Being able to shwack bad guys with impunity is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Supremacy in the battle space is the objective and killing the enemy without getting killed is what we all hope for.
How is the use of the UAV any different from using strike aircraft or helicopters as CAS? The way I see it, it is safer and much more cost effective than maintaining a CAS stack.
I had buddies and acquaintances who loved having a Predator overhead because they knew the loiter time was forever and the crew provided not only real time intel, but could also provide personalized attention to the bad guys in a pinch.
Finally, an Air Force dude should love the precision that UAV provided on the battlefield. Collateral damage is held to a minimum even on tactical
strikes because of the precision that a Hellfire provides. This is a far cry from wiping cities slick ala Bomber Harris in WW II.
I get all that... my point was WHY are such strict ROEs applied to ground troops, in which the slightest error can result in UCMJ action, yet those same requirements are overlooked in drone application?
I’m all for schwacking the bad guys as much as anyone, but if we’re OK with taking out the “collateral damage” (i.e. noncombatants) around them, why are guys on the ground restricted to the point of lethal peril to them?
Just addressing the inconsistencies here.