Use of Attack Drones

Open email to Rep. Martha Roby, Chairman House Military Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee Sen. Hagan, Chairman Senate Military Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities

Dear Rep. Roby and Sen. Hagan,
There is controversy on the use of attack drones to find and eliminate Al Qaeda terrorists on foreign soil. The controversy lies not in the killing of terrorists, but in so-called collateral damage, which is the incidental killing of claimed innocent civilians. Human rights groups have been pressuring the Obama Administration and presumably Congress to reduce or better control attack drones, as reported by the Washington Times.
The U.S. Air Force, which controls the attack drone program says it is merely trying to do its job in the best way possible. However, it is being limited not only by the human rights groups lobbying, but also by Pres. Obama, who said, "Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.”
By his statement, it is apparent that Pres. Obama has no understanding of war. This is an extremely dangerous situation in a President who is also Commander-In-Chief of all armed forces. It Is also apparent that human rights groups, in the context of their position on the drone situation, also did not understand war. I'm afraid that there may be many similar others in the normal population.
The facts of war are that the Armed Forces of any country will not be able to engage in war, if there is no support within the civilian population of that same country. That support usually comes from supplying their armed services with food and other supplies, with which to conduct the war operation. Without that civilian support, the Armed Services are unable to operate effectively.
During World War II, the US clearly understood this connection. It reduced Germany to rubble through saturation bombing, which not only destroyed war goods producing factories, but the civilians who worked there as well. When we dropped two atomic bombs on Japan it was well known that civilians supporting the war effort would also be killed.
During World War II, the United States was at war with specific national entities; namely Germany and Japan. At present, we have a war going on with radical Muslim terrorists, which are organizations not specific to any specific national boundaries. Therefore, we must adapt to the new requirements of control. That is, to search out and find members of those organizations, in whatever country they may be. In most cases, the terrorist groups are well aware of our self-imposed limitations, such as Pres. Obama elucidated above. Simply put, terrorists hide under civilian skirts. In most cases, the hiding is done with the agreement of the hider. When a residence owner, who is also a civilian hides a terrorist, the owner is complicit in the terrorists activities and should be considered as much of an enemy as the terrorist himself. More simply, Pres. Obama's statement that no civilians will be killed or injured is ridiculous.
If you going to fight a war, you should not do so with one hand tied behind your back, such as the wars in Korea and Vietnam. A war is like a football game. You go out to win and give it the best with all you have. If we do that with our war against terrorists, we will never completely end the war, because of the nature of terrorist ideology and practice. However, we will have considerably better success in protecting US civilians than if we continue with self-imposed limitations.