Link to the article in question.
The interview in this article raises a very interesting viewpoint on the use of drones in modern military engagements; namely, their status as an alternative or even replacement for soldiers, whether on the ground or in the air, piloting jets or helicopters. The most interesting line I found was the comparing of collateral damage from Pakistani F16 fighter jets and U.S. drones; F16 bombings have “displaced millions” in a way that the precision of drones has not. (In no way am I implying drones are infallible. There is always a margin for error.) The first idea that popped into my head was the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended World War II back in 1945. These bombings are still questioned to this day. My personal belief is that we picked a choice that resulted in many fewer deaths and a much quicker end to a war that, frankly, had gone on long enough. But I shouldn’t start an argument about World War II, as interested as I am about it. I feel that this drones vs. jets or battalions of foot soldiers decision is a similar predicament, albiet on a smaller scale. Why risk a human pilot and a multi-million dollar jet dropping a cluster bomb when you can send in a drone to do the same task without the risk to personell and bigger assets?