A surprising number of Pakistanis are in favor of drone strikes

[BluegrassStateBlues]

Surveys are also notoriously difficult to carry out in FATA. A 2009 poll in three of the tribal agencies found 52% of respondents believed drone strikes were accurate and 60% said they weakened militant groups. Other surveys have found much lower percentages in favour. But interviews by The Economist with twenty residents of the tribal areas confirmed that many see individual drone strikes as preferable to the artillery barrages of the Pakistani military. They also insisted that the drones do not kill many civilians—a view starkly at odds with mainstream Pakistani opinion. “No one dares tell the real picture,” says an elder from North Waziristan. “Drone attacks are killing the militants who are killing innocent people.”

Though there is ample evidence that the Pakistani government has given its secret blessing to the CIA programme, it still allows anti-drone sentiment to blossom. Domestic anger over drones can be a useful negotiating chip on other issues, says one former American official. The government also fears reprisals from militants.

Supporters of the drones in Pakistan’s media are even more reluctant to speak frankly. Many commentators admit to approving of drones in the absence of government moves to clear terrorist sanctuaries. But they dare not say so in print.

In 2010 a group of politicians and NGOs published a “Peshawar Declaration” in support of drones. Life soon became difficult for the signatories. “If anyone speaks out they will be eliminated,” says Said Alam Mehsud, one of the organisers, who was forced to leave Pakistan for a time.

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21588142-surprising-number-pakistanis-are-favour-drone-strikes-drop-pilot

[Warpy]

1. They're as sick of their militant fundies as we are of ours

and I guess more of them realize that the alternative is a full on war. Still, every stupid fundy who gets killed will be followed by more who are swearing revenge for his death. It's never going to end.

[Shampoyeto]

3. Who is "they"? and overwhelming majority is against drone attacks there

Where did you get this idea that "they" want "full on war"? Who was polled on that question?

[BluegrassStateBlues]

4. From the Peshawar Declaration the article references:

The issue of Drone attacks is the most important one. If the people of the war-affected areas are satisfied with any counter militancy strategy, it is the Drone attacks which they support the most. According to the people of Waziristan, Drones have never killed any civilian. Even some people in Waziristan compare Drones with Ababeels (The holy swallows send by God to avenge Abraha, the intended conqueror of the Khana Kaaba). A component of the Pakistani media, some retired generals, a few journalists/analysts and pro-Taliban political parties never tire in their baseless propaganda against Drone attacks.

http://lubpak.com/archives/47109

The support for drones comes from the war-affected areas of Pakistan, but that's not enough to show in NATIONAL polling.

[Warpy]

6. Thank you, you answered so I didn't have to

and I always appreciate that.

[Shampoyeto]

2. What an awful article

I was expecting a poll telling us how many Pakistanis support drone strikes. No such luck.

I also wonder what number is "suprising" to who.

This is pro-US spin by the journalist in question.

the first paragraph says, "NATIONAL surveys find that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly opposed to CIA drone strikes against suspected militants in the tribal badlands close to the Afghan border." yes he/she still have the nerve to tout support, not opposition.

[Recursion]

5. The claim is that the people who live in the strike zones prefer them...

... to the previous setup of ground combat between the Pakistani army and the militants, while the people in the rest of the country overwhelmingly hate them. But that it's basically impossible to conduct a poll because your poll takers would get either shot or blown up, and nobody wants to be on record anyways because they're scared of getting killed.



It's a bad article, since its basic thrust is "the fact that I can't get any data proves my thesis". That said, the underlying claim isn't terribly surprising to me, at least, because the people I know from Waziristan are (with significant reservations) more or less in favor of air strikes as compared to either sending in the army or letting the militants run amok. But then again they're refugees, and had to flee from where the drone strikes are happening.

[cali]

7. uh, selectively posting from the article.

NATIONAL surveys find that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly opposed to CIA drone strikes against suspected militants in the tribal badlands close to the Afghan border. The strikes are seen by many as an abuse of sovereignty, a symbol of American arrogance and the cause of civilian deaths. So when Sofia Khan, a school administrator from Islamabad, travelled with hundreds of anti-drone campaigners to a ramshackle town bordering the restive Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) last October she was stunned by what some tribesmen there had to say.

That's the first paragraph of the piece. And what the article does is use anecdotal "evidence" and 2009 polling.

More from the weak sauce article which hardly make the case:

Surveys are also notoriously difficult to carry out in FATA. A 2009 poll in three of the tribal agencies found 52% of respondents believed drone strikes were accurate and 60% said they weakened militant groups. Other surveys have found much lower percentages in favour. But interviews by The Economist with twenty residents of the tribal areas confirmed that many see individual drone strikes as preferable to the artillery barrages of the Pakistani military. They also insisted that the drones do not kill many civilians—a view starkly at odds with mainstream Pakistani opinion. “No one dares tell the real picture,” says an elder from North Waziristan. “Drone attacks are killing the militants who are killing innocent people.”


