hollywood or portrayed by the media that hates what America is.


#3

In addition to what McChrystal says, another danger of becoming too reliant on drones to extinguish terrorists is that just blowing up these clowns DOESN’T DO ANYTHING for securing more information on terrorist plots. Drones have their place and sometimes there are no other options.

But relying too heavily on drones overlooks the need, just as important as wiping an individual out, and perhaps more important, to secure human intelligence on plots . . . which is snatch and grab stuff, a talent that will go by the wayside if we think drones are the panacea.

When a professional exterminator comes to your house, he looks for where the critters nest (analogous to securing information about a terrorist plot from a LIVE terrorist), and THEN exterminates. He just doesn’t go spraying Raid when he sees one. In fact, you can spray Raid every time you see a cockroach (analogous to drone missions against an individual), and as long as their nesting area is secure (analogous to terrorist plots), they can reproduce (analogous to carrying out a plot.)

When possible, keep the terrorists alive and get the information out of them . . . at least before you exterminate them.

Of course, if they’re afforded a Constitutional defense as if they were US citizens (as liberals are proposing), that information is much harder, sometimes impossible, to get out of them.

And before some liberal pops in here and claims I’m suggesting violating their Constitutional rights . . . THEY HAVE NONE!!! THEY ARE ENEMY COMBATANTS, and as such are not entitled to US rights. Their trials and “rights” are appropriately dealt with by a MILITARY COURT, not in some civil venue, like NYC, where they can use the trial as a soapbox for their twisted extremism.


#4

I spent about five months in the foreign nation of California…


#5

[quote=“Fantasy_Chaser, post:4, topic:37760”]
I spent about five months in the foreign nation of California…
[/quote]That would be “The Independent Republic of California”, or maybe better, “The Union of Soviet Socialists of California”, Pete being hostage of course.


#6

I agree with BJ that drones have their limits both politically and militarily.
Unfortunately we are going to have to make MORE use of them. Medicaid & SS are going to squeeze out everything in the discretionary budget over the next decade and that means huge defense cuts. When your budget is limited to 2% of GDP … your only way to project force is through drones. Europe is there already. Remember when they needed OUR air cover to invade LIBYA??? That’s what 1.5% for defense gets ya.
I’ll settle for being hated …as long as our security is maintained.


#7

Whose massive military is threatening us? We don’t need to spend this much to be safe.

Who are we projecting force for? China? Believe me they know our capacities then anyone on this forum.