General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: A Note On 'Drone Strikes', Ladies And Gentlemen [View all]joshcryer
(62,269 posts)It would simply be politically risky. Intel appears to be very good these days so I think you could send in some marines or SEALS to take get at an enemy but any losses from such action would be on the headlines weekly (ie, for every drone strike they've done, they'd had to have sent in SEALS to capture said combatants, and the likelihood that none are injured or killed is slim to none). No politician would ever push for that.
I agree with your overall assessment, but I'd state it much shorter: anyone who isn't acknowledged by a state actor, necessarily, is not protected by the sovereignty of the state in which they reside. Why is this? It's simple. States would lose their sovereignty of they did not combat non-recognized actors, ie, insurrectionists or terrorists.
The US, for instance, arrested skinheads recently who were plotting to do mass state terrorism. In that event they were not hit by a drone strike because they were within the confines of the sovereign nation of the United States, and the political risk of sending in police officers and swat teams was minimal at best.
In any event, I do not rule out the possibility that the United States would use drones against actors within the confines of its territories. But I do not consider that a "new policy" by any conceivable means. It is merely the utilization of improved technology against threats to the state. As far as I see it drones are simply the politically easy approach as far as foreign threats are concerned. If there was a politically viable way to use them in the United States, I would see it happening quite expediently (say one of the idiot secessionist governors manages to get an army base to secede, one could expect his governors mansion to be hit by a drone strike in quick order).
Lastly, drones poll really high. Unless it's for catching speeders.