Drone Policy

A quick take on the documents coming out of DoJ on drone strikes against American citizens.  Before I jump in I want to say that if a US citizen resides overseas and takes up arms against the US, I am generally supportive of using military and intelligence capabilities to thwart them.  Sometime this included killing them.  This is particularly true when the President's war powers have been articulated by the Congress.

However, I think that a larger set of self-inflicted problems dog the Administration on this issue, and they related to policy more than law.  First, an over reliance on drones along with a winnowing of alternative capacities has left the Administration without options.  In the absence of Guantanamo and military tribunals, or overt, cooperative operations, the US finds itself in a position where it must justify almost any kind of drone strike or else be left without recourse against known terrorist targets.  Signature strikes are a case and point.  Highly flexible policies and legal justifications for covert means become necessary in the absence of alternative courses of action.

Second, clandestine operations do not solve strategic problems, they only provide political space, time and (in some instances) more intelligence on a particular issue.  However, in the parlance of this Administration, covert actions are rarely 'game changers'.  Overt forms of power and influence must supplement these operations to affect strategic outcomes.  But without a CT policy in place, or a drone policy that recognizes these inherent shortcomings, the Administration finds itself in a small box.

Notes:

Hank Crumpton's book The Art of Intelligence articulates this last point very persuasively.

Here's a good take from selected wisdom on the drone 'white paper' from DoJ. http://selectedwisdom.com/?p=965