And replace them with Islamic dictatorships? Especially since those countries lack the resources and have requested our assistance.

Send in ground troops? More civilians would die. So would our soldiers.

About every other week, we hear about the new #2 in the Taliban or Al-Quaeda having been 'taken out'. Granted, our government could be lying to us but I don't get the feeling they are.

most recently in Mali, where you may have seen the pictures of destroyed villages. Previously in Grozny, where the aftermath is something you have to see to believe. Previously also in Vietnam, Korea, All over Europe, etc, etc...Not saying I like the idea of drones, but if you admit that there is an actual problem to be addressed, its hard to think out a better way to combat it.

"Smart bombs" from manned airplanes is the other option (such as was done in the Balkan war), but the difference between those and drones is trivial.

on edit - without cheering about anything, I think its valid to say that mourning the hundreds killed as "collateral damage" in Pakistan and Yemen is an improvement over mourning the millions killed in Vietnam (4 million current estimate). Not to mention the millions in the Cambodian campaign and its aftermath, or the millions in the firebombings in Japan, etc, etc. The means isn't the enemy here now, its the lack of an apparent ability to end the war.

when you add the justification for the extra-judicial killing of US citizens it really sends home just how disturbing this truly is.

Just wondering.

Never mind that pilot and his family at home, it's all about ideological purity.

the pilot of the drone is sitting an air conditioned bunker in the Continental US, or in some other very safe location. Otherwise the mission is identical. You find the target, acquire the target, kill the target. (That would be in a combat mission) If it is reconnaissance, you focus your camera and shoot or set video cameras to record.

At this time, the only difference is where the human pilot sits his ass.

One of their advantages is their smaller size, amount of time they can spend over a target, and their relative silence.

I want to know if these people are just opposed to using bombs, the whole war itself, or what?

I think part of it is the word "drone". That seems to set people off and creates a very visceral reaction to what you correctly point out: it's the same mission, only without a pilot on scene.

Some probably reject the idea that it's not an honest way to engage in warfare because the only thing at risk on our side is the drone.

And finally, others have basically said that it will result in wanton killing of Americans in American cities. That's when most of them lose me and I think perhaps is a situation where their imagination is getting the best of them.

I read a very eloquent post about the value of human life last night. The author basically said we should value human life more than we do, and that we should stop the drone war.

That's all well and good. I think all of us here value human life. The problem is, what about those who don't value human life? And what should our response be when they demonstrate that? I'm not sure those who are so outraged over the white paper have taken the time to ponder this.

Unfortunately the world is not black and white. There is nuance, and lots of it.

That is what war is. A chance for the profiteers to show off the killing machines.

"So are drones just a cynical money making ploy by the war profiteering corporations?"
-------------------------------------
I would say yes... the WOT is meant to last FOREVER... to enrich the MIC.

Al Queida good, Al-Queida bad. Our govt gives money and arms to Al Queida and calls them "Freedom FIghters". Then in the next breath, we are told Al Queida is bad and we must give up our basic civil rights for our own good.

Sadly.. I think we are seeing the end of Due Process and Habeas Corpus.

NDAA, the Patriot Act...secret murders condoned by the CIA and Obama.... $40 Billion a month for war while we cut school lunches and heating allowances for seniors.. I can't believe this is happening.. but it is.

I don't think you've done an adequate cost-benefit analysis. The war profiteers would MUCH prefer we go to war in person rather than via drone.

I guess it's my own fault. I did not make myself clear enough.
Manned or not, same thing.

The point is you do not stop terrorism by waging war. War feeds terrorism like a mother feeds its young, and makes it grow and become popular and fashionable.

Terrorism is the army of those who have no army.
The way to stop terrorism is to negotiate with the terrorist as the French did in the 1980's and prevented the famous "Project Bojinka", precursor to September 11th, and also to stop policies that generate terrorists, as killing can only bring on more killing. I am not saying the French are perfect (especially now) but they did stop the about once a week terrorist attacks in Paris in the late 80's.

Obama said: "lasting peace doesn't require perpetual war". The truth is that peace cannot happen as long as there is perpetual war, whatever it is waged with.

Only when so called developed nations abandon dreams of Empire and world domination, and realize that the fate of all humans is linked will terrorism stop. Not by playing whack-a-mole with whatever aircraft or troops.

Presumably some people do. Or they wouldn't be supporting it.

There's a trade off - killing terrorists (no matter the method) has the potential to create more terrorists I suppose, particularly if there is collateral damages. Drones are quite possible more precise than fullscale airplanes helicopters, and there might be less potential for loss of life compared to sending in ground troops. It's a complicated issue - the memo is very problematic, but it's not as simple as all that, either.

Bryant