Proudly delegitimizing the state since 2005
"Aye, free! Free as a tethered ass!" —W.S. Gilbert
"All the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and . . . the State should be abolished." —Benjamin Tucker
"You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." —James Madison
"Fat chance." —Sheldon Richman
Thursday, December 24, 2015
TGIF: The Season of Peace Requires Action Not Songs
Thursday, December 17, 2015
TGIF: America's Asymmetrical War Against the Muslim World
Of course, the assessment of the small risk would change -- although not significantly, given the size of the U.S. population and land mass -- if we knew that the number of would-be terrorists was growing. But we can be confident, as John Mueller and Mark. G. Stewart note, that the number is tiny. How do we know? We know because we don't see much terrorism in the United States. As Mueller and Stewart note, 9/11 was an obvious outlier and many of the foiled terrorist plots were instigated or at least advanced by FBI informants. (Attacks at military facilities should not be counted as terrorism, a loaded term coined to let the U.S. government and Israel get away with murder.) And what terrorism we've seen has not been terribly sophisticated.
Monday, December 14, 2015
A Conspiracy of Fear-Mongers
Saturday, December 12, 2015
How the U.S. Inspires Anti-American Terrorism
Our reluctance to consider whether certain aspects of U.S. foreign and defense policy inspire anti-American extremism began as early as the 9/11 Commission. As the late Ernest May, a distinguished historian who worked with the commission, later acknowledged:
“[T]he report skirts the question of whether American policies and actions fed the anger that manifested itself on September 11…. [it] is weak in laying out evidence for the alternative argument that the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the Capitol might not have been targeted absent America’s identification with Israel, support for regimes such as those in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, and insensitivity to Muslims’ feelings about their holy places. The commissioners believed that American foreign policy was too controversial to be discussed except in recommendations written in the future tense. Here we compromised our commitment to set forth the full story.”
Wow....
As I pointed out back in 2009, the United States is directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims over the past three decades, a sum vastly greater than the number of Americans killed by Muslims. It would be remarkable indeed if our actions had not led a small fraction of their co-religionists to want to retaliate in some way.Walt is of the realist school of foreign policy.
Friday, December 11, 2015
TGIF: Please Don't Say "Radical" If You Mean" Violent"
It's about time someone challenged the phrase radical Islamic terrorism. The most objectionable part is the word radical since it is now popularly associated with aggression -- violence against innocents -- as an acceptable means to politico-religious ends.
But nothing about the word radical implies approval of aggression or terrorism. Rather, the word signifies an approach that goes to the heart of a matter, or the person taking such an approach. Violence is a tactic that can be used in the service of radical ends but also conservative ends. A radical can be a pacifist, a terrorist, or one who believes that violence is appropriate only in the defense of innocent life. There's simply no necessary connection between radicalism and aggression.
Thursday, December 10, 2015
Cruz Is Bad Too
As if to prove that he can be as bad as Trump -- and arguably worse -- Ted Cruz now says, "We will utterly destroy ISIS. We will carpet-bomb them into oblivion. I don’t know if sand can glow in the dark, but we’re going to find out!"
He might have meant ISIS when he said he would "carpet-bomb them," but the them would include more than the leaders and fighters of ISIS. It would include noncombatants as well, lots of them.
Cruz was no more specific than that, but as Robert Parry of Consortiumnews.com points out, "the phrase 'glow in the dark' popularly refers to the aftermath of a nuclear bomb detonation."
Perhaps Cruz could enlighten the rest of us as to exactly what he has in mind should he reach the White House.
At any rate, add Cruz, if you haven't already, to the list of advocates of mass murder.
Wednesday, December 09, 2015
A Qualified Judge If Ever There Was
It's Complicated
Potential Terrorists Everywhere
Tuesday, December 08, 2015
The Phony Mystery of Why "They" Hate Us
Friday, December 04, 2015
TGIF: Of Bumblebees and Competitive Courts
Thursday, December 03, 2015
The Trump Disconnect
Tuesday, December 01, 2015
Sanders Keeps Blowing it.
