David Goldman/Associated Press

Toward the end of a May 27 article in The Times about President Obama’s speech in which, among other things, he mentioned setting new standards for ordering drone strikes against non-Americans, there was this rather disturbing paragraph:

“Even as he set new standards, a debate broke out about what they actually meant and what would actually change. For now, officials said, ‘signature strikes’ targeting groups of unidentified armed men presumed to be extremists will continue in the Pakistani tribal areas.”

As Glenn Greenwald has pointed out, those two sentences seem to contradict the entire tenor of Mr. Obama’s speech, and of a letter to Congress from Attorney General Eric Holder.



Both men seemed to be saying that the administration would stop using unmanned drones to kill targets merely suspected, due to their location or their actions, of a link to Al Qaeda or another terrorist organization. Who were, say, just congregating in places where people who don’t like the United States congregate. Those strikes have resulted in untold civilian casualties that have poisoned America’s relationship with Yemen and Pakistan. (Listen to this Morning Edition interview with a former Air Force pilot who operated drones for several years.)

Mr. Obama talked at some length about civilian casualties, and also said that the need to use drone strikes against “forces that are massing to support attacks on coalition forces” will disappear once American forces withdraw from Afghanistan at the end of 2014.

Mr. Holder was even more specific, saying that the standards applied to strikes against American citizens would be applied to all orders to kill suspected terrorists who cannot be captured or otherwise neutralized. Targets, he said, must pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans.”

We took that as a very positive step in our editorial on the speech. But so what to make of that paragraph in the May 27 article?

I asked the White House. What I got in response was part of a background briefing given after the president’s speech that repeated the language about how the need for signature strikes will fade after the withdrawal.

The official who gave the briefing said: “Given the two principal changing circumstances in our effort against terrorism — the winding down of the war in Afghanistan and the demise of Al Qaeda core — the need for the types of strikes that we’ve taken generally over the course of the last several years will be reduced over time.”

When I asked for more clarification, a senior administration official emphasized that the president wants to see the number of strikes reduced even before the withdrawal.

But I guess Glenn Greenwald was right. The president’s speech did not signal a specific, immediate change in the administration’s policy on signature strikes — just a promise that they will decline over time. That’s a shame.