Outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta can see a world in which the use of drones is no longer a staple in the United States’ counterterrorism toolkit, according to an interview with ABC News.

In a wide-ranging interview with ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Panetta spoke on topics including Afghanistan, Syria, and the current crisis in Mali. When asked about whether he believes American civilians should know more about the use of drones by the Central Intelligence Agency, Panetta demurred. “I wish frankly that Americans you know, could really see what I’ve seen as director of the C.I.A. and now as Secretary of Defense in terms of our use of operations to go after those that have attacked our country,” Panetta said.

Panetta went on to defend the use of drones in going after Al Qaeda, while also leaving an opening for their eventual retirement as a cornerstone of that strategy:

PANETTA: And a key part of that has obviously been the use of the operations involving the drones that target those that are in the leadership in Al Qaeda. And that’s a reality. We’ve decimated their leadership as a result of those operations. So you know, my view of it is, you know, it’s not something that we’re going to have to continue to use forever. But it’s a very effective tool, it’s a very effective weapon at going after those who are enemies of the United States of America.

Watch the interview here:

Panetta’s statements echo those made by outgoing Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson, who has previously said that the so-called war on terror “shouldn’t be regarded as a perpetual war without any sort of end.” While Johnson’s comments earlier this month were based on a speech delivered in November at Oxford, they were expanded upon only after he left office. Panetta’s interview may come while he is heading for the exit, but he remains in charge of the Pentagon for the time being.

For now, though, the use of unmanned aerial vehicles — as drones are formally known — continues unabated, with a surge of strikes within Pakistan so far in 2013. Those numbers have not been acknlowedged by the U.S. government, however, as the CIA’s program remains classified. The secrecy surrounding the program was shown in Panetta’s notable lack of a response during the interview to Raddatz’s question, the continuation of a policy that lead to several major newspapers calling for more transparency. Even unarmed drones aren’t without their own controversy, exemplified in reaction to the announcement last week a fleet of surveillance drones are being sold to Afghanistan for use after the US ends its combat mission in 2014.

The Tampa Bay Times reported on Friday that Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) will name Foreign Policy Initiative executive director Jamie Fly his new top foreign policy and national security adviser.

Rubio — considered to be a top contender for the Republican nomination for president in 2016 — “has worked to establish his credentials in foreign affairs,” the Times notes, “espousing a hawkish view as he sits on foreign relations and the intelligence committee.” Indeed, Fly’s addition to Rubio’s team would boost the Florida Republican’s hawkish credentials, as Fly is an ardent supporter of war with Iran.

In October, 2011, Fly declared that diplomacy with Iran had “failed” and three months later, writing in Foreign Affairs, Fly and AEI’s Gary Schmitt called for an extended bombing campaign to damage Iran’s nuclear program and set the scene for regime change, a result Fly and Schmitt themselves acknowledged only “might” happen:

Thanks to internal political developments and sanctions, the regime is at its weakest point in decades. But the international community is slowly exhausting the universe of palatable sanctions, and even the pressure brought to bear on Iran thus far has not caused it to halt its program. A limited strike against nuclear facilities would not lead to regime change. But a broader operation might. It would not even need to be a ground invasion aimed specifically at toppling the government.

The United States would basically need to expand its list of targets beyond the nuclear program to key command and control elements of the Republican Guard and the intelligence ministry, and facilities associated with other key government officials. The goal would be to compromise severely the government’s ability to control the Iranian population. This would require an extended campaign, but since even a limited strike would take days and Iran would strike back, it would be far better to design a military operation that has a greater chance of producing a satisfactory outcome.

A bipartisan expert report released last September concluded that in order to achieve regime change, “the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the U.S. has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

Moreover, Fly and Schmitt didn’t provide any specific evidence to support their theory that Iranians would both perceive an American attack favorably and use it as a pretext to overthrow the regime. In fact, experts and even Iranian activists have said that a U.S.-led attack would have the opposite effect and solidify the regime’s hold on power. And when asked about these potential flaws, Fly acknowledged that if ordinary Iranians perceived a U.S. strike as an attack on them, “it would be incredibly problematic in terms of what any follow on government and what their posture would be toward the United States or anyone else involved in this military operation.”

The Obama administration, on the other hand, is pursuing a duel approach of tough sanctions — which are having real impact — and diplomacy with Iran to end the nuclear standoff. ” I think that at this point in time, you know, all of us need to — to make clear that the first priority is to sit and negotiate,” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said in an interview on Thursday. “The last option ought to be military action.”

But for Rubio’s new top foreign policy adviser, military action appears to be the first option. If Rubio does indeed decide to run for president in 2016, his choice of Fly to be his top adviser is further indication that the Republicans just can’t quit the neocons. (HT: Michael Cohen)

A new study from a think tank connected to the West Point Military Academy highlights the threat of violent far-right movements in the United States, leading to the conclusion that, while diverse in in their causes, they are similar in their use of violence to achieve their aims.

West Point’s Combatting Terrorism Center was founded in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, and has primarily focused its research on international terrorist threats. Titled “Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right,” this new report instead looks as the risk that domestic groups pose to the U.S. Breaking down these groups into three categories — the Racist/White Supremacy Movement, the Anti-Federalist Movement, and the Christian Fundamentalist Movement — allows the study to examine the background ideologies and methods of each subset thoroughly, opposed to lumping them all together as most studies have.

Each of the groupings in the study represent competing ideological views, with none of them likely to cooperate in achieving their aims. The chances that each of these groups will use violence also varies. What they share, however, is a use of violence against their chosen targets — be it minority races or abortion clinics — to draw attention to and emphasize their given ideology. After charting out the various instances of violence carried out by each of the categories, the paper offers up several policy recommendations on responding to their actions:

From a theoretical perspective, this constitutes a further indication of the perception among some parts of the academic community that terrorism is an instrument of symbolic discourse which is shared by violent groups and their adversaries. Target selection is thus not based just on operational considerations, but is one component, among others, which allows violent groups to shape their message using violent practices—timing, weapons used and target locations, are only a small measure of the other components which contribute to the shape of the symbolic message conveyed via the attack.

In this context, policy implications are clear. If the numerous far right groups are driven by different ideological sentiments, and are thus also engaged in distinguishing tactics, then the response in terms of counterterrorism policies must be flexible and group/movement oriented.

The study is already coming under attack by Republicans for not properly defining what constitutes a member of the “far right.”

A Republican congressional staffer who served in the military told The Washington Times: “If [the Defense Department] is looking for places to cut spending, this junk study is ground zero.

“Shouldn’t the Combating Terrorism Center be combating radical Islam around the globe instead of perpetuating the left’s myth that right-wingers are terrorists?” the staffer said. “The $64,000 dollar question is when will the Combating Terrorism Center publish their study on real left-wing terrorists like the Animal Liberation Front, Earth Liberation Front, and the Weather Underground?”

This pushback is unsurprising, given the unwelcome response a 2009 report on the same topic received. Titled “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment,” the Department of Homeland Security-commissioned report drew attention to the fact that right-wing groups have proved more of a threat than Islamic extremists during a similar period. Secretary Janet Napolitano withdrew that report under harsh criticism from conservatives at the time, but there is no sign that the CTC will pull this study any time soon.