Trump's Invented Memory about Muslims
Monday, November 30, 2015
Why Assad Isn't "Our Son of a Bitch"
Saturday, November 28, 2015
Trump's 9/11 Recollection
[T]he highly documented five celebrants – later joined by two more from the same company apprehended after giving false information to law enforcement – were not Arab or Muslim.
The celebrants were – as noted here – all Israelis.Also see this.
Not So Outside
We have to stay with Israel. Israel has been our one reliable partner in the Middle East. Israel has been terrific to us. Obama has treated Israel horribly. We have to stay with Israel and stay with them big time.... I’d really call up Bibi [Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu], who is a friend of mine and I’d call up some people and be very dependent on what Israel wants. You know if they really want certain things and they are deserving of certain things.
Friday, November 27, 2015
Competition, Cooperation, and Conformity
My Trump Post Makes Newsweek
Click image |
My post about Donald Trump's immigrant-deportation proposal was picked up by Newsweek. This screen shot is featured in an anti-Trump ad produced by presidential contender John Kasich. The ad, suggesting a comparison between Trump and the Nazis, has been widely discussed by news outlets and other sites. (HT: Joel Schlosberg.)
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Foreign Policy Comes Back to Haunt Us
Monday, November 23, 2015
Miko Peled: "Beyond Zionism"
Friday, November 20, 2015
TGIF: Let the Refugees In
Monday, November 16, 2015
How to Respond to the Paris Attacks
Saturday, November 14, 2015
Uproot the Tree of Empire
If you abhor the harvest, work to uproot the tree.
Friday, November 13, 2015
TGIF: Trump's Operation Police State
Wrong on both counts.
Wednesday, November 11, 2015
Armistice Day, 2015
"Canadian Private George Lawrence Price is traditionally regarded as the last soldier killed in the Great War: he was shot by a German sniper at 10:57 and died at 10:58." --Wikipedia
(Originally posted on Nov. 11, 2013.)
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
The Campaign Needs a Radical, But Sanders Isn't It
Nevertheless, whether you like socialism or not, Sanders's is not a socialist: he calls neither for nationalizing the means of production nor for replacing the market economy with central planning. Yet that is what socialism came to mean in the mid-20th century. Democratic socialism meant that socialism would be achieved through the ballot box.
It is worth noting that in late 19th- and early 20th-century America, socialism was an umbrella term that was also used by radical free-market, or individualist, anarchists like Benjamin R. Tucker and Francis Dashwood Tandy, who called his 1896 book Voluntary Socialism. A socialist then was anyone who objected that workers were cheated out of their full reward and that prices of goods were fixed above the cost of production; in contrast to state socialists, free-market socialists attributed these evils to "capitalism," by which they meant the system of government privileges for well-connected owners of capital.
What Sanders favors is an expanded welfare/regulatory state, i.e., more of what we have. When asked about socialism, he praises Medicare. Medicare, however, is not socialism, nor would single-payer for all be socialism. Under state-socialized medicine, government would own and operate the hospitals, and doctors and nurses would be government employees -- like the post office without competition. Under single-payer, government would pay the bills for private-sector medical care and impose controls that powerful interests would inevitably manipulate to their advantage. Sound familiar?
The welfare state was established by western ruling classes to tamp down discontent among the powerless that had the potential to turn revolutionary. The father of the modern welfare state, Otto von Bismarck, intended government-administered social insurance to keep the Prussian working class loyal to the regime and out of the Marxist and liberal (libertarian) camps. In England workers initially resisted the welfare state because it was seen as a move by the aristocracy to co-opt the labor movement, which sought to redress its grievances directly.
Sometimes Sanders says that being a socialist means merely that he's neither a Democrat or a Republican. That's not terribly informative. At other times he says it signifies concern about gross income disparities, the high cost of college, and the lack of access to medical care. Again, this doesn't tell us much since radical libertarians share those concerns. What's matters are the solutions. Two people can look at the same social problem and argue over whether the best approach is more government, less government, or no government at all. Sanders's preference, more government, would mean expanded bureaucratic control and special-interest "capture," i.e., more of what already ails us.
