Gitmo and Drone Strikes.

I'm going to personally revisit this issue, as I haven't chimed in on it in quite some time. Let's talk about Gitmo and drone strikes that the U.S. has been utilizing. We must weigh the pros and cons of keeping Guantanamo Bay open. The positive side of the equation is that it is an extremely convenient place to bring in fighters from our counterterrorism campaigns in the Middle East. What adds to the convenience of the matter is that they can be held for as long as we deem appropriate. There are detention advantages involved, such as detentiom without trial. What about the negatives? Conventional wisdom states that keeping Gitmo open breeds more discontent and terrorism on the ground in the region. Since most people asked believed that we will be fighting Islamic extremism for the rest of our lives, is this effect simply the cost of doing business in the 21st century? An unavoidable one? Is keeping Gitmo open a net loss or gain on our bottom line? Some reports place the Gitmo releasee recidivism rate (or returning to the battlefield) as high as 30.5%. If this fight is set to last (in some form or another) for the rest of our lives, what do we do with these individuals? Gitmo might be our best bet. There's just too much going on, in my opinion, to shut it down.

There are too many enemies. The Islamic State (now recruiting in Afghanistan and Pakistan) and Al Qaeda ought to keep us busy for some time. What about drone strikes? I support them when we have the identities and locations of the individuals involved down pat. Actionable intelligence on legitimate targets. I frown upon signature strikes, or individuals who are profiled due to their behavioral/travel patterns, or supposed connections to known terrorists. There is more potential for errors and collateral damage when this technique is used. Not to mention, it creates lots of angry people. Thanks, and have a great day.