Over at Greg's place, I explain what I think is the real issue behind the use of drones in Libya:
In terms of killing fewer civilians, it's probably better for the U.S. to be using drones at this point, because they are better at distinguishing a military target from a civilian one than an F-15. Drones have drawn a lot of infamy for killing civilians, but missiles fired from planes and ships are more likely to hit the wrong people than a Hellfire missile fired from a drone. Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James Cartwright told reporters during the briefing yesterday that the drones were being deployed in part to avoid “collateral damage,” the dry military euphemism for dead civilians.
What's more interesting here is what the drones symbolize to Americans — they've become a recurring element of our seemingly endless, unwinnable military conflicts. We all implicitly know what drones in Libya mean: That the U.S. is preparing for potentially a long, open-ended involvement in Libya with no foreseeable endpoint. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said today that the situation in Libya is “certainly moving toward a stalemate.” Now that 33 days of conflict have passed in Libya, Obama’s assertion that offensive operations would last “days, not weeks” is proving untrue — part of the reason why public support for the operation is quickly eroding.
It's the stalemate, not the drones.
