Wars do indeed change the everyday meanings of words. Few years ago, before the war in Afghanistan was initiated, the term ‘drone’ always used to summon to my mind the imagery of the “drones club” in PG Wodehouse’s fantasy world of Bertie Wooster and his valet Jeeves. Some of you must have read Wodehouse; I recommend that all of you do for his brilliant, quite unmatchable prose. I think of Wodehouse and drones in conjunction for another reason, often to be a Wodehouse admirer is to find yourself in fairly atrocious company, for example with people who think he is a very good, simple writer for kids etc. The legal arguments against the use of drones are complex and not quite as certain as some people may believe, yet one can disagree with the general principle of their use as a breach of sovereignty. However, one would do it at his own peril, as again one is likely to find oneself amongst quite unflattering comrades, with fine exceptions of course.
There has been some talk of honour, integrity and sovereignty recently with regard to the deliberation about reopening of Nato supply lines; I can assure you that there is a lot more to come. The alternative proposed by this camp is not very clear, except for the simpleton zealots of the Difa-e-Pakistan Council (DPC) who want us to collectively go to war with the world and expedite the process of being in the company of the designated houris. The political opposition is far less certain and wants us to ‘stand up’ and ‘send a message to the world’ and other clichés of stale imagery, etc. The argument is not a serious one and hardly merits a serious response. Still, if one were to indulge them, we cannot and should not isolate ourselves and seek a confrontation with the US and all member states of Nato. Additionally, it won’t serve any purpose to those martyred in Salala.
The truly surprising aspect of this debate is the refusal to acknowledge the role of the military establishment for creating this rather shameful fiasco of first displaying hollow unsustainable bravado and the subsequent shamefully backtracking to do the right thing. I have said this before, in times of crisis, we learn that the foreign policy is really made by the civilian authorities and hence the blame should be shouldered by them. It takes a certain sort of shamelessness or naiveté to go on attacking parliament for matters of foreign policy. The army chief is not going to the Chicago summit because of fear of adverse public opinion. Now, what does a government servant subordinate to the defence secretary have to do with garnering public support? In any event, we are told that it was parliament and the government which messed up initially, so the gallant general has nothing to worry about. There is a pattern here; the army generously takes all credit and none of the blame. In any event, if the army is against reopening of Nato supplies, what stops them from going directly to the public like they did in the Kerry-Lugar Affair — it certainly is not any respect for parliament. Another depressing thing is how easily the media uncritically decides to become a quite willing mouthpiece of the ISPR.
Remaining on the issue of the media, not many seemed to have noticed that ‘we the people’ have recently decided to test a couple of missiles just for good measure. Given the cost that would have been incurred on these tests, one would have imagined that it would make the media give us sermons on austerity measures, make journalists livid and send investigative journalists and politicians into a frenzy to dig out the details of the expenses and make them public. However, it seems jingoist honour knows no price.
There is a more sinister and dangerous dimension to all this talk about drones and Nato supplies. One can partially agree with someone making the legal case against the drones and be willing to contribute to reaching a workable solution. However, often, that is exactly the sort of person who is going to go on and make a causal link between drones and Nato supplies with terrorists blowing themselves up. This nauseous, pseudo cause-