On the Legality of Drone Strikes

I'm a well known advocate of smaller-lighter-faster, so I'm not exactly against drone strikes, but this article does point to a need for reform in international law.

In our current armed conflicts, there are two U.S. drone offensives. One is conducted by our armed forces, the other by the CIA. Every day, CIA agents and CIA contractors arm and pilot armed unmanned drones over combat zones in Afghanistan and Pakistan, including Pakistani tribal areas, to search out and kill Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. In terms of international armed conflict, those CIA agents are, unlike their military counterparts but like the fighters they target, unlawful combatants. No less than their insurgent targets, they are fighters without uniforms or insignia, directly participating in hostilities, employing armed force contrary to the laws and customs of war. Even if they are sitting in Langley, the CIA pilots are civilians violating the requirement of distinction, a core concept of armed conflict, as they directly participate in hostilities.

Rendition (not the "for torture" kind, but the "for trial" kind) and the surgical application of force are the future. And that's great news for civilian populations. A new framework of international law would be worth the effort.