Will the Democrats nominate a George McGovern or a Bill Clinton in 2020?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Drone strikes can kill fewer civilians. The problem is the disparity of fighting styles. When it comes to conventional military force versus conventional military force, it would be difficult for anyone to equal the United States. To win in that kind of conflict, though, you do need troops on the ground to fight it, as drone strikes alone are not capable of winning the day. In that setup, air power is generally a fancy artillery, but it also has reconnaissance capability.

The whole point of drone strikes, the way they've been used, is to avoid putting troops on the ground and therefore avoiding US casualties.

As I wrote, drone strikes can kill fewer civilians, but that doesn't mean they do. Especially the way they have been used in this war. We are facing a 4th generation force, a non-state force comprised of irregulars. It is possible for a smaller and weaker force to defeat a larger and stronger force if they know the right way to do so. Back in 1776 the English were furious that the Colonial irregulars actually had the nerve to hide behind trees when shooting at the English and had the audacity to fire at officers.

We've seen conventional foreign force versus local irregular force played out over and over. It doesn't end well for the conventional foreign force.

Yes, locals can control the ground if we do nothing but air war, with or without drones. And that is why an air-only strategy doesn't work - because the locals control the ground. The locals that were there before the bombing run are there after the bombing run. This really doesn't do much to change anything. War is getting dysfunctional as a result when the air war and the ground war have nothing to do with each other.

As for whether drones can kill yes, and why I keep using the word "can", it has to do with what bombs the drones are armed with. Put a large bomb on a drone, it will have a large blast radius. Put a small bomb on a drone, it will have a small blast radius. Learn to tell the difference between an actual meeting of insurgents and a wedding party and you will have an impact on the number of civilians killed as well. None of those reflect Obama's use of drones. That is why I say he is somewhat less hawkish than Hillary-McCain-Cheney.

Actually I think he might like to be even more peaceful than those but he doesn't want to appear weak. Therefore he doesn't have the strength to pull US troops out of the mid-east.

 

[blastula]

Well, adding to your post: Trump's likely secretary of state, John Bolton favors the US invading Iran. HRC, as Obama's secretary of state, favored a 10-year treaty with Iran. The difference is clear.

10 year treaty, after which they are free to develop nuclear weapons without sanctions. Brilliant!

No.

Claim 17: The deal, if implemented, will expire after 10 or 15 years and allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon at that time.

According to the comprehensive agreement, for at least 15 years, Iran will only enrich uranium up to 3.67 percent (uranium enriched at 20% or lower is considered low enriched uranium (LEU); uranium enriched above 90% is weapons grade.)

This does not, however, mean that on day one of year 16, Iran will have enough weapons-grade uranium to build a bomb. Yes, after 15 years Iran could begin enriching uranium beyond 3.67 percent. But without this deal, Iran could head for a bomb tomorrow.


Some aspects of the agreement will last 25 years, including the monitoring of Iran’s uranium mines and supply chain. Other aspects, such as the implementation of robust IAEA safeguards and access to investigate suspicious sites for illicit nuclear activity, are permanent. Regardless of what specific restrictions are lifted, Iran is still prohibited from pursuing nuclear weapons. Any activity that is clearly not intended for “peaceful use” (i.e. highly enriching uranium) will raise red flags and trigger a response from the international community.


Ultimately, the deal rolls back Iran’s nuclear program for more than a decade, pushing Iran’s “breakout time” (time it would take to enrich enough nuclear material for 1 nuclear weapon) from a few months to at least one year. It also gives IAEA inspectors greater insight for monitoring Iran’s nuclear program well into the future.

The Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation