Peter W. Singer asked an interesting question today: Were it not for drones, would the United States (and allies) have had to invade Pakistan to prevent nuclear weapons from falling into the wrong hands? His question was based on this blog post about some comments made in Australia by counterinsurgency expert John Nagl. Do you agree with Nagl that the benefits of drones in dismantling the Al Qaeda leadership outweigh the problematic aspects of their use (killing of innocents, further radicalization)?
Only partially agree with Nagi i.e.,provided "killing of innocents" in drone attacks is absolutely minimized,
Drone(s) should not launch missile(s) if probability of civilian casualties is not low e.g., less than20% in most cases (with exceptions for hi-value terrorists with considerable blood on their hands (including Muslim civilians)). Strongly prefer selective drone and special forces attacks over invasion/occupation.