Even in Pakistan, no front pages were held when U.S. President Barack Obama openly acknowledged last week that the United States has been conducting air strikes inside Pakistani territory. After all, it has been common knowledge for several years now that the U.S., with a nod and a wink from Islamabad, has been using Predator and Reaper drones to bomb militants in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the border with Afghanistan.
The fact that Obama feels comfortable discussing the drone strikes in an election year demonstrates that, politically, they are a non-issue for American voters. Nevermind the questions of state sovereignty, legality, or the unintended casualties that the strikes tend to inflict. The message U.S. citizens take home when they hear about drone strikes in the FATA is that their government overrides such concerns in the pursuit of America’s enemies – and it’s a message they are mostly comfortable with.
The question that not enough people are asking, however, is whether the drone strikes actually work. Drone attacks are a tactic, not a strategy. Certainly, they are a good means of killing some people: the New America Foundation estimates that between 1,717 and 2,680 individuals were killed in 283 drone strikes in northwest Pakistan between 2004 and 2011.
The danger, though, is that as the U.S. seriously considers wrapping up combat operations in Afghanistan as early as next year, the tactic of drone strikes is becoming the strategy. The strategy so far has been to nullify the threat of terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan, with UAV strikes being just one instrument in the counterterrorism armoury. But as drone strikes assume ever greater importance and, from 2014, effectively become the entire mission, can they deliver that critical strategic goal of keeping the militants at bay?
Two recent studies on the efficacy of the U.S. drone strikes both suggest that they have limited value in terms of managing the threat of terrorism in the FATA (though their findings are nuanced and merit closer reading). The first study, by Patrick Johnston and Anoop Sarbahi, concludes that “drone strikes are associated with reductions in (1) militant attacks (2) fatalities inflicted in militant attacks (3) IED attacks and (4) suicide attacks,” but it adds that “any reduction in terrorist activity associated with the drone campaign appears modest in scope.”
The second study, by David Jaeger and Zahra Siddique, finds that “while the drone strikes [in the FATA] may do little to damage the operational capabilities of the Taliban (there are always other Taliban recruits to take the place of a militant leader killed in a drone strike)…the show of strength through these strikes may reduce subsequent terrorist attacks by the Taliban in Pakistan.” In other words, drone strikes may scare Taliban fighters into lying low for a while, even if they don’t inflict much actual damage. That’s deeply underwhelming news, if your business is to nullify the threat of Central Asian militancy.
Besides inflicting negligible amounts of damage, the drone approach is a self-defeating one in that air strikes in the FATA breed resentment and so perpetuate they very problem they were supposed to address. It's understandable if Obama should deem this acceptable: he may be feeding an open-ended cycle of violence in which he creates as many enemies as he is able to kill, but at least the unwinnable war is happening in a remote place, a long way from America.
But this can’t go on forever. Circumstances around the FATA will change considerably over the next couple of years: NATO will ship out; the Taliban will probably make some kind of political comeback in Afghanistan; and a politician like Imran Khan, who opposes drone strikes, could be running the Pakistani government. Dropping bombs in the FATA may have its short-term psychological value: it demonstrates that no enemy is beyond America’s reach and it carries the war to the Taliban, in however tokenistic a fashion, in territories that would otherwise be beyond the reach of U.S. forces. Nonetheless, Washington will soon have to disengage the autopilot and find a more constructive solution to the growing problem of militancy in the region.
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
Brad
As an American citizen, and I think I speak for about 99% of Americans on this, it is better to have a drone strike in Pakistan every month, than a 9/11 every 10 years.
We cannot just sit by and do nothing when we are attacked like that. If we did not respond, with the justification of not wanting to breed further resentment, then attacks on our home land would become more frequent and deadlier. While drone strikes do create a “never ending war” of endless new recruits for the Taliban and endless hellfire missile comming of U.S production lines, it is the only way.
The Pakistanis and the Taliban have chosen this route just as much as the U.S has, if not more.
Irfan
With respect.
Please check the civilian casualty ratio and also it is enhancing the extremist mind set in Pakistan, Taliban are Pashtoons national mostly , and according to their customs “IMPOTENT are those who dont go for revenge”,Means more blood shedding ,
Peace
Brad
Irfan, I do not disagree with you in my previous post, it is a continuous, self-interested cycle on both sides. We did not have troops in Afghanistan or drones over Pakistan before 9/11. The circumstances of the Talbian and Al-Qaeda’s precence in Pakistan is certainly unfortunate for the Pakistan and the U.S. However, like you said, the more fundamentalist mindset in Pakistan right now is fueling replacements for those killed in drone strikes, but that means that Pakistanis choose this route just as much as the United States.
I think it will be interesting to see how the region looks in three years, given the nearby Arab Spring, the Iran situation, and the eventual U.S exit from Afghanistan. Hopefully it will all turn out for the better, but its hard to see how that can happen at this moment.
Bierstadt
The sad and simple fact at the moment is that drone strikes work and nation-building does not. Drone strikes operate based on the principles that many successful companies follow: hire exceptional people who are possess an exceptional ability to accomplish great things, and many of the details that average people require to do their work are not needed. Except drone strikes go the other way and remove those people from terrorist’s organizations, rendering them substantially less competent as an organization and thus much less of a threat.
