...BUT DRONE STRIKES
October 21, 2016 7:20 AM Subscribe
A lot of Hillary Clinton backlash I see from more left wing/radical friends is "FUNNY to see Clinton/Obama talk about how they stand up for children and women but then turn around and DRONE STRIKE SYRIAN FAMILIES." Has there been anything written to counter this critique from the left, or meditating on Obama/Clinton drone politics, or reconciling with drone policy on the democrat side?
The whole idea of "you can't claim to care about people in general if you are drone striking them, therefore you are full of shit to claim you stand for women/children/families because you don't stand for them in other countries" is probably the most common critique I see from more radical anti-dem anti-establishment types.
I am looking for articles or blog posts or opinion pieces or essays or twitter storifys that address this specific critique. Not necessarily "in defense of drone programs," more "in defense of left-wing candidates who happen authorize drone strikes that murder civilians" or "how to reconcile with progressive politicians who happen to authorize drone strikes as a progressive-leaning person" from a moral or philosophical standpoint.
It's a specific ask, but surely things have been written addressing this?
The whole idea of "you can't claim to care about people in general if you are drone striking them, therefore you are full of shit to claim you stand for women/children/families because you don't stand for them in other countries" is probably the most common critique I see from more radical anti-dem anti-establishment types.
I am looking for articles or blog posts or opinion pieces or essays or twitter storifys that address this specific critique. Not necessarily "in defense of drone programs," more "in defense of left-wing candidates who happen authorize drone strikes that murder civilians" or "how to reconcile with progressive politicians who happen to authorize drone strikes as a progressive-leaning person" from a moral or philosophical standpoint.
It's a specific ask, but surely things have been written addressing this?
Response by poster: I just want to be clear - I'm looking for articles or pieces of writing around the net that address the drone strike critiques in more depth, if there is anything out there.
I also want to note that their argument is not "Bernie was a better candidate," it is "Drone strikes are bad and our current and future democratic presidents are awful hypocrites" so I am looking for things that address the latter.
posted by windbox at 7:36 AM on October 21, 2016
I also want to note that their argument is not "Bernie was a better candidate," it is "Drone strikes are bad and our current and future democratic presidents are awful hypocrites" so I am looking for things that address the latter.
posted by windbox at 7:36 AM on October 21, 2016
I think you'd need to look for drone strike discussion centered around the policy of drone strikes and the history of the military in moving from "boots on the ground" to bombing runs to unmanned drones. I bet the soldiers at Normandy would have preferred to not be there. But we have made heroes of these men and women because if we didn't then we are all just monsters. I think our tactics are incredibly important to discuss. There are skirmishes we avoid because we can't mount the right or necessary personnel to succeed. There are always lives on the line. I do not envy those in charge of the world's most comprehensive military system on the planet. Nothing but tradeoffs. Frankly, America's actual appetite for "supporting our troops" is low. We like to have the biggest guns but we don't want to hear about personal tragedy and long term support for what we ask people to do.
posted by amanda at 7:37 AM on October 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by amanda at 7:37 AM on October 21, 2016 [6 favorites]
What you're looking for is difficult to find because the silence on this from centrist Democratic Party magazines like The New Republic is heavy. As you may have found, most defenders tend to hit the Luddite angle instead, and compare drones to a new military breakthrough like crossbows that 20th century-minded folks refuse to accept. The further you get towards the center the more abstract and policy-ish the discussion and the less about the victims.
Where something is indefensible, it's hard to find voices defending it. The closest thing I have ever been able to find is that the president himself tends to talk about it more frankly than his own guys in the media. The foreign policy establishment tends instead to emphasize how there hasn't been enough military action.
posted by johngoren at 7:49 AM on October 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
Where something is indefensible, it's hard to find voices defending it. The closest thing I have ever been able to find is that the president himself tends to talk about it more frankly than his own guys in the media. The foreign policy establishment tends instead to emphasize how there hasn't been enough military action.
posted by johngoren at 7:49 AM on October 21, 2016 [7 favorites]
This is deviating from your question a little bit, but I wonder if you might have more luck looking into the views of liberals who support military intervention in general. Here's a Guardian piece. And google found me a Wikipedia page about liberal hawks. The concept that the use of force can be necessary in order to do good is not a new one, and I'm sure there's plenty of writing on that topic as well.
