Not the one the U.S. is actually waging. The fact that the strikes can be justified in theory doesn't mean they're just in practice.
Despite my frequent criticism of drone warfare during the Obama Administration, I am not opposed in principle to the use of armed drones. Had a drone rather than a special forces team killed Osama Bin Laden, I'd have supported the strike as fully as I did the raid on his compound. What I object to are specific problematic aspects of America's drone program: the dearth of transparency, the use of CIA personnel rather than Army or Air Force officers for many lethal strikes, the attacks on individuals whose identities aren't even known, the hundreds of dead innocents, and the fact that all dead males of military age are presumed to be militants.
It's rare for Obama Administration defenders to confront these objections.
More often, they insist that drones are a legitimate tool, and the best among the ones at our disposal, as if the fact that a defensible drone program could exist in theory justifies the one we've got. This is especially frustrating when they grant that parts of Obama's actual drone program are indefensible, for that admission is never followed by a condemnation of the program. They just repeat that there's no reason why a program of drone strikes can't be legitimate. It's as if that insight absolves them from the responsibility support or condemn real world drone programs based on the specific ways that they're carried out. It honestly baffles me.
I've written about this phenomenon before. Now I want to show it to you.
This is a clip from an enjoyable debate I had with Michael Cohen. I think he'd contest that his behavior exemplifies what I describe above, but take a look for yourself and see if you agree with me:
This article available online at: