Why Drones Stayed Out of Sight in the 2012 Campaign

I wonder if the debate over the use of drones will pick up following the election?  Excerpts:

A few conservatives have raised one practical concern: Killing terrorists is justified, they say, but we need to kill fewer and capture more to gain intelligence. You don’t have to support waterboarding, as some of these critics do, to agree with that point.

Another concern, raised by a few liberals, is that the strikes have increased anti-Americanism abroad. (On “Homeland,” one of them turns an American soldier into a terrorist.) The Pew Research Center has found strong opposition to drone strikes in almost every country. The strikes may also be setting a dangerous precedent, goes another argument, since “more than 70 countries now own some type of drone.”

I concur that we must consider the intelligence value of capturing high value targets but I also worry that we are misguided regarding anti-Americanism abroad.  I fear we have many who want to make American be liked or loved when it might be best to be respected (but the respect must be earned with demonstration of hubris)

Why Drones Stayed Out of Sight in the 2012 Campaign

By Ramesh Ponnuru Nov 5, 2012 6:30 PM ET

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-05/why-drones-stayed-out-of-sight-in-the-2012-campaign.html

• “Homeland,” Showtime’s series about an al-Qaeda sleeper agent in Congress, is both implausible and addictive. President Barack Obama is a fan. That means he has heard more discussion of the downside of drone strikes in a television drama than he has in the presidential race.

In the foreign-policy debate on Oct. 22, moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS asked Obama’s opponent, Mitt Romney, about the use of drones. Romney responded, “I support that entirely and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology and believe that we should continue to use it to continue to go after the people who represent a threat to this nation and to our friends.”