[tLO0hFNy]

The fundamental problem here are two fold.

1. The Obama administration's position is that it can conduct a war on terror by only using drone air strikes, rather than boos on the ground. The challenge is that in order to confirm an air strike target, you need good intelligence as to what, where and when to target.
2. The Obama administration's position is that any people taken into custody are to be treated by the Army field manual, with no harsh interrogations to obtain intelligence, nor rendition to the person's country of origin for further interrogation and intelligence gathering

The two positions are valid positions, however, they compromise each other's effectiveness.

So the administration ends up using drone air strikes and sometimes they have bad intelligence and some civilians are killed.

If you want to change that, you'll need better intelligence, but you are prevented from obtaining the needed intelligence. Pakistan intelligence service is riddled with Al Qaeda moles, so no useful intelligence is coming from there.

Other administrations have chosen other solutions to this problem, much to the ridicule by many who are not charged with making the tough decisions.

This administration has chosen this solution, and is also being ridiculed by others, who are also not charged with making the tough decisions.

I'm sure that from administration's perspective this is 'no-win' scenario, with no good solutions. I attribute this to how unconventional this particular conflict is.