Drone Strike Admitted to be "Tragic Mistake."

The Pentagon acknowledged on Friday that the last U.S. drone strike before American troops withdrew from Afghanistan was a tragic mistake that killed 10 civilians, including seven children, after initially saying it had been necessary to prevent an attack on troops.

One thing I have disagreed with some liberals on is the justification of drone strikes. People argue they amount to "assassination," have no restraints, and so on.  I disagree.

Assassination is the unauthorized murder of some political leader. For instance, no matter what is says on his tombstone, Jesse James was not "assassinated."  Killing of a person like Martin Luther King Jr. (civilian leader of a movement) is more appropriately an instance for that term. 

A military leader in an armed conflict is not either in most situations, particularly when they are killed during an authorized conflict (such as one arising from an authorization of military force) in a combat zone.  This also touches upon how drone strikes are part of a process, subject to a variety of rules.  Likewise, deadly force can be legitimate even without court process.

Also, American citizens can be killed without court process. The Civil War is a prime example, but a few American citizens also served in other foreign conflicts, at times being in harm's way.  

Note that though it doesn't cover all drone attacks, the authorization of force covering the Pakistan-Afghanistan region at the very least is a sort of "process" too -- it is a specific authorization.  Some American who went to live with the Taliban or something and became a leader of their military effort very well is fair game in the right situation.  

This does not mean drone strikes are generally a good idea. I don't think they never are justified.  I can imagine how the use of a drone to kill an enemy combatant that is an immediate threat and cannot be obtain by other means could be defensible.  But, like use of force generally, there is a lot of problems.  The news item highlights why.

It also highlights a problem with tough guy talk like President Biden saying that those who committed the attack on the airport or similar suspects have a price on their head.  A certain level of rhetoric pushes the sentiment that use of force for reprisal is necessary.  Closer calls become seen as more of a reasonable risk.  And, it simply is going to be the case that drones will kill innocents.  They aren't that pinpoint, even with the right data.

The article also the NYT itself studied the evidence, questioning the attack. It is unclear how much that led to the official finding, but probably can be said to have put some pressure on the Pentagon.  It seems there is a quick turnaround, the attack happening less than a month ago.  

Drone strikes were used particularly by the Obama Administration, the Bush Administration more concerned with two military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.  They seem like a less invasive approach, which they probably are, but they can also fool you.  The U.S. forces rightly left Afghanistan because military attacks and occupation is going to cause "tragic mistakes" too.  War does that.  Drones will do the same while looking "cleaner."  Something can be wrong without be wrong in other ways.

We now are hearing calls for some "accounting" -- was that such a concern in past drone strikes that somehow went wrong?  Do have one. Meanwhile, the children are still dead. As they many were during the invasion.

===

Meanwhile, France removed their diplomatic personnel from the U.S. for instructions (apparently never happened before -- even during the Quasi-War?)  because France thinks the U.S. really screwed them over regarding a military deal with Australia.  I guess Australia is less of a concern for them, or perhaps France-Australian diplomatic relations is less newsworthy here. 

[Guess they are mad at Australia too.]

I find it hard to care too much though it's notable enough to serve as a sort of footnote.  France comparing Biden to Trump surely won't help much to clam things down.  I don't recall the Trump Administration actually managing to do something this productive. I'm sure some of their people might be jealous of such "art of the deal" behavior.

Anyway, it is France after all. The U.S. is not their enemy or something.  And, the French need the U.S. too.  At some point, it is hard to imagine they won't relent, perhaps being paid off somehow. 

===

To toss in one more thing in the news, one of the ten Republicans who voted to impeach Trump (the second time) said he won't run for re-election. Recall that the election is next year, but these days, we probably do have something like continual elections on some level.  His act of "infamy" already got him a primary opponent. He figures he can win, if after a nasty primary, but doesn't want to be part of the current House majority any more.  The need for protection after voting for impeachment doesn't help.

The problem is widespread here.  It is a problem of the Republicans at large.  And, it helps turn off a few, probably more likely to be halfway decent in some sense (the true believer/willing to go along can still thrive), from being part of Congress.  We have heard for a few years now some noise -- at times Democrats too -- finding the situation more unpleasant. 

Many could have agreed that Trump crossed the line.  No.  They either avoided the responsibility or actively agreed with him.  This yet again goes beyond mere party politics to the heart of the matter. 

I was a strong opponent of the Bush43 Administration, repeatedly personally appalled by things they did.  I supported strong opposition, including filibustering judicial nominees (in hindsight, questionable).  But, Republicans have gone further down in my estimation. Down the sewer.