US Drones Are Controversial but Tactically Effective

Eric Schmitt, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist for the New York Times, weighs in on the controversial issue of employing remote-controlled drone strikes to assassinate leaders of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

Complete video available at


  1. CallahanJones on August 3, 2020 at 8:30 am

    Drones are "controversial" because terrorist supporters craft arguments against them. They do this becaues the drones work at targeting leadership while keeping our casualties and civilian casualties at a minimum.

    The terrorists want to make us stop using them because they allow us to fight on our terms and not according to the terrorist playbook.

  2. Aston Kwok on August 3, 2020 at 8:31 am

    Many wars are lost on effective tactics but ineffective strategies.

  3. Norbu_ on August 3, 2020 at 8:31 am

    "immediate threats"? that’s why thousands have been killed by drone strikes, because of "immediate threats" of terrorism? what is this guy smoking?

  4. CallahanJones on August 3, 2020 at 8:32 am

    So whatever method of defence or offence we use they are going to propogandize against it.

    Just because your military enemy doesn’t like that you are successful, that doesn’t make the method used "controversial".

  5. Dimmed Diamond on August 3, 2020 at 8:34 am

    Basically: ‘we kill dozens and hundreds of innocent people anyway, so why not do so in a way that doesn’t waste US soldiers to prevent domestic protests’

  6. Hipii on August 3, 2020 at 8:41 am

    98% failure rate.

  7. MiranUT on August 3, 2020 at 8:46 am

    Because it’s immoral.

  8. CallahanJones on August 3, 2020 at 8:47 am

    I put "innocents" and "collateral damage" in quotes because these supposedly innocent bystanders seem to be highly trusted by Al Quada, which is a VERY paranoid organization.

    They are knowingly giving material support to mass murderers. Food, lodging, protectoin, camophlage etc. They ARE NOT collateral damage or innocent bystanders, no matter what terrorist mouthpieces might say.

  9. Amphioxus on August 3, 2020 at 8:47 am

    What goofy socks that man has.

  10. Feathered Serpent on August 3, 2020 at 8:52 am

    "98% failure rate"…Yeah, I would have to agree your comments about drones have a "98% failure rate". LOL! Just saying stuff will never ever make it true.

  11. James20 on August 3, 2020 at 9:06 am

    Wow, civilians are attacked by actors other than the US, so that fact alone makes intentionally bombing civilian targets acceptable. PERFECTLY argued. US citizens should care especially about what our taxes are paying for, because it is something we can realistically exert influence on the government to stop. It is far harder to stop “rivaling religious thug gangs”, as you say, than our own government.

  12. Nolege Is Power on August 3, 2020 at 9:09 am

    They are tactically effective coz they blow the fuck out of everythin.

  13. kiddaddyfresh on August 3, 2020 at 9:09 am

    Takes a man of conviction to rock such sox in a public forum. He probably knows what he’s talking about.

  14. James20 on August 3, 2020 at 9:10 am

    Tactically effective at blowing up weddings, funerals and first responders.

  15. Ahmir Hussain on August 3, 2020 at 9:13 am

    they link tribes with al-qeada ?

  16. James20 on August 3, 2020 at 9:14 am

    The alternative to drones is not to send in a ground force, as you suggest. That’s not the only other choice. The best alternative is to stop playing the role of world police. The US don’t need 1000 foreign military bases and constant interventions all over the world.

  17. James20 on August 3, 2020 at 9:15 am

    Yes, "pax americana". Up to 4 million dead in Vietnam, quite possibly 1 million dead in Iraq, countless democratically-elected leaders deposed directly/indirectly, replaced with our brutal autocratic lackeys. "Pax Americana" is a fairytale for the ignorant.

  18. Feathered Serpent on August 3, 2020 at 9:15 am

    WHATEVER! Drones work.

  19. CallahanJones on August 3, 2020 at 9:17 am

    The bottom line is terroristst craft strategies to make us feel we’re damned if we do and damned if we don’t. That is a critical apect to terrorist thinking that is not discussed enough.

    So if we’re damned if we do or damned if we don’t then fuck em. Blow them and every bit of "collateral damage" that allows them to hide amongst them to high heaven and let them screech- after 10 years of terrorism al over the planet nobody gives a shit about them or their "innocents".

  20. Nahshon on August 3, 2020 at 9:18 am

    Yes, it is a challenge; yes, American citizens should expect blowback and unintended results under this foreign policy, but is covert drone war truly effective in the long-run? When something is effective, it should produce no unintended results. Is it effective in protecting innocent lives on native and foreign soil? Does it violate international law or human rights? Does it empower or does it weaken radical Islamists and their desire to attack the US? Is it really worth the costs? Think.

  21. Nahshon on August 3, 2020 at 9:20 am

    Well, if you say so. lol

  22. urbanworld120 on August 3, 2020 at 9:21 am

    The first terminator drones that will in the future robotic wars eliminate humans can already be seen today.

  23. CallahanJones on August 3, 2020 at 9:22 am

    Re playbook. Terrorists want us to have large visible armies in these countries and a lot of civilian casualties because those two things are their best propoganda ammunition that we are "at ware against islam".

    Also it’s part of terrorist strategy to provoke the victim into reacting and then use that reaction for propoganda.

    Just like in Israel with the checkpoints and the wall – terrorists try to use the victims defence reaction to the terrorism against them.

  24. Duck Man on August 3, 2020 at 9:25 am

    tacitically effective at creating conflict

Leave a Comment