Using drones: principles, tactics and results (amended title)

[Stu-6]

Of course, the locals could always just figure out that I have money, kill me, and take the money...

And there is the catch, locals only work as long as your interest overlap.

[IntelTrooper]

And there is the catch, locals only work as long as your interest overlap.

So true.

[tequila]

If that were true, then why does the Pakistani government allow it? The drones, as was recently revealed, operated from a Pakistani military base.

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.

[carl]

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.

That is about the most astute and cogent thing I've ever read on this subject.

[davidbfpo]

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

[William F. Owen]

Conclusion: Tactically useful and strategically dangerous.

Makes you ask, as I often do, if something strategically dangerous, can be tactically useful.
Personally, I think the idea of "tactical success" but "operational/strategic failure" is not an intellectually or practically defensible position.

[slapout9]

Personally, I think the idea of "tactical success" but "operational/strategic failure" is not an intellectually or practically defensible position.

You old systems thinker you that is exactly right, it all has to align together or it you will just create another/bigger problem.

[SethB]

I think the idea of "tactical success" but "operational/strategic failure" is not an intellectually or practically defensible position.

I'd be interested to hear you expand on this, if you don't mind.

[davidbfpo]

Makes you ask, as I often do, if something strategically dangerous, can be tactically useful.
Personally, I think the idea of "tactical success" but "operational/strategic failure" is not an intellectually or practically defensible position.

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

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

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.

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.

[Stu-6]

it allows the Pakistanis to leverage on our capability yet have plausible deniability in the political dialogue of being the actual operators. . .

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.