In 1986, Sanders said, "All that socialism means to me, to be very frank with you, is democracy with a small 'd.' I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives." Considering that Sanders's program would empower bureaucrats rather than people, one could consistently endorse Sanders's objective while opposing his proposals. (See my "Free-Market Socialism.")
He also said, "What being a socialist means is … that you hold out … a vision of society where poverty is absolutely unnecessary, where international relations are not based on greed … but on cooperation … where human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire."
Again, these are objectives that any radical free-market libertarian could embrace. Where Sanders goes wrong is in aiming to empower bureaucrats and politicians.
Sanders cannot or will not see that expanding the welfare/regulatory bureaucracy would not help those outside the ruling elite. Beefing up the state won't liberate us. Despite his intentions, Sanders is an unwitting defender of the status quo.
Where is the radical who will make the case for individual liberation and purely voluntary social cooperation through freed markets?
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!
Friday, November 06, 2015
TGIF: Who Supports the Troops?
Wednesday, November 04, 2015
That Was Then
Tuesday, November 03, 2015
America's Non-representative War Government
Representation is chief among those fictions.
Friday, October 30, 2015
TGIF: The Wickedness of Foreign Policy
Thursday, October 29, 2015
Recent Radio Shows
Gun Control
Presidential Candidates
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Perpetuating War
In the great 1964 antiwar film, The Americanization of Emily, the protagonist, Charlie Madison (James Garner), says what Americans desperately need to learn:
We perpetuate war by exalting its sacrifices.
Friday, October 23, 2015
TGIF: Gun Control and Immigration Restrictions Are Enemies of Liberty
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
Is Instability the Goal of U.S. Mideast Policy?
Saturday, October 17, 2015
Guns, Drugs, and Civil Rights
The victims would be alive today -- or so we’re told. But would they be? The same question must be asked of subsequent shootings as well, but the the Roof case is particularly interesting because of its racial motivation.
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
The Anti-Politician Politician
This, I submit, is not progress.
Monday, October 12, 2015
US Foreign-Policy Primer
Democratic foreign policy: We're bombing you because we want to protect you from bad things.
Friday, October 09, 2015
TGIF: Presidential Contenders Leave Peace-and-Freedom Lovers Adrift
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Realism and Utopianism in the Gun Debate
Read the rest here.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog Free Association and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!
Tuesday, October 06, 2015
A Modest Agenda
Friday, October 02, 2015
TGIF: Ending Gun Violence: Logic versus Magic
Thursday, October 01, 2015
Planned Parenthood, Social Peace, and the Libertarian Approach
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The Politicians Really Love Us and Here's Why
Of course they love us: they need us. What would they do -- what could they do -- without us?
Monday, September 28, 2015
Friday, September 18, 2015
Free Association Webinar: To Decentralize, or Not to Decentralize, That Is the Question.
Here's the video of Lucy Steigerwald and my latest Free Association webinar at Liberty.me. Enjoy!
Friday, September 11, 2015
TGIF: Kim Davis's Stunt
Tuesday, September 08, 2015
What's Donald Trump Running for Anyway?
Thursday, September 03, 2015
Anarchism v. Minarchism
Monday, August 31, 2015
Anarchism 101
"What assures that state operatives will behave well?"
"One-worlder!"
"No, that wouldn't solve the problem. I'm against all government."
"Anarchist!"
"Hey, there's still a question on the table. You got an answer?"
"Anarchist!
Saturday, August 29, 2015
Libertarianism 101
If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. (Lincoln)
If self-ownership is not right, nothing is right.(Suggested reading: Michael Huemer, "Moral Knowledge," excerpted from Ethical Intuitionism. Also, Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty.)
Let's Talk: Left-Libertarianism
Relatedly, I talked about libertarian class analysis with Scott Horton: here.