Assuming that one acknowledges that military force can be necessary at times, the next question (why I won't get into) is military force appropriate at [PLACE]. There are lots of reasons why the U.S. should or should not be using military force in any particular place or time.
But, once one is one board with military action in [PLACE], the drone question is more tactical/pragmatic. Drones are cheaper in both (American) blood and treasure, than boots-on-ground. And war being what it is, civilians get killed by ground troops/manned air strikes all the time. Here's a piece from Slate arguing that drones are actually better in terms of civilian casualties.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:03 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
Assuming that one acknowledges that military force can be necessary at times, the next question (why I won't get into) is military force appropriate at [PLACE]. There are lots of reasons why the U.S. should or should not be using military force in any particular place or time.
But, once one is one board with military action in [PLACE], the drone question is more tactical/pragmatic. Drones are cheaper in both (American) blood and treasure, than boots-on-ground. And war being what it is, civilians get killed by ground troops/manned air strikes all the time. Here's a piece from Slate arguing that drones are actually better in terms of civilian casualties.
posted by sparklemotion at 8:03 AM on October 21, 2016 [1 favorite]
I know you explicitly stated you didn't want articles "defending drone programs", but I think those articles provide a helpful look into why most mainstream politicians on the left support them. The article that immediately came to my mind was "Why Drones Work" by Daniel Byman. Unfortunately the magazine it appeared in, Foreign Affairs, is paywalled, but I could PM you a pdf of the article if you'd like (and if that's permitted on metafilter).
(That issue of FA also included an article called "Why Drones Fail". I can send that to you too if you'd like.)
posted by perplexion at 8:04 AM on October 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
(That issue of FA also included an article called "Why Drones Fail". I can send that to you too if you'd like.)
posted by perplexion at 8:04 AM on October 21, 2016 [3 favorites]
You won't find much in the way of serious writing tackling that position because it's not a serious position. By this silly logic, FDR didn't care about workers because he was bombing German and Japanese workers, and the New Deal was just some nothingburger you should ignore.
It's simply a way to deflect discussion away from something positive about a person they dislike onto something they think you will also dislike about them. Politics is complicated and multidimensional, and people who care about X will often find themselves supporting action against some X, somewhere, in some capacity, because of other needs or interests of their polity.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:28 AM on October 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
It's simply a way to deflect discussion away from something positive about a person they dislike onto something they think you will also dislike about them. Politics is complicated and multidimensional, and people who care about X will often find themselves supporting action against some X, somewhere, in some capacity, because of other needs or interests of their polity.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:28 AM on October 21, 2016 [20 favorites]
It's simply a way to deflect discussion away from something positive about a person they dislike onto something they think you will also dislike about them.
This is a really great point. This particular tactic is so effective at getting people on your side without doing very much work at all. Take any deeply-felt, emotional issue and you can circumvent all logic and nuance and just get that win. See also: LGBT rights, abortion, etc..
posted by amanda at 9:13 AM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
This is a really great point. This particular tactic is so effective at getting people on your side without doing very much work at all. Take any deeply-felt, emotional issue and you can circumvent all logic and nuance and just get that win. See also: LGBT rights, abortion, etc..
posted by amanda at 9:13 AM on October 21, 2016 [2 favorites]
Is this article, by a visiting scholar at Yale Law School, along the lines of what you're looking for? Fair warning, it's from 2013 (and it's Salon).
posted by Bromius at 11:21 AM on October 21, 2016
posted by Bromius at 11:21 AM on October 21, 2016
You may want to read Rosa Brooks, she published quite a bit on drones and specifically also on Obama and drones.
posted by 15L06 at 2:04 PM on October 21, 2016
posted by 15L06 at 2:04 PM on October 21, 2016
This thread is closed to new comments.
It's not a great situation, and that fact is very unlikely to make anybody happy about pulling a lever for Clinton next month, but that's the reality we live in.
posted by tobascodagama at 7:30 AM on October 21, 2016 [4 favorites]