In other words, it's a total bullshit article. one of the worst of its kinds I've ever seen.

[cali]

8. your post is both horrifying and disgraceful.

you are trying to say that people like being terrorized and bombed.

I suggest YOU read the Amnesty report. That would disabuse any fair minded person of this nonsense.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

14. I didn't write the article. I suggest you take it up with The Economist. nt

[cali]

22. YOU mischaracterize the article by selectively posting.

It's appalling.

but it shows clearly who you are.

Oh, and people aren't letting you get away with your disingenuous nonsense, grass.

[treestar]

18. By the militants?

You're pretending the militants aren't there. The Pakistanis are a lot closer to the terrorists.

[Solly Mack]

9. Your subject line doesn't match the article.

NATIONAL surveys find that Pakistanis are overwhelmingly opposed to CIA drone strikes against suspected militants in the tribal badlands close to the Afghan border. The strikes are seen by many as an abuse of sovereignty, a symbol of American arrogance and the cause of civilian deaths.

The article then goes on to talk about the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (and only the FATA re: support), which voiced some support for drone strikes but the article still says -

say there is at least a sizeable minority in FATA who share that view. (support for drone strikes)

The article goes on:

Surveys are also notoriously difficult to carry out in FATA. A 2009 poll in three of the tribal agencies found 52% of respondents believed drone strikes were accurate and 60% said they weakened militant groups. Other surveys have found much lower percentages in favour. But interviews by The Economist with twenty residents of the tribal areas confirmed that many see individual drone strikes as preferable to the artillery barrages of the Pakistani military.

Viewing drone strikes as preferable to artillery barrages isn't the same as support for drone strikes. That's like asking me if I want to be stabbed or shot to death and then claiming I support being shot/stabbed (depending on how I answer). (See Hobson's Choice)

[Fumesucker]

10. The subject line however matches the OP's agenda

And nothing else matters.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

13. I'm not sure why you feel that shooting the messenger is proper.

But carry on.

I didn't write the article.

[cali]

15. no you just selectively posted making it look like the text said something

it didn't say. That's not honest. and I notice you're avoiding addressing the salient FACTS that I brought up in posts in this thread.

Gee, maybe your selective posting has something to do with the scorn expressed.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

17. I posted the 4 most important paragraphs of the article to avoid violating the copyright rules. nt

[cali]

20. bwahaha. what nonsense. YOU posted the 4 paragraphs that you thought would

demonstrate that Pakistanis don't mind being bombed- not the 4 most important paragraphs.

gad. your obfuscation is just sad. embarrassing.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

24. Sad and embarrassing is calling or suggesting that President Obama is a war criminal. nt

[BluegrassStateBlues]

12. The article is titled the same way on the website.

Minus the spelling of favor.

[Solly Mack]

16. You're right, it is. It wasn't your mistake.

So let me rephrase - the headline doesn't match the article.

Which is all the more pathetic.

[cali]

19. the article doesn't say what you claim. far from it.

you selectively chose the paragraphs, out of context with the complete article- not that it was a remotely decent article to begin with. I pointed out to you that the article is founded on conjecture and anecdote, not facts and the author admits in the first paragraph that the Pakistani people are overwhelmingly opposed to our drone bombing there.

[BluegrassStateBlues]

21. NATIONALLY, they are opposed. There's much more support in the war-ravaged areas of the country. nt

[cali]

23. bullshit. the article most certainly does NOT provide facts or

polls that support your claim.

Read the fucking AI report which demonstrates the terror that people living in the NWT feel.

fuck.

[Recursion]

25. The AI report doesn't publish any numbers either; it also relies on anecdote

This article quotes people in NW Pakistan who are for the strikes. The AI report quotes people in NW Pakistan who are against them. Both exist (I personally know some of both, so I know they both exist). How many is questionable, but the AI report doesn't do any better job at quantifying that than this piece did.

Amnesty interviewed 60 people; the Economist doesn't say how many it interviewed. But neither sample is enough to actually answer what the prevalence of those views are.

[renie408]

26. There is also a surprising number of Pakistanis who are in favor of stoning a raped woman to death.

Not sure that certain elements of Pakistani society are exactly the last word on what should be considered humane.

[Thinkingabout]

27. Yep, it is those oposed in the US who is striking the messenger, hang tuff, sometimes the news

Not make every one happy but the same ones would not put themselves in harm's way.