Paper details:
In The Way of the Knife, Mark Manzetti asserts that once the Bush administration determined that holding terrorist suspects without charge indefinitely had become a liability (e.g., at Guantanamo Bay), it was desperate for a better solution. Growing advances in drone technology seemed to provide a way out. Drones provided the President with the ability to kill terrorists anywhere on earth, ending the need for detentions and avoiding the kind of “messy, costly wars that topple governments and require years of American occupation.” President Obama agreed, and since then the CIA drone campaign in Pakistan has killed much of the terror network’s leaders and largely eliminated Pakistan’s tribal regions as the key training ground for the terrorist group. But many, especially segments of the political left, have soured on the president’s drone strategy, deeming drone strikes nothing more than assassination without due process that ultimately creates more terrorists than it destroys. What evidence does Manzetti provide to give us pause to consider the political efficacy or the moral wisdom of drone strikes? Do you believe that, given all of the potential problems inherent in such a policy, the U.S. is correct to employ drones against terrorists and other militants who wish to harm the U.S.? Why or why not? Explain your answer.