LITTLE ROCK — The United States has been at war with a shadowy, elusive enemy for more than a decade. It is a war without borders and front lines, fought by an enemy that hides behind civilian populations and in dark corners. The terrorist group al-Qaida carried out an infamous and devastating attack on Sept. 11, 2001, and has been plotting attacks ever since; its members would love to repeat that success. It is only through the vigilance, courage and successful tactics of the men and women in the U.S. armed forces and intelligence services that those plots have been thwarted.
A key weapon in that fight has been the drone, a pilotless craft that can be sent against a very specific target and eliminate it without risk to U.S. forces.The drone again proved its value in this twilight struggle when, earlier this month, a drone strike killed al-Qaida’s No. 2 leader at a house in northern Pakistan. Abu Yahya al-Libi was the sixth top al-Qaida leader killed in Pakistan or Yemen over the past year. That success has devastated the terrorist group and no doubt saved the lives of innocents. It is the best argument for continuing the drone attacks.
But the drone itself has come under attack, and its frequent use by the Obama administration has become controversial. Critics say it is responsible for the deaths of nearby civilians, that it creates more new enemies than it kills and that the attacks are targeted too broadly.
Those criticisms have some validity. There have been too many civiliandeaths. Taking out a terrorist leader and his guards is one thing; targeting the funeral procession for that leader is quite another. While such an attack will kill more supporters of that leader, it is also likely to kill innocent civilians, including children. Aside from the moral implications, that does create new enemies.
Robert Grenier, who headed the CIA’s counterterrorism center from 2004 to 2006, told the British newspaper the Guardian that the attacks are too broadly targeted. He emphasized that the attacks need to be “targeted much more finely” and against specific identified targets who have been monitored and tracked to a place where a strike is feasible. He’s right; identifying all military-age males in a strike zone as militants, as the administration has been accused of doing, is far too broad.
The Obama administration, which has used drones far more extensively than its predecessor, also needs to address issues of rules of engagement and how much the president should be involved in the selection of targets.
But while some changes in policy and more discussion are certainly warranted, the drones remain a most effective and precise weapon-certainly more precise than anything else the U.S. now has at its disposal to target terrorists. Using other weapons would mean even more civilian and U.S. casualties. And doing nothing against a foe as implacable as al-Qaida is not an option.
By all means, have that debate, but until al-Qaida is effectively destroyed, drones remain the best tool in the tool shed.
Editorial, Pages 16 on 06/27/2012