http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/22/us/de … odayspaper
I know you conservatives are rolling your eyes right now, saying you've been arguing this for awhile.
But I'm not going to agree with you in the way you think. The problem with this article is it barely and passingly addresses one of the main problems with drone strikes: civilian casualties.
"Reports of innocent civilians killed by drones — whether real or, as American officials often assert, exaggerated — have shaken the claims of precise targeting. The strikes have become a staple of Qaeda propaganda, cited to support the notion that the United States is at war with Islam. They have been described by convicted terrorists as a motivation for their crimes, including the failed attack on a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and the attempted car bombing of Times Square in 2010." My emphasis
"Mr. Hayden said that through 2008, the "first-order effect of these operations — that a dangerous man is dead" was viewed as so important that other consequences were set aside. But with a diminished terrorist threat, he said, the negative effects of the strikes deserve greater consideration. Among them, he said, were alienating the leadership of countries where the strikes occur; losing intelligence from allies whose laws prohibit support for targeted killings; an eroding political consensus in the United States; and "creating a recruiting poster for Al Qaeda." My emphasis
Where is the mention of the consistent civilian casualties resulting from these strikes? Are they lumped under "alienating the leadership of countries where strikes occur," or "eroding political consensus in the United States"? What about the dead children? The mother who will never see her children again, or the father who will never see his family again?
At the end, Mr. Shane mentions the "Yemeni journalist" who testified before Congress about the blowback caused by drone strikes. Why not use his name? Is he supposed to be only partially relevant background information? His name is Farea al-Muslimi, for those interested. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne … g-20130424
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.