The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (4 comments)

  1. short and sweet:

    drones are better than boots-on-the-ground nation-building in countries where terrorists hide.

    should their be rules?

    you bet.

    should we have rules like what we do when we send a seal team in to get someone or the CIA to kidnap and rendition, etc?

    sure.. but why are some folks so up in the air about drones that were seemly unconcerned with seal teams and invasions and nation building?

    we don’t seem to have a consistent view about tactics and policies.

    for some torture is ok but not drones.

    for others drones are okay but not torture.

    most people with a moral conscience find torture troubling and don’t condone it except in the most exceptional circumstances and the PEW polls actually show that church-goers support torture at rates higher than non-church-goers – go figure.

    but killing an enemy who has vowed to kill you or for that matter someone who is wielding a gun and not drop it when told to ( in police confrontations) is not a troublesome to most folks.

  2. I’m not sure they actually used them since I have too much to do other than follow a False Flag story about a “cop killer” but I heard that drones were supposed to be used to catch Dorner. I figure it was all a FAKE because of the coincidence that he was “captured” (like bin laden) right before o’bama’s SOTU and it was also to GET sheeple to LOVE DRONES!

    1. re: ” GET sheeple to LOVE DRONES!”

      RELEAX!!! they are much less alarming than black helicopters!


  3. While these toplines are interesting, they do not necessarily tell us much about the *type* of person who holds these beliefs. I suspect that if you controlled for actual knowledge about drone policies (and perhaps education and religiosity), you would see a marked decrease in the support for them. Cognitively, “out-of-sight, out-of-mind” probably lends a great deal of support to this issue, given that there is a robust level of cognitive dissonance between unilateral strikes that are accompanied by collateral civilian damages and the notions of due process and sanctity of non-combatant life that drive the American ethos.

    The simple fact of the matter is that civilians are “awash in ignorance” of politics (Kinder 1998: 785-789). As a result, we can hardly expect them to have truly principled perspectives on this murky issue, where information about actual strikes is largely hidden from the public eye. Indeed, if the study of opinion on “torture” is any indication, once individuals are made aware of the actions that occur during “enhanced” interrogations, they are far more likely to oppose it than support it. I suspect that here, too, the support for drone strikes is largely a function of blissful ignorance.

    cheers, A.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content