I think one could make a fair point that drones piloted by third-party contractors for the CIA who are not ostensibly covered by the military chain-of-command raise a question as to the legality of such an arrangement. Essentially, using mercenaries to strike a country that we're allied with. I wouldn't say it's illegal, but it strikes me as a gray area that requires more justification to the public.
Okay, that's fair, however I would point out that the employment of mercenaries while for very good reasons is unpopular. It is not illegal. Not in international law or more importantly under US national law. Maybe it should be and I'm willing to have that conservation. On the flip side, y'all realize that if you want our military to do all the jobs y'all keep sending us out on (Disaster relief, wars, peacekeeping missions, training missions with other nations, garrisoning other nations like Japan, Italy, Germany and S Korea) we either need mercenaries or more troops.
I am in favor of more troops or reducing the missions. A withdrawal from Europe (or at least Spain and Germany and major reductions in Italy and Britain) would be helpful but even then an increase in troop levels is likely needed. We have a bare 13 divisions for ground operations not counting our reserves.
To be honest though, I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish in Pakistan. Until Pakistan itself takes control of its restive border regions, all the drone strikes in the world won't amount to more than a sliver of enemy casualties.
Really?
This is gonna be long then.
What we are trying to accomplish in Pakistan is a multi-tiered thing. One, Al Qeada, an organization I believe everyone can agree is at war with us has based itself in Pakistan. Two the Taliban, another organization at war with us operates in Pakistan. Both these organizations attack our troops in Afghanistan. The Pakistani government for the most part until recently seemed happy to leave them there.
We could not send troops into the area without risking a war with Pakistan. While on one hand, even if Pakistan went nuclear we could still win. Pakistani missiles can't hit the US. It would still cost us heavy causalities and frankly what would do after the war? We can't afford the money and manpower cost of occupying Pakistan on top of Afghanistan and Iraq. Not to mention the sheer level of political and public relation damage such an event would cause.
That meant we couldn't send ground troops into the area, which usually would mean they would have a safe haven from which to retreat to, plan, rearm and attack again. In most battles of this type if one side has a safe haven, they have a huge advantage. We couldn't allow that.
Add in the fact that most of their leadership was concentrated in this emerging safe zone. In other words all we could do was kill low level fighters in Afghanistan and never hit the heart or the brain of the opposing force nor could we advance into the regions where they're getting weapons or a good amount of their recruits from. That is one hell of a handicap.
So our objectives are as follows:
1: Kill enemy leaders and recruiters
2: Remove their sense of safety
3: Prove that they do not have a safe zone
4: Hamper their operations in this area by hurting their mobility and planning abilities
We did however get a steady stream of intelligence as to where these people in the safe zone were. If we could get to them, we could hit at the vital organs (i.e the leadership and the recruiters) of the enemy. So... We went and hit them with the best tool we had. A unmanned flying drone with a pair of hellfire missiles. In effect we are using robot assassins to strike at men who are engaged in armed conflict with the United States.
Is it perfect? No. Innocent people have been mistaken hurt and killed. That's a tragedy and if anyone can figure out how to fight and win a war without this happening, I'm perfectly willing to listen. Has it had successes? Yes. We've hit targets we were aiming for killing men who are trying to kill Americans.
There are also secondary effects. These strikes as they are in many ways beyond the ability of the enemy to stop or block destroy the safety of the area for them. It has been recorded by members of the Taliban and Al Qeada that most of their leaders do not like to move openly for this very reason. That many members dare not move in large groups in the day time. So for the cost of drone flights and missiles we reduce the enemy's mobility, his ability to gather or conduct intense planning sessions. Again worthwhile things to hit.
The day Pakistan takes over the border regions is the day we should stop this. But the Central Government of Pakistan hasn't yet, despite taking forward steps towards that goal. The day someone comes up with a better plan to reach the objectives in question (striking at the two enemy organizations in question without causing a war) is the day we should change our actions as well. No one has really done that yet either.
That seems a little hyperbolic for people who perceive the United States as... less than noble in its foreign policy.
If that was indeed what was going on you would have a point. But that's not the case. These folks are protesting the US being in any war, anywhere, against anyone. At this point it's pretty much the radicals who are left as most are happy with the withdraw in Iraq. Dissatisfaction may rise in Afghanistan but from what I've seen and heard even the majority of the "Progressive" wing of American politics is taking a wait and see response to Obama actions. Which is fair. I'm not asking for blind support, but I am asking for a chance to see if Obama can pull something out here.
These folks have made it clear that they are not happy with anything less then frankly foolish measures and actions. Their protest is not that American Foreign Actions are often less then Noble as you put it (which I'll admit is a fair criticism) but are fueled by the belief that American Foreign Actions are uniformly evil and oppressive. They do this while insisting on gaining the benefit of those actions and demand to be held up as moral paragons while they are in fact shallow, foolish and hypocrites. I have no patience for such shit be it from the right or the left.
