Want to know why I don’t support either party?


This. The lovely Erin of “And Sometimes Tea” has an excellent post breaking it down.

First up, I highly recommend this piece by Jack Hunter at The American Conservative, with the provocative title Pro-Life Means Anti-Drone:

Barack Obama has never claimed to be pro-life. As the Washington Examiner’s Tim Carney writes: “President Obama has killed hundreds of civilians, including women and children, in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia through a drone war aimed at exterminating the suspected terrorists on his unprecedented and ever-expanding ‘kill list.’”

The drone strike program that was controversial during the Bush administration has grown dramatically under President Obama. The logic behind drone strikes is plain—the ability to eliminate terrorist targets with unmanned aircraft means we don’t have to endanger U.S. military personnel. But the grim reality of these strikes drastically undermines any good intentions. The method has quickly become an everyday nightmare for average Pakistanis. In September CNN reported that a recent study showed that drone strikes “are too harmful to civilians, too sloppy, legally questionable and do more harm to U.S. interests than good.”

Indeed. For every terrorist killed, the number of civilians killed continues to mount—and the question of who is actually a “terrorist” has become even more vague.

This week, MSNBC “Morning Joe” host Joe Scarborough explained that America’s drone policy basically says that: “if you’re between 17 and 30, and within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up … They are focused on killing the bad guys, but it is indiscriminate as to other people who are around them at the same time.” Scarborough continued: “Instead of trying to go in and take the risk and get the terrorists out of hiding in a Karachi suburb, we’re just going to blow up everyone around them.”

When Scarborough brought up how drones have indiscriminately killed many innocent children, Time columnist Joe Klein replied: “The bottom line in the end is—whose 4-year-old get killed? What we’re doing is limiting the possibility that 4-year-olds here will get killed by indiscriminate acts of terror.”

Read the rest here.  And don’t forget that there is wide bipartisan support for drone warfare, which would undoubtedly continue under a Romney administration.

 She also writes on how American citizens could also find themselves as targets of warfare- drone or otherwise. I love her closing:

Not long ago Rod Dreher posted from France about things left behind by Jewish children in Paris rounded up by the Nazis during World War II.  People commented, predictably, about the horror of French Christians turning blind eyes to this sort of thing.  Well, today many of us turn blind eyes, or even write words of excuse or justification, concerning the children of the Middle East who are being killed, maimed, and otherwise harmed by our policies of drone warfare and disproportionate civilian attacks.  That’s on us–and future generations may well wonder how American Christians paid so little attention to the atrocities being committed by our leaders, in our names, in our day.

 I refuse to turn a blind eye to this, no matter if it’s a red or blue politico pushing death by remote.

Share your thoughts