The President Has Too Much Latitude In Ordering Drone Strikes

This blog post's title is that of an op-ed written by Richard Haas and published in today's Wall Street Journal.  Haas builds a sound case for stricter U.S. policy on the employment of drone strikes, especially when U.S. citizens abroad are being targeted. As our U.S. drone policies evolve, they must remain consistent with and thus supportive of U.S. foreign policy.  As Richard Haas so eloquently states in his article, " . . a strike must be undertaken only when it includes the near-certainty that the target is a highly dangerous terrorist, that the strike is likely to succeed, that collateral damage will be minimal and there is no viable alternative… Such considerations would rule out “signature” strikes, which target people who are behaving in ways that resemble how terrorists tend to behave—such as groups of men carrying weapons in areas frequented by terrorists. . ." Let us keep in mind that if a drone strike creates more enemies than it eliminates - such as driving persons to the dark side when their loved ones become victims of collateral damage - the justification for why the strike was ordered in the first place, i.e. to reduce the number of terrorists, becomes questionable.