| USWorld

Larger text Larger text Smaller text Smaller text | Order Photo Reprints

Defense, intelligence experts question U.S. drone policy

Daily Photo Galleries

By The Washington Post
Thursday, June 26, 2014, 8:57 p.m.

WASHINGTON — Targeted drone strikes have become a centerpiece of the Obama administration's counterterrorism policy, but a new report issued by a bipartisan panel of former intelligence and Defense officials has concluded the approach constitutes a “slippery slope” toward a state of never-ending war.

The 81-page report, released by the Stimson Center on Thursday, points to the fact that the Obama administration has yet to conduct any “strategic analysis” on the cost-benefit of continued drone strikes in places such as Yemen and Pakistan.

“A serious counterterrorism strategy needs to consider carefully, and constantly reassess the balance between kinetic action and other counterterrorism tools, and the potential unintended consequences of increased reliance on lethal UAV's,” the report concludes, using the acronym for unmanned aerial vehicles.

The panel included retired Army Gen. John Abizaid, a former commander of U.S. Central Command, and Rosa Brooks, a law professor at Georgetown University, as well as a slew of other former senior military and CIA officials.

While the report is mostly critical of the Obama admiration's drone strategy, it goes on to dispel some of the myths surrounding the use of drones. The report notes that drones are no cheaper than manned aircraft and do not cause the high number of civilian casualties that some have alleged.

“UAV technologies, in fact, enable greater precision in targeting than most other common means of warfare,” the report reads.

Among critics, drones are seen as having severed pilots from actual battlefield conditions, and even some within the military see drone pilots as “glorified video game players.” Yet the report disputes that notion, noting that drone pilots are prone to post-traumatic stress as a result of continuous exposure to their targets and the ability to survey the damage inflicted after strikes.

“They may watch their targets for weeks or even months, seeing them go about the routines of daily life, before one day watching on screen as they are obliterated,” the report says.

The report makes clear that the consequences of widespread drone use can ripple through civilian communities, which must grow accustomed to the steady hum of aircraft above them.

“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,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the former top commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, says in the report.

While the report notes that President Obama acknowledged many of the same concerns cited by the panel in his May 2013 speech at National Defense University, it goes on to suggest that America's drone program requires both added transparency and oversight. Strikes should be assessed to ensure that they “are having a positive effect on U.S. national security and not trading short-term gains for more negative longer-term strategic consequences,” the report says.



Show commenting policy

Most-Read Nation

  1. D.C. charges woman over armed protest
  2. Plan in works to speed up schools’ Internet service
  3. Letters detail thoughts of gunman killed in Florida State University library shootout
  4. U.S. to arm Iraq’s Sunni tribesmen
  5. New nuke carrier will arrive late, incomplete
  6. Hunt on for killer in NYC subway shoving death
  7. Is Obama order on firm legal ground? Probably
  8. Secret Service chief Clancy stresses training, hiring amid security lapses
  9. Report lays out red flags, failures in rearing of shooter at Conn. school
  10. 3-mile buffer suggested for grouse breeding, oil and gas drilling
  11. Locavore movement takes to deer hunting across country
Subscribe today! Click here for our subscription offers.