Friday, August 28, 2015
The Self-Serving News Media
Wednesday, August 26, 2015
Trump Neither Smart nor Wise
Monday, August 24, 2015
Here He Comes
Open tyranny will come to America in the form of a braggart with bad hair and a ridiculous baseball cap.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Unlimited Limited Government
One thing that bothers me about the idea of limited government is how unlimited it is. After all the acknowledged illegitimate departments are eliminated, what's left? Only the IRS (perhaps under another name), the police/courts/prison complex, and the military. Lovers of liberty are supposed to be comforted by that program? Those are the three most threatening parts of the state -- and they are left standing! (Minarchists may object that I assume the taxman won't face unemployment, but have no doubts about this. A monopoly state without the power to tax is as imaginable as a square circle.) I'd feel much better if all that remained were the department of motor vehicles and the bureau of weights and measures.
Minarchists may try to reassure us that the remaining departments will be strictly limited by a constitution. To evaluate that claim, consult the Public Choice literature and the work of Anthony de Jasay. Also American history.
Friday, August 21, 2015
TGIF: Trump's Trade Snake Oil
Monday, August 17, 2015
Israel Wanted Iran Talks to Deal with Nukes Only
They should ask the Israelis.
It was, after all, Israel’s leaders who insisted that the nuclear file be addressed first and on its own, and who pushed back hard against any attempt to forge a more comprehensive understanding or grand bargain with Iran (an idea explored over a decade ago in back-channel talks during the term of President Mohammad Khatami). Last summer for instance, when Iran and the West found themselves on the same side against Islamic State (also called ISIS) in Iraq, senior Israeli Minister Yuval Steinitz, who was head of the Iran file at the time, noted that Israel had pushed for and received commitments from “the Americans and the British and the French and the Germans—that a total separation will be enforced,” that is, the West would not negotiate with Iran on regional issues until the nuclear question was dealt with. Israel, in other words, demanded that the nuclear file be treated as a standalone issue—the very thing that it now criticizes about the deal.So writes David Levy at Foreign Affairs magazine. The point is that Israel did not want to risk a rapprochement between the United States and Iran, a prospect that could water down Israel's influence in the United States and in the region.
Iran had offered a comprehensive grand bargain to the United States in 2003, in which all outstanding issues would be discussed, including Iran's support for the Palestinians. Indeed, as part of the proffered grand bargain, Iran accepted Saudi Arabia's previous Arab Peace Initiative (2002, renewed 2007), which would have included recognition of Israel in a two-state context. President George W. Bush gave Iran's overture the back of his hand, having branded Iran in 2002 as a member of the Axis of Evil along with Iraq and North Korea. (This was a fine thank-you for Iran's cooperation after the 9/11 attacks.)
Friday, August 14, 2015
TGIF: The U.S.-Israel Conflict Is Finally Visible for All to See
Thursday, August 06, 2015
Regarding Amnesty
Truman, A-bombs, and the Killing of Innocents
Tuesday, August 04, 2015
70th Anniversary of the A-bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
This month marks the 70th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, President Harry Truman's acts of mass murder against the Japanese in August 1945. Some 90,000-166,000 individuals were killed in Hiroshima on Aug. 6. The Nagasaki bombing on Aug. 9 killed 39,000-80,000 human beings. (It has come to my attention that the U.S. military bombed Tokyo on Aug. 14--after destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki and after Emperor Hirohito expressed his readiness to surrender.)
The State Defined
Wednesday, July 29, 2015
Obama and Kerry Play with Fire on Iran Agreement
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
Another Iranian Non-Threat
This image tweeted by Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has a lot of people upset. Is it supposed to be Barack Obama holding a gun to his own head?
What if it is? The picture is hardly threatening or aggressive in any way. After all, it's not a picture of Khamenei holding a gun to Obama's head.
And look at the text:
We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but if any war happens, the one who will emerge loser will be the aggressive and criminal U.S.That is not aggressive in the least. On the contrary, it rejects war. Who's been threatening war against whom? The U.S. government (along with Israel) has been threatening war against Iran. Even after the nuclear agreement was signed, Secretary of War Ash Carter reiterated that war against Iran is still an option. So all Khamenei is saying is that if the U.S. government starts a war, it will lose. It will be as though Obama had pointed a gun at himself and pulled the trigger.
