Because the Pakistani government and its military understand that allowing the drone attacks represents a critical element of its relationship with the U.S., especially the CIA and the U.S. military. For now the government is willing to take the hit that its public image suffers because of the drone strikes, knowing that the far greater damage is to the U.S.' reputation inside Pakistan, which could actually come in handy for itself in the future.If that were true, then why does the Pakistani government allow it? The drones, as was recently revealed, operated from a Pakistani military base.
Forwarded by an observer: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3d&k=40024&p=1
It is very well written and full of facts, although I note it slid over the fact the drones fly from a Pakistani airfield.
Yes, drones are an option and on reflection IMHO useful when successful and the local political impact is minimal. Now maybe the time to reduce their use, as David Kilcullen mooted.
Have they changed the Pakistani Army's stance on confronting the Taliban plus? Or, assisted the Pakistani government in creating the conditions to make decisions?
I think not. Conclusion: Tactically useful and strategically dangerous.
davidbfpo
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
A non-SWJ member's response to my viewpoint was:
1) Armed UAV (drone) attacks can only be of tactical significance and are unlikely to lead to strategic gain.
2) The downstream effects of Damadola far outweighed any possible gain (and there was none). A few days after the strike, a Pakistani Taliban leader called a meeting and asked for volunteers for suicide missions. Sixty-five young men put their hands up; a bit later a young soldier in the Frontier Corps shot an American officer at a bi-lateral border meeting. His family came from Damadola. He had no option under the code of revenge in Pushtun lore. (Damadola: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damadola_airstrike )
3) In the beginning the use of UAVs in Pakistan was a one-sided (US) attempt to decapitate the al-Qaeda leadership taking no account of the downstream effects mentioned above and breaking a US law of no targeted assassination except in time of war (the author is not a lawyer).
4) That said a Predator over the Yemeni desert targeting a verifiable target with no risk to civilians can be justified. In fact the mission in 2002 that killed an AQ operative also impressed the Yemenis with its precision and careful targeting. So the downstream effect in this case was positive.
5) Finally when in Peshawar in 2008 perfectly sane, educated and reasonable Pakistanis living under Taliban threat spared no air in rejecting the use of combat UAVs on the grounds that they helped a then growing Pakistani Taliban to become more radical and to recruit.
davidbfpo
Wilf,
I think those who have a short-term view would see drone attacks as a tactical success and meeting the imperative for taking action (shared by many actors). With their limited strategic horizon, or situational awareness, such actors do not consider the fuller picture and risks of operational or strategic failure.
Staying with the Pakistani historical example; given the frustration with Pakistani in-action drone attacks appear an option and who say in 2006 would have objected to the impact on radicalising the FATA tribes? Striking the No.2 in AQ would be too tempting.
All from my armchair faraway.
davidbfpo
Last edited by davidbfpo; 06-04-2009 at 10:12 PM.
IISS has an interesting article on drones that I saw referenced at Abu Muqawama. It provides some technical detail as well as insight into operational roles and operators.
it allows the Pakistanis to leverage on our capability yet have plausible deniability in the political dialogue of being the actual operators. This is also a bit of a cunundrum given that the government is accused in some circles of being merely a lackey of the United States.
"What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."
I am not sure there is plausible deniablity here, it seems to me that some/many/most of the population doesn't find their denial plausible at all. Which compounds the problem since now the Paki government can appear to be accidentally killing civilians, a lackey of the US and still wishy washy when it comes to AQ, Taliban, etc, all.
I can see the use of drones like this (sparingly) but the situation with the Paki government's denials seem to be the worst of all solutions. I understand that the government thinks it is protecting itself but long term I have major doubts.
Bookmarks