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.
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?