Are Drone Attacks Defensible?

[Responding to National Review's Defense of Drones]

"And it is true that some drone strikes against terrorists have led to civilian casualties. However, on balance, drones represent the best opportunity to limit collateral damage."

As a conservative and a Christian, I condemn the celebration of drones and I urge a full accounting for the civilian casualties associated with them. The US government is very secretive about the operations. It is interesting that US citizen Awlaki was hunted down and killed without being in combat and with no judicial process. It is also telling that Awlaki's companion and ally, Samir Khan, was a US citizen and is just as dead - and the US State Department actually apologized to Khan's family. Apparently there is some kind of CIA/DoD death warrant document that excuses the killing of Awlaki but not of Khan. Our government is now deciding in secret what citizens have rights and which ones don't -- and this is 10 years into a war that has no mechanism for truce.

These drones are always killing or wounding bystanders. Celebrating drones and celebrating the deployment of kill squads displays America as the great and terrifying killer in the world. But our author, Nathaniel Botwinick, has no problem with this. Ten years into war he embraces the Patton adage: “no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.” Are there any followers of Christ weary of the war-making and embarrassed by the callous disregard for life?