Drone strikes generate plenty of antagonism, but nation-building generates more and costs several orders of magnitude more, and it is not as if the people benefiting from the nation-building seem to especially appreciate it. So in the end, why should the US bother? We were prepared to bother ten years ago, but that belief in our ability to transform someone else’s society is pretty much gone now. It’s easy to say that a different solution is needed; okay, so what is it? We’ve tried nation-building directly, indirect nation-building with vast aid packages, NGO assistance, expert assistance in governmental development, battling corruption, supporting local tribes and villages in the FATA, and just about anything that one cares to think of. I’d love to people around the world build great nations, but I don’t know how. What I can do is offer the assistance that is requested (and the US can afford), and see to it that the guys planning to attack the US and US allies are engaged far away from the US.
I agree it is not ideal, but it beats all the alternatives. Any criticisms of the policy should address this point, because it is the key one.
Anon
The United States will never be the nation-builders they want to be. They are not the British Empire.
Kumar
Drone strikes and other uses of force are the only means of making countries like Pakistan understand that the West and the world will not accept Islamic terror. The typical Muslim mind-set is anti-West and anti-development. Liberal values are non-existent and anything that the radical Islamist feel are contrary to the tenets of their religion must be destroyed. So nation building and education will not make them give up arms against infidels (read Christians, Jews and Hindus/Indians). In Pakistan, increasingly one finds that the voice of the moderate/liberal is being silenced. One must remember that large sections of Pak society and the Armed Forces were injected with radical Islam by Gen. Zia and through the nineties have been “Talibanized”. In the circumstances, what options are available to the US except use “all necessary means” including drones to control the surge of Islamic terror?
Billy Jackson
I cannot believe these comments condoning the senseless high-tech murder of innocent civilians & terrorist “suspects”. Where is your sense of Justice?? If you allow Obama & a few “analysts” to be Judge/Jury/Executioner, you ultimately approve it for anyone including American Citizens. Drone Killings are nothing but high tech slaughter, and its definitely not the America I used to know. Drones only increases terrorism, and further destroys our already damaged image around the world.
Kumar
If Drone killings are hi-tech slaughter, pray tell me what was 9/11 and what was Mumbai 26/11? You are free to condemn such reprisals initiated by the US at your own peril and risk another 9/11. If another 9/11 were to happen, God forbid, you will be amongst the first to condemn the US for inaction.
Billy Jackson
There is ZERO factual evidence that anyone ever murdered by a drone was even remotely responsible for the horrible acts you mentioned. In fact, drone killings are most likely enhancing the possibility of another Terror Attack. I condemn senseless killing no matter who’s responsible, and furthermore, this wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians or anyone is downright UNAMERICAN. God Forbid, that you ever would believe in Justice and rule of Law.
Kumar
A very silly and flawed argument by Mr. Billy. What evidence do you want? Do you have evidence that Al Qaida or its chief Osama Bin Laden actually planned and executed 9/11? Do you really expect to go to FATA or the lawless regions of Af-Pak to determine whether the individuals targeted are part of Haqqani or Al Qaida? There is sufficient evidence to show that the persons targeted were terrorists. Of course, like in any war, there is bound to be collateral damage.
If these killings are un-American and unjust so also the killings carried out by Islamists in the name of jihad. You need to wake up to reality. Or you are probably one of those individuals who preach and espouse human rights for terrorists and turn a blind eye to the victims of terror.
Billy Jackson
Kummy – Your argument AKA the “neocon” argument is based on lies & propaganda. Last I heard Osama was executed and never stood trial.Furthermore, there is ZERO valid evidence that ANYONE murdered by your lovely Drones ever ever committed Terror. In fact, everyone killed by drones were summarily judged guilty by the Administration. There was no arrests, No Due Process. The tragic thing about “collateral damage”, is that innocent children, women, families, mourners, rescuers, everyone in the general area of your precious drones are either massacred or Slaughtered. Whole families are wiped out. You are obviously a neocon with the pre-emptive war mentality and share the bigoted belief that all Islamists are evil. News Flash*** the whole slaughter is evil. Approval of it is evil, and downright Un-American.YOU need to wake up to reality. Your mentality is inviting REAL terrorism. btw, several victims of 9/11 despise the drones and the illegal/immoral Bush wars you love so much.
Kumar
God save the world from nitwits like Billy, not to forget Al Qaida and its affiliates. This man is either a blind proponent of human rights of terrorists or too naive to understand ground realities. Such comments can be expected only from the two categories mentioned above. This man is talking of due process to be made applicable to those terrorists who do not even subscribe to the notion of law as understood by Western democracies. They believe in a medieval system of justice even today where a murderer can walk free after paying blood money. And for crimes like rape, their law requires the testimony of 3 or 4 male witnesses. You are out of your mind to talk about applying due process to barbarians. He is talking about arresting those who can blow themselves up with suicide vests ties around their bodies. Is this man truly American or one passing off as an American? I am not too certain.
He has sympathy for the collateral damage caused by drones but has probably very little to say about the targets of the jihadi terrorists who also happen to be innocent women, children and infirm. And by the way the terrorists/suicide bombers, in the name of jihad or holy war, have killed their own breathren in the mosques and places of worship in the Af-Pak region and the casualties caused in these types of attacks are much more than those cause by the drones.
I fail to understand how on earth can he speak for victims of 9/11. I am quite certain he is one of those who does not even believe that Al Qaida was responsible for 9/11.
Halidi
I can’t understand why the Americans are in Afghanistan. Is it oil.., a egiatstrc positon in the vicinity of their rivals China and Russia or is it a hatred towards the religion of muslims or, mayby all three options? Or is the American government really concerned about the welfare of the Afghan people?It is general knowledge that most of the Afghans don’t want foreign (American) troops on their soil.I think that the rulers of the USA had better look to the problems in their own country, like homelessness, crime rates, discrimination and the general decline into moral bankruptcy.