Input | Output |
---|---|
Link | YouTube |
Published | 2022/10/09 |
Theme | |
Status | article incomplete |
Beau says:
Biden administration formalizes drone policy to limit civilian casualties, but skepticism remains on effective implementation and impact on covert operations.
Policy analysts
The full transcript provides additional context on the historical background and challenges with drone strike policies, which can offer a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
#BidenAdministration #DronePolicy #CivilianCasualties #CovertOperations #Implementation
Well, howdy there, internet people.
Let's bow again.
So today we are going to talk about the Biden administration's new policy,
because that's what the headlines are calling it.
And that's also the first thing we have to clear up.
This isn't new policy, not really.
I would say that most of this has been de facto policy since his first few months in office.
And almost all of it has been de facto policy
since like the end of his first year.
But now it's formalized.
Now it's approved.
This is not a temporary thing.
This is the new policy.
And the policy deals with the US and their use of drones
overseas outside areas of active hostilities.
So I think the only two countries that qualify for that right now are Iraq and Syria.
So this would apply everywhere else.
Okay.
So short version, what's the new policy, the White House makes the call.
During the Trump administration, the use of drones, the rules became lax.
Lower people in the chain were able to make the call.
That has reversed.
The White House determines individuals, groups, and countries that they can be used in,
or against. The goal of all of this is to limit civilian loss. The terminology
being used is that there is an almost near certainty of having none. You will
see how that works out. There has been a concerted effort to kind of clean this
up for those that have been watching the channel a long time. We went over this
and went over the numbers a lot. For the goals drone use is typically trying
to achieve, which is dealing with low-intensity conflicts and irregular
forces, it's bad to have a bunch of civilian loss. Not just for moral reasons
but for strategic ones as well.
The way they were being used was not good by any standard, moral or strategic.
It wasn't working.
There's been an effort to clean that up.
This policy kind of formalizes it.
Now how well they'll stick to it, we have to wait and see.
I'm skeptical because there have been attempts to clean this up before.
We're going to have to wait and see how it plays out.
What is interesting to note is that these same rules as far as the White House making
the call now also apply to the use of in-person means of a covert nature.
So let's just say raids.
Those are now also at the discretion of the White House.
So the overall thing here is that because they're making this public, they're not doing
this behind closed doors, we can kind of infer that the White House is wanting to limit their
use a lot. They wouldn't be putting this out there as this is the new policy. The
buck stops with us and then make mistakes. That's the theory. But this is
also a very a very hazy topic. There's a lot of fog of war stuff here. So while
While the policy looks good, this is one of those things we have to watch.
If everything that's laid out is actually how it's going to work, this is good.
But I have a lot of skepticism of this.
make it too easy to do certain things with low risk to U.S. personnel, and it's very
tempting.
So while the policy looks good, we need to see the implementation before we start sharing.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
Y'all have a good day.
{{Shirt}}
{{EasterEgg}}