But they are virtually unique in the world of Bush-hating liberal outrage. What was once a war crime is now accepted (or even praised by this administration's water carriers). And a man once unacceptable to the left on the government pay roll is now a slam dunk for confirmation in a Democratic Senate (tip to Instapundit for both):
The drone strikes were the choice of a president who had given up on winning “hearts and minds” in the North-West Frontier of Pakistan. Secure in the knowledge that he can’t be outflanked from the right by the Republicans, Obama served up a policy that was economical -- and remote. Congress didn’t intrude, and save for the purists at the American Civil Liberties Union, there was no powerful intellectual lobby calling for accountability.
The passion had drained out of the progressives who had hounded Bush, Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby. Brennan had to step aside once when he was put up to head the Central Intelligence Agency, as a man tainted with the Bush legacy. His confirmation is certain this time around.
The drone strikes really are puzzling to me. Back in the day, I worried that too frequent use of drones would result in bad press from collateral damage (that's dead, possibly innocent, civilians too close to the targets) that would undermine our war effort in Afghanistan and alienate Pakistanis. While a low level use against leadership targets seemed appropriate, simply using them to attrite the enemy on foreign soil seemed to be a bad bargain to me. Indeed, I assumed that the increase in usage at the end of the Bush administration was just to knock back the enemy during the presidential transition.
But there was no reduction after the transition period. The press coverage here that could have created a controversy just did not happen. Amazingly, our press which seemed to give credibility to the charge that we destroyed a baby milk production facility in Saddam's Iraq in 1991 doesn't even question the administration claim that hardly anybody killed in the many drone strikes in Pakistan were collateral damage.
Yet just because our press isn't covering this much doesn't mean the strikes aren't causing problems from their frequency:
"What scares me about drone strikes is how they're perceived around the world," McChrystal told Reuters. "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."
And without ground operations to exploit this useful tool, Pakistan's frontier areas remain a Taliban sanctuary. Drone strikes remain a useful tool to keep the enemy off balance. But over-use could lose us Pakistan's cooperation. And once the drone strikes let up, the sanctuary allows the enemy to regenerate.
Mind you, I was relieved that we seemed able to use the drones to kill jihadis in Pakistan more than I thought we could get away with. My objections to high use were practical. But are we really getting away with it, as McChrystal worries?
But that may come to an end. If Code Pink's rediscovery of their moral outrage is any indication, maybe our left will raise the visibility of the strikes enough to stoke anger in Pakistan and the Islamic world, thus realizing my worries.
Drones flew. Innocents Obama slew.
To be fair, I couldn't have foreseen the silence of our left and press corps on an issue that worked them up into frothy rage every time they heard someone with a Texas accent defend it. Sure, I expected bias. But this? Who knew?
I guess we will once again see the price of dissent while we wage war.