In the past, Iran's pledges to retaliate if attacked have always been presented by the news media and politicians as though they were threats to initiate war. This is happening again.
When will the media and the hack politicians be straight with the public? Iran has threatened to attack no one, but the U.S. and Israeli governments, both with nuclear weapons, routinely threaten to attack Iran. Who is the criminal?
Monday, July 27, 2015
Friday, July 24, 2015
TGIF: Thought Crimes, Domestic "Terrorism," and Police Bullying
Thursday, July 23, 2015
Free Association -- The Webinar
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
No "Compensation" to Israel for Iran Deal
Israel’s Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon told the Times of Israel that during U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carter's visit the Israeli government would discuss “the compensation that Israel deserves in order to maintain its qualitative [military] edge” over Iran. The Obama administration of course is amenable.
There is no Iranian imperialism.
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog "Free Association" and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!
Monday, July 20, 2015
The Key to Almost Everything
Friday, July 17, 2015
TGIF: Rothbardian Thoughts on Strategy
In thinking about libertarian strategy, I find it useful to revisit the framework set out by Murray Rothbard in For a New Liberty (FNL). What counts here is not that Rothbard, a builder of the modern libertarian movement, was the author, but that it is an eloquent statement of a reasonable position on how libertarians should grapple with political reality as they strive for a totally free society.
Wednesday, July 15, 2015
Two Cheers for the Iran Agreement
Although American officials still say that war is an option, the chance has now shrunk. Even Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows that his military alone cannot deal a death blow to Iran. For that he needs America, and he’s far less likely to find a willing partner now.
That the Iranians will have sanctions lifted is something all humane people will welcome. President Obama says the sanctions “crippled the Iranian economy…. Their economy has been cratering as a consequence of the sanctions.” But he is wrong. “Economy” is an abstraction; it cannot be crippled or cratered. What has been crippled and cratered are the lives of innocent Iranians, who have had a difficult time obtaining food and medicines. The sanctions regime is a form of warfare against noncombatants. Moreover, as Gareth Porter shows, it did not even achieve what Obama says it was intended to achieve.
The good that will come out of this agreement cannot be overstated. The radically diminished prospect for war -- which would set the Mideast aflame and inflict hardship on the rest of the world as well -- and the improvement in the everyday lives decent Iranians are causes for rejoicing.
But the agreement has a significant downside too, in that it reinforces American hegemony. It does so by the very fact that the U.S. government is regarded by the media and others as the legitimate prosecutor, judge, and probation officer of Iran's government. The U.S. government, of course, commands overwhelming military power, and in that respect alone it has the ability to impose demands on others. But that does not mean an American president has the moral authority to do so.
By what standard of a morality may a government make demands on others when it has wreaked death and destruction on countless societies with its military might, including the dropping of two atomic bombs on innocent Japanese noncombatants; launched wars of aggression; supported some of the worst dictators in recent times; made possible the use of death squads and other forms of terror; tortured people; overthrown governments (including Iran’s in 1953) in order to install puppet regimes; underwritten aggressive wars (such as Iraq’s war, complete with chemical weapons, against Iran in the 1980s; Israel's against Lebanon, which spawned Hezbollah; and now Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen); facilitated or waged covert, proxy, and cyber wars (e.g., against Iran); and backed the occupation of innocent people’s land (most relevantly, Israel’s occupation of Palestine through ethnic cleansing and military conquest, which spawned Hamas)?
Iran never threatened the United States or Israel. It has not tried to build a nuclear bomb, and even if it were to do so, the weapon would be of no value except perhaps as a deterrent. Yet the nuclear-armed United States, and its ally Israel -- the Mideast’s nuclear monopolist -- haughtily presume to tell Iran what it may and may not do. The system of state sovereignty we suffer under is illegitimate, but as long as it exists, the U.S. government will only cause mayhem by violating the “sovereignty” of other nations. Under prevailing rules, Iran is a sovereign nation, so the U.S. government should have no more authority to demand that Iran open itself to inspections of its military and scientific facilities than Iran has to make that demand of the U.S. government. (Actually, maybe that wouldn’t be a bad thing.)
