The Inevitable Blowback From Drone Strikes

[tekisui]

Source: SF Gate

David Sirota
Saturday, May 15, 2010

Imagine, if you can, an alternate universe.

Imagine that in this alternate universe, a foreign military power begins flying remote-controlled warplanes over your town, using on-board missiles to kill hundreds of your innocent neighbors.

Now imagine that when you read the newspaper about this ongoing bloodbath, you learn that the foreign nation's top general is nonchalantly telling reporters that his troops are also killing "an amazing number" of your cultural brethren in an adjacent country. Imagine further learning that this foreign power is expanding the drone attacks on your community despite the attacks' well-known record of killing innocents. And finally, imagine that when you turn on your television, you see the perpetrator nation's tuxedo-clad leader cracking stand-up comedy jokes about drone strikes - jokes that prompt guffaws from an audience of that nation's elite.

Ask yourself: How would you and your fellow citizens respond? Fortunately, most Americans don't have to worry about these queries in their own lives. But how we answer them in a hypothetical thought experiment provides us insight into how Pakistanis are probably feeling right now. Why? Because, thanks to our continued drone assaults on their country, Pakistanis now confront these issues every day. And if they answer these questions as many of us undoubtedly would in a similar situation - well, that should trouble every American in this age of asymmetrical warfare.

As noted by a former counterinsurgency adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and a former Army officer in Afghanistan, the operation has become a haphazard massacre.

"Press reports suggest that over the last three years drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders," David Kilcullen and Andrew Exum wrote in 2009. "But, according to Pakistani sources, they have also killed some 700 civilians. This is 50 civilians for every militant killed."

As law enforcement officials have reported, the accused Times Square bomber was probably trained and inspired by Pakistani groups seeking revenge for U.S. drone strikes.

"This is a blowback," said Pakistan's foreign minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi. "This is a reaction. And you could expect that ... let's not be naive."

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/05/14/EDUI1DE936.DTL&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#ixzz0o7Dcq6gF

[msongs]

1. our military's version of family values - if ya kill civilians u can't see it's not murder nt

[johnaries]

2. The numbers of civilian casualties are in dispute, and vary widely.

There are no official numbers. Many of the "estimates" are actually supplied by the Taliban to discredit drone attacks. Here is an excellent article giving very different estimates and also talks about some of the problems in getting accurate numbers:

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/front-page/19-civilian-deaths-in-drone-attacks-debate-heats-up-950-hh-11

Please note this paragraph:

Despite these problems, the reporters argued that locals are in favour of the strikes, though perhaps only given the alternatives. One said: “The local leaders say, ‘Better the drones because at least they are accurate. The (Pakistani) fighter jets and artillery cause so much more damage and loss.’”

We simply do not know what the actual numbers are. But all evidence shows that the attacks have become more accurate under Obama and that the locals actually support the drone strikes.

[tekisui]

3. We know that civilians dying from drone strikes is not 0%.

I don't know what evidence you are using to suggest the attacks have become more accurate under Obama. They have certainly become more deadly under Obama. And, they have increased in frequency greatly under Obama. TO the point of an almost daily strike in Pakistan.

You paragraph of note is of little relevance. The support of drones from locals is only when weighed against an alternative form of bombings. Not the strongest measure of support.

[tekisui]

4. From DAWN: Drone attacks fuel militancy, says survey report

PESHAWAR: An overwhelming majority of people in the troubled Swat Valley believe the US drone attacks in the tribal areas and loss of innocent persons in these strikes had caused anger among the people and contributed to the spread of militancy, said a survey conducted on causes of militancy in Swat.

The survey was released the day the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) widened its covert operations in tribal areas of Pakistan by firing missiles in Khyber Agency for the first time. Several persons were reported killed in the incident. The drones have launched 105 missile attacks so far, 34 in 2010.

Conducted by Regional Institute of Policy Research and Training, the study said that 67 per cent of the people in Swat believed the drone attacks antagonised the people who lost their near and dear ones in missile attacks. Surprisingly, there was not a single person interviewed during the study to disagree that unmanned planes’ strikes inside Pakistan fuelled militancy and increased support for the militants. However, 33 per cent said: “We do not know whether the attacks had caused anger and contributed to militancy.”

