One interesting part was, that in some of the minds of the subjects ("teachers"), the "learner" could not do or say anything to "convince the teacher to stop". This is almost direct quote from a woman which was a hospital sister in real life. So she wasn't evil; she just was conditioned to not consider "learner" as a human being (or his opinion).
I don't know anything about how they target their victim, but I am assuming the have very little time between seeing the victim and deciding to execute him/her/them. So I suspect an algorithm makes the call.
None of it is "seconds", it's all minutes or higher, and there is almost certainly at least a Colonel (20+ years experience), or a General, making the call. Every shoot probably goes through >20 people -- legal, various types of targeting, and technical/tactical "can the shot be made at all". The whole process is designed around getting approval for things like this rapidly. UAVs have many-hour loiter times, vs. combat aircraft which are usually minutes on station (due to fuel, since they're often based far away from the combat).
You can legitimately criticize a lot about the program, but it's not understaffed. At some level the military likes to retain "person in the loop" on things where automation is technically more appropriate, as it's a way to train people for other roles later -- i.e. pilots who eventually become USAF top brass.
My problem is with the over-use of drones in operations where we'd otherwise not get involved (Yemen, etc.). Drones themselves probably centralize decision making with more senior people, and the cost of not taking a shot is just having to wait for the next one, so unless it's a shot in support of a unit already on the ground, theoretically drones will make the military more restrained in the shots it takes. If there are friendly forces on the ground nearby, you end up with things like the "Reuters Journalist/Collateral Murder" situation -- a lower level of evidence to support a military decision than you'd ideally have.
Most everything you wrote makes intuitive sense, even for myself, with no military experience--which is why it is so hard for me to believe that many of the other comments in this thread are being made earnestly.
Perhaps there is some philosophy at work that is just foreign to me?
Even the basis of this article strains credulity--the authors editorialize that any reliance on signals intel is bad. Assuming that drones are a useful military tool, wouldn't we want maximum information to improve targeting, leading to reductions in collateral damage?
I think people are much better at evaluating whether the totality of a situation is good/bad, vs. why specifically that situation is bad.
There's no question much of the US response to 9/11 has been bad -- internationally (wars...) and domestically (perpetual state of war, civil liberties losses, etc.).
Articulating which changes, particularly technological, are good and bad individually is a lot harder. And it seems to be harder for people the closer they are to the situation emotionally.
The US military is nothing short of absolutely amazing. I just wish we lived in a world that didn't use it in such insidious ways.
Politicians have made a habit of abstracting themselves from the reality of the military and at the same time exploiting every angle of it for political gain.
But the sheer complexity and capability of the US military is dumbfounding.