It’s especially outrageous for Israel, which has aggressed against its neighbors, to stand in judgment of Iran. Iran signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and was subject to inspections before the latest negotiations. Israel will not sign the treaty. It won’t even admit what has long been known: that it has hundreds of nuclear weapons, which were built with smuggled components thanks to the connivance of law-breaking American officials and supporters. Israel, like the United States, also opposes making the Mideast a nuclear-free zone, which Iran supports.
So lift a glass to the agreement. But let's not rest until the American hegemon is caged.
[Related articles: My "Can Iran Trust the United States?"; Richard Lachman, Michael Schwartz, and Kevin Young, "Why They Hate the Deal with Iran."]
Sheldon Richman keeps the blog "Free Association" and is a senior fellow and chair of the trustees of the Center for a Stateless Society. Become a patron today!
Tuesday, July 14, 2015
What a Deal: Thoughts on the Iran Agreement
Damn, we didn't even get a chance to humiliate them! What's happening to America?
The necons fear that if Iran's assets are unfrozen, it will behave like the United States.
It's worth it to see the Lobby and necons go berserk.
While Obama brags about stemming nuclear proliferation, let him explain why he, like Israel, opposes making the Mideast nuclear-free. (Hint: Israel is the nuclear monopolist, having achieved that status by smuggling the components and breaking U.S. law with the connivance of American officials and other influential people.)
How dare Iran think it can destabilize the Middle East! That's America's role!
Next agenda item: dismantling the US nuclear arsenal.
Friday, July 10, 2015
TGIF: Libertarian Strategy and Incremental Change
Wednesday, July 08, 2015
Thomas Friedman and the Wish for War with Iran
Saturday, July 04, 2015
Friday, July 03, 2015
TGIF: Clarence Thomas's Confused Notion of Freedom
Wednesday, July 01, 2015
Scalia's Anti-Enlightenment Anti-Individualism
Case in point: Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges (PDF), the case that declared state laws forbidding legal recognition of same-sex marriages unconstitutional. Scalia’s opinion is worth examining apart from the particulars of Obergefell. As he points out -- let’s take him at his word -- what he objects to in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion has nothing to do with same-sex marriage per se. What concerns him is not the content of the opinion but the activity the majority engaged in to arrive at it.
Sunday, June 28, 2015
Do We Have a Right to Marry?
But if we mean participation in the specific government-fostered institution characterized by marriage licenses, then the answer must be no.
Here's why: if the government-fostered institution were abolished tomorrow, as libertarians favor, no one's rights or freedom would be violated. (Justice Clarence Thomas seems to recognize this in his dissenting opinion.)
We have the inherent right to make contracts but we have no right to anything provided by the state, an inherently coercive organization. That's why the best argument for legal recognition of same-sex marriage is an equal-protection argument, not a liberty argument. It's not so much that we have a right to equal protection; it's that equal protection limits the discretion of government officials -- and that tends to be a good thing. The exception to this equality-but-not-liberty principle would be in those states that both forbid same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize private marriage contracts -- which seems to be all the states affected by the Obergefell ruling. As Ilya Somin writes:
In most states that banned same-sex marriage before today, a same-sex couple could not sign an enforceable marriage contract, even if its content was limited to purely private marital obligations between the two parties.Thus such couples were not only denied equal protection; they were also denied liberty.
Friday, June 26, 2015
TGIF: The Libertarian Case for Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Charleston and Gun Rights
Friday, June 19, 2015
TGIF: Another Silly Jab at Libertarianism
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Drone War Delusions
We are constantly told that US drones are surgically precise. But any weapon – especially a remote-controlled one – is only as accurate as the intelligence behind it. At least 38 people died before a CIA strike finally killed this man [al-Qaeda #2, Nasir al-Wuhayshi, in Yemen]. Who were the rest? How many lives did we take in the effort to assassinate al-Wuhayshi? How many have we driven into the arms of militants with the 38 others we killed? The secret drone war conceals a mountain of hidden costs, and the idea we can bomb our way out of the problem of terrorism is short-sighted and, ultimately, false.