A total of 384 households, 85 per cent male and 15 per cent female, were interviewed during the survey. About the question of drone attacks, 257 persons said they were responsible for enraging people as the strikes killed near ones of tribal people. There were 127 persons, who said they did not know about the impact of the drone attacks. But none was against the statement that the attacks caused enrage among the people.

Pakistan has been protesting over the growing missile attacks by the CIA-operated planes but the US is insensitive. Pakistan has also communicated to the US that the drone attacks are undermining its efforts to tackle militancy in its tribal areas and settled districts. However, the US has been adamant and insisting that the use of drones is a successful strategy against al-Qaeda and Taliban having sanctuaries in the tribal areas.

The US is quite indifferent to the sentiments of Pakistan, its ally in the war on terror. The latter is also finding it difficult to distinguish its war on militants from the US war on terror that paved the way for attack on Afghanistan. The sentiments against the government are high in the troubled Swat Valley for supporting the US war, the survey said.

The survey has also revealed the three mentioned factors were responsible for the support of militants in Swat. The study said that 78 per cent persons believe the government’s alliance with the US in the war on terror encouraged people to support militants. An overwhelming majority of 298 persons out of 384 said the Pakistan support to the US increased support for the militants.

A 59 per cent, 227 persons, interviewed in Swat said the US invasion of Afghanistan also rallied support for the militants.

http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=28877

[Vattel]

5. That joke about predator drones was disgusting.

He needs to be more emotionally connected to what he is authorizing.

[chieftain]

6. Violence begets violence.

When will we learn?

[quaker bill]

8. However, the mere absence of violence

is not peace.

[tekisui]

17. We are not the enforcers of peace.

Certainly not with near daily bombings.

[quaker bill]

23. Peace cannot be enforced.

For if it is enforced, it is not peace.

We are however the occasional recipients of war.

[boppers]

7. Do I also live in a brutal, warlord run, part of a country?

Am I stoning my neighbors?

Is it socially acceptable to murder others over faith where I live?

If I don't engage in warfare while wearing a uniform, am I an innocent civilian if I am killed?

I'm wondering how far the argument goes before realizing that imposing american cultural values and social assumptions, onto other people, leads to bad decision making.

[quaker bill]

9. While an additional irritant

I think the whole invasion thing is likely a larger cause for blowback than the specific use of one weapons system. It is sort of a complete package.

[dumpdabaggers]

10. Most American's do not care about drone strikes.

All they see is the American body count. Pretty sad.

[NJmaverick]

11. Your suggestion that we must not do anything for fear of making the terrorists angry

is unacceptable and certainly an embarrassment for the brave men and women that founded our nation.

[tekisui]

12. That may be the most ridiculous thing you have ever written.

Which is really saying something.

Your suggestion of driving a population that had little concern with the US into radicals wanting to kill Americans in America is a much more dangerous proposal.

Further, drone strikes on civilian populations in Pakistan doesn't have a god damned thing to do with the founders of our nation.:crazy:

[NJmaverick]

13. every single one of your posts exceed that one on the ridiculous scale

Including your current suggestion of cowering in fear and doing nothing because we might make the terrorists mad at us and then they might try and attack us. A call to hiding is not what America is all about.

[tekisui]

14. You sound like a repuke. Cowering in fear? White flag of surrender?

War is a two-way street. We have declared war on the Pakistani Taliban, who had no interest in us on the US mainland. As a reaction, they are now very interested in killing Americans in the US. Chickens will come home to roost, and it will be because our war in Pakistan. The cycle of violence will continue and get worse.

How many Americans have the Pakistani Taliban killed in the US: 0

How many Pakistanis has the US killed in Pakistan: 1000+

Only a fool would think that we will not suffer greater attacks because of our asymmetrical warfare.

[NJmaverick]

15. More like you sound like a repuke in your sad efforts to elicit fear and panic

for political gain.

[tekisui]

16. Bullshit.

You and your neo-con chest thumping idiot friends believe you can bomb terrorist our of existence. Generations have passed on hate based on those types of actions.

THe Pakistani Taliban were not on the terrorist watch list until this week due to the fact that they were a regional organization with no interest in poking the US mainland. We have given them many reasons now. ANd worse, we are radicalizing those that were previously ambivalent to the US.


