On November 1st, 2013, a US drone strike killed Hakimullah Mehsud, leader of the Pakistani Taliban. The death of Mehsud is indisputably a victory for the United States. Mehsud is linked to the deaths of seven CIA agents in Afghanistan in 2009 and the failed Times Square bombing in 2010. He also directed many terrorist attacks within Pakistan that were responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians. Although one may think that this strike would be popular in Pakistan, it actually has generated outrage among much of Pakistan’s civilian population and government. A report from BBC News notes, “Pakistan’s government has issued a statement strongly condemning the drone attack, saying such strikes were a ‘violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.’” Are drone strikes, such as this one, worth the cost of angering Pakistan’s government? In this article, I seek to explain both strengths and weaknesses of the use of drone strikes in Pakistan.
Drone strikes have generated fierce criticism for several reasons. First, critics of US drone strikes allege that the levels of civilian casualties caused by drones are unacceptable. A joint-study conducted by New York University and Stanford University states, “…from June 2004 through mid-September 2012, available data indicate that drone strikes killed 2,562-3,325 people in Pakistan, of whom 474-881 were civilians, including 176 children.” However, it is important to note that the inaccessibility of Pakistan’s tribal areas, because of Pakistani military policies as well as the extreme danger that the region holds for journalists, makes confirmation of any casualty count very difficult. Second, critics fear that drone strikes will drive public opinion in other parts of the world against the United States. The PEW Global Attitudes Project measured the popularity of drone strikes among the civilian populations of twenty countries around the world. Of the countries surveyed, only the United States had a majority of its population approve of drone strikes. With drone strikes having less than 10% support in Muslim countries in South Asia and the Middle East, many scholars, such as Danya Greenfield of the Atlantic, fear that drone strikes will generate even more anti-Americanism in the Muslim world and only hurt US interests. Third, critics argue that drone strikes create an inhumane environment of fear in Pakistani villages. The aforementioned NYU-Stanford Study notes, “An entire region is being terrorized by the constant threat of death from the skies. Their way of life is collapsing: kids are too terrified to go to school, adults are afraid to attend weddings, funerals, business meetings, or anything that involves gathering in groups.” Other reports cite that Pakistani villagers often live with the reality of seeing drones overhead for hours at a time and worry whether they will become the next victims of a drone strike.
Although there is plenty of legitimate criticism of drone strikes, there are also important strengths to consider. First, drone strikes have proven successful in eliminating pivotal parts of terrorist networks. Some important terrorist leaders killed by drone strikes include Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, chief aide to bin Laden, and Badruddin Haqqani, operational commander of the Haqqani network. Furthermore, Daniel Byman of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy notes, “…drones also hurt terrorist organizations when they eliminate operatives who are lower down on the food chain but who boast special skills: passport forgers, bomb makers, recruiters, and fundraisers.” Second, drone strikes have noticeably reduced the operational efficiency of terrorist organizations. It is well-known that terrorist organizations cannot maintain electronic communications, such as phone calls or text messaging, without detection by drones, and they also cannot gather in large groups. Discussing how drone strikes have disrupted the organizational capabilities of terrorist groups, Byman states, “Leaders, however, cannot give orders when they are incommunicado, and training on a large scale is nearly impossible when a drone strike could wipe out an entire group of new recruits.” Third, drone strikes are an alternative to boots on the ground in hostile territory. Although there are legitimate psychological points to make against killing from a distance, if the will of the US government is to take all steps necessary to protect the lives of its soldiers, then drone strikes eliminate the risk of casualties in dangerous territory.
Writing this article, I have attempted to provide the reader multiple perspectives regarding the use of drone strikes by the United States. I hope that reading this article will spur the reader to further research and reflect on such an important issue to US foreign policy and national security.
Vinod Kannuthurai (vkannuth@go.olemiss.edu) is a senior Public Policy Leadership major Hazlehurst.
