It is quite a complex subject and some other folks have also asked me to write about it but I desisted so far. Overall, the subject has many angles; legal, tactical, strategic, impact on local population, civilian death toll, revenge theory etc.
The majority of people who are against the drones have very little 'real' information. In case of Pakistan, anger, pride, nationalism, anti-Americanism etc. is the driving force behind these protests while non-Pakistani anti-war groups protest the strikes on ideological and ethical grounds. Off course, those who have lost friends and family members (innocent victims) in these strikes will be extremely angry.
In the case of Pakistan, like any proud citizen, they resent an outsider taking the broom to their messy backyard even if has some benefits for them. It is very hard to get the 'real' point of view from the folks in the region. Fear is so pervasive especially from the militants that nobody will talk to a stranger. Only if they trust, will open their heart.
I have discussed the subject with many during my frequent trips. There are large numbers including ordinary folks, tribal elders, those who have suffered at the hands of the militants and many Pakistan army and intelligence officers who support drone strikes but can not state it openly (after all accurate intelligence is provided by many locals on the ground to Pakistanis as well as Americans). Many tribal elders have even travelled to Kabul to urge Afghans & Americans to do more. Off course, it is only anecdotal and I cannot expand it to a level where we can say with some certainty what percentage is in favor of strikes. My guess is that overall number is probably small and limited to those who are on the front lines of the conflict and those much more informed than ordinary folks.
Many tribal elders privately push government officials to go for the kill but publicly denounce it. Almost all parliament members from FATA as well as large number of provincial assembly members privately approve of strikes but publicly denounce it (even passing resolutions in the assembly) confusing everybody. No wonder that U.S. decision makers are scratching their heads.
I'll give you one example; I think U.S. was very hesitant to do follow up strikes after the first one (fear of offending Muslim sentiments of targeting those who have gathered to bury the dead) even when it became clear that militants were now cordoning off the initial strike place and not allowing the locals on the scene (probably to hide the identity of the victims). It was the FATA secretariat (100% Pushtun with vast majority from tribal areas) that convinced them to go for the follow up strikes arguing that now only 100 percent bad guys were on the scene after the first strike.
My own opinion is that it is a tool which has its value but there should be very restricted use targeting only high value targets. Taking out foot soldiers does not change anything in the big game but has many side effects especially on the fragile internal situation inside Pakistan (Pakistanis are doing some heavy lifting but in my view they are over stretched). If there are one or two strikes per month or less taking down high value targets, I think Pakistanis can keep a lid on it. However, sending half a dozen drones buzzing around and shooting Hellfire missiles every third day on low level targets is very counter-productive.
I don't think that most of American decision makers are that dumb but anger got in the way. When relations between Pakistan and U.S. nose dived, extremely angry military and intelligence folks sent some feedback that served neither U.S. nor Pakistani interests. Large scale and frequent strikes in that time period was a very bad decision dictated by anger and clearly was not the result of a well thought out plan. If these decision-makers think the drone is the hammer in their toolbox, every problem will be viewed as a nail. We can then expect lot of debris in the neighbourhood.
Terrorist training center knocked out by drone missiles
Bookmarks