And, make no mistake, if we are attacked by the Pakistani Taliban on the US soil, the blood will (in large part) be on the hands of those who have carried out the Pakistan War. Chickens coming home to roost. We will never learn.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. It's true you can't bomb people out of existence...

...but that makes me wonder all the more what Mr. Shahzad and his accomplices were trying to do to us.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

18. NJ? You can't talk sense into these people

There is literally no argument you could ever advance, no fact you could ever present, that will cause anyone any political extremist to reconsider their beliefs - they enjoy their alienation, bitterness, and moral sanctimony, thank you very much, and any attempt to introduce fact, reality and its attendant complexity, will merely be met with personal insults.

And like it or not, the DU represents the radical leftist fringe. In the Democratic primaries, Kucinich blew away the competition in DU polling, and quite a few people here think just doesn't go far enough. You see a lot of Chavez boosterism here as well.

So this isn't the website for you. You'll just be beating your head against a wall. And responding back with personal insults will usually get your post deleted.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[tekisui]

19. Political extremist? Leftist fringe? You are a self ascribed conservative.

It is no doubt that strong positions on human and civil rights seem extreme from you.

I do agree with you that NJ and you may not be at the right site.

[tekisui]

28. On second thought. I find it interesting that you use a sign off often

used on one of the site not-to-be-named. And, you share the title of that site with your screen name.

Troll.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. Site not to be named? Dailykos?

That's where I got my signoff from. Also where I got the phrase "purity troll".

I am absolutely on the more conservative side of the Democratic party: pay as you go,
welfare as a means to get people and businesses back on their feet - not as a lifestyle,
using actual information to argue positions rather than emotion...

I am perfectly well aware that Republicans have twisted "conservative" past all
recognition; many of my GOP friends innately know that and are embarrassed by it.
But that doesn't mean that facts don't matter.

So I suggest that you present facts and logic when dealing with people who disagree
with you. It's the GOP who demands an echo chamber of like-minded people telling them
convenient fictions, not Democrats.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[SpartanDem]

20. So what's the solution

to killing or capturing these people if you think drone stikes are unaccetable?

[tekisui]

21. Why do we need to kill or capture Pakistanis?

We have so badly stirred up anti-US sentiment in the region, we should get out. We are waging war in Pakistan, yet few will acknowledge that.

I say get out of the region and stop radicalizing through bombs.

The problem is, the Pentagon and the WH will not start with that as the ultimate objective. They want targets that they can hold up as victories. But, there is no victory in a drone war. For every 'evil doer' we kill, we kill several civilians and radicalize and unknown number. We they strike back, we increase our attacks. And on and on it goes.

[hulka38]

22. I thought they hated us for our freedom.

[tekisui]

26. They hate us for our bombs and meddling.

[hulka38]

27. Jealous of our prosperity?

[stevenleser]

24. The false issue of Drones

You are either in favor of the goals of what we are doing over there, or you arent.

If you aren't say so and say it that way. Don't make a false issue of the drones. Be aware of the alternatives because they are much worse. Should we send infantry divisions to attack towns and hamlets if we believe targets are there? Should we use conventional bombing? All of these and other options multiply the civilian dead considerably over what happens with drones.

The morally correct and defensible position is, what we are doing over there in general is either wrong, or the goals are not attainable and that has nothing to do with the particular military option employed.

Anyone who understands military tactics is going to look at this drone argument and conclude that those espousing it really dont know what they are talking about.

[tekisui]

25. Cute attempt at making it a non-issue.

One can be against drones strikes (carried out by non-combatant CIA agents and contractors). One can also be against the use of deadly force in the region. One can be against both.

It is not a false issue. There is a real question of legality. There is a real question of civilian death rate.

Even if you view it through a military tactic lens, you are not being honest if you think it is, or can be, a success.

[stevenleser]

30. I am not in favor of our current Afghanistan policy. I do not think the goals are attainable.

Regardless of that, I believe the the drones issue is a non-credible one. There is an argument regarding legality of the use of drones only from the perspective of who is ordering the targeting and how those targets are being chosen.

If you want to get mired in those kind of technicalities and water down the whole discussion of whether we should be in Afghanistan at all, be my guest. I'm not wasting my time in that and I dont take seriously anyone who is willing to waste time like that.

The real issue and discussion is whether we should be in Af-Pak anymore at all. I continue to say no and hope the administration gets there sooner rather than later.