Strategypage covers this bit of nonsense nicely.
On the Tizzy Factor of our drones:
Despite the greater efficiency in putting mass murderers out of action, and at less risk to innocent bystanders, the fact that the people pulling the trigger are not at any risk is for many, somehow wrong.
And the drone strikes themselves? Are they really slaughtering innocents? Not so much:
The “UN report” cited civilian losses that are at odds with what is actually happening in the target areas and what is known about the use of missile armed UAVs. Independent witnesses (journalists or not) who have visited the tribal territories and asked locals about the UAV campaign find most tribesmen in favor of the missile attacks. That’s because the terrorists maintain control of places like North Waziristan (where most of the UAV missile attacks occur) using terror and the Pakistani Army, when it does attack the terrorists, uses artillery and aerial bombing that causes far more civilian casualties than the missile attacks of American UAVs. Moreover, the American attacks actually kill more of the hated Islamic terrorists and frighten the terrorists a great deal. Local civilians have figured out that Americans make an effort to avoid civilian casualties while the Taliban will often try to protect themselves by forcing local civilians to act as human shields against American attacks. The local civilians hate this and try to get away whenever possible. The Americans tend to detect this and act on it, attacking when the terrorists are “unprotected”.
But many journalists over there are (rightly) afraid of the Taliban and repeat fantastic tales of drone-caused slaughter that the report writers in the international community are all too happy to report as fact.
I commend President Obama's refusal to bow to international pressure to cease the one major effective thing he is doing to kill terrorists.
