Agreed, nothing in the military is unsupervised, we have nukes.
The question is was it supervised to the level required. I'd trust the air force, who obviously was tasked to fly the damn things, to do just that, the flying. Certainly that's smarter than having guys who just finished basic, or air force pilots, or anybody not trained in MP doing MP duties at Abu Gharib.
Unsupervised, I can't believe that you are even arguing this point daniel.
"if bush gave the cia unsupervised use of that weapon then that was very wrong."
Why don't you tell us why that's wrong? Rather then just sticking one liners to us.
The predator unmanned version is a few years old now, going on a decade, the armed version, just needed testing and verification, as well as a purpose. Before 9/11 the line was Americans, are concerned but managing it. Until the towers were hit.
Gene er, colonel, it is quite clear that the support and need for a weapon able to strike, without warning, quickly, immediately, and routinely was needed before the ground war was won in Afghanistan. This weapon proved to be the predator. However, before 9/11, there was neither the perceived need, urgency or "battle tested" ability of this weapon.
Nobody goes into war fighting with untested equipment, except when Rumsfeld, say so. I.e. in the case of troops deploying without fucking body armor, or humvees without armor plating, as it proved the case, necessary, early in the post war occupation. The air force wouldn't want to make guarantees about the ability of the predator when it was untested in the field.
Development still continues of course, but there is a lot that the predator cannot do. I won't participate in any potentially treasonous discussion about capabilities but the fact remains the predator is but one piece in the air force's collection of aircraft which perform certain roles. The geography of the region make it uniquely suited but perhaps not the best equipment to use in all situations.
Certainly there are plenty of AQ who are dead because of it.
