A newspaper columnist recently suggested there was a “strong moral argument” for taking out the Libyan leader, and the MQ-1B Predator was just the tool for the job.  Columnist Richard Miniter said:

Since President Barack Obama seems comfortable killing terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan with Predator drone strikes, why not in Libya?

Ignore the political and even moral aspects of such a statement for a moment.

Such an assertion is both ignorant and asinine.

Following Operation Desert Storm, hundreds of hours of CNN video of LGB hits earned the US military the reputation of being able to hit a specific window of a specific building on a certain block with great precision.  That reputation was well-earned, but it was not without caveat.  An entire country liberated with only 114 Americans killed by enemy fire.  A new world order for the 21st Century, some thought.  Regrettably, many people soon assumed that the US Air Force could win any war and minimize casualties (on both sides) by plinking precision weapons.

That’s not the way war works.  Incidents in Africa, the Baltics, Iraq, and Afghanistan that some people viewed with utter shock came as no surprise to those who understand how the military and its weaponry are employed and effective.

Likewise, the Predator (or the UAV in general) is not a panacea to the world’s problems.  The fact that it is unmanned and (relatively) low cost may make it attractive from a political point of view, but using it in such a suggested scenario makes no sense militarily.  The Predator isn’t the world’s greatest military asset.  In fact, it’s built like a small, Cessna-like aircraft.  It probably wouldn’t even make it to the Libyan border before being shot down.

The US military was held to an unmeetable standard after the Gulf War, and there is risk following the unconventional conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan that the same thing may happen.  Of course, any time there are public calls for employing a specific weapon or ordnance, it rarely bodes well for military efficacy.  President Obama’s Chief of Staff, William Daley, made a similar assessment when people started calling for “no fly zones” in Libya:

“Lots of people throw around phrases of ‘no-fly zone’ – they talk about it as though it’s just a video game or something…When people comment on military action, most of them have no idea what they’re talking about.” 

Fortunately, most senior government officials seem to understand the limitations of both the military and its equipment, though the public may not always see beyond the glorified news reels.

War is an ugly business, to cite an oft-repeated quote.  No amount of precision weapons or UAVs will ever change that.