I think that future was coming regardless of anything he could do as commander in chief. There is no putting that toothpaste back in the tube.

Obama didn't have to authorize targeted assassinations far away from any battlefield.

Do not downvote this man, as he makes an obvious and valid point.

In this war, there is no battlefield.

That's the problem with these robots. The USA has now set the precedent that the robots can go anywhere in the world and blow anyone up that we label a terrorist. This is dangerous and stupid. Of course it was Bush that invented the endless war (how do we win this war? are we supposed to to kill every young muslim that hates us?), but Bush preferred kidnapping people and sticking them in secret prisons, Obama prefers using robots to assassinate from afar, no messy legal challenges that way.

We have a monopoly on the robots now but they are only going to get cheaper in the future and everybody will have them, they will present a threat to all establishments. It is stupid for the USA to be going off on our "might makes right" arrogance destroying all international laws and norms. And for what? Do these dirt poor guys in Afghanistan and Pakistan really pose a threat to us? No they don't.

The only solution in the future will be for everyone to come together to ban these machines, similar to the treaties against land mines and chemical weapons, but the U.S. will have no moral authority to do so.

This future is not very far away.

> are we supposed to to kill every young muslim that hates us?

Why stop at Muslims?

Is there something special about them that they deserve death for harboring feelings that others do too?

Once drones become prolific, they will start killing drones instead of people and maybe we can have a bloodless war the same way we have paperless offices.

Eventually we won't have to go to the expense of building weapons at all, and computers will decide who lives and dies: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/A_Taste_of_Ar...

With lots of "collateral" damage.

Surely, as commander in chief, one of his responsibilities is managing the scope of "this war?"

But let's not get into politics...

More like, on this battlefield there is no war.

And he didn't have to increase the use of UAVs or attack more countries.