In a rare fit of awareness and good sense, The New York Times asks: "Have the stepped-up attacks in Pakistan — notably the Predator drone strikes — actually made Americans less safe?". Not surprisingly, they come up with the wrong answer.
The NYT provides us this extension of their question, which is where the wheels fall off their wagon:
"Have they had the perverse consequence of driving lesser insurgencies to think of targeting Times Square and American airliners, not just Kabul and Islamabad? In short, are they inspiring more attacks on America than they prevent?"
Therein, they go back to the same old collectivist BS of hand-wringing over "what makes them want to hurt us". I've always had this common-sense response: A) I don't care, and B) we are America--they are the stone-age.
But the root question...the one before they started to descend into psychobabbling Islamo-analysis...is a good question.
Why are we killing our enemies rather than capturing them? They are worth a lot more alive, at least some of them, as vessels of precious intelligence. So why reduce them to useless pink clouds with Predator strikes?
The answer, of course is both obvious and one the NYT would not care to articulate; Barack Hussain Obama would find them a MUCH greater nuisance alive...and captured...than dead. Owing entirely to the man-child's naivete in foreign and national security policy, and to his cluelessness as Commander-In-Chief...coupled with his campaign demagoguery on GITMO, detention, military justice, etc...the Obami cannot afford to take prisoners.
Regardless of how it hurts American interests, Obama feels obliged to kill...rather than capture...enemies that hold key intelligence we vitally need. The collective generally accedes, and spins its wheels with worrying about the Obamic policy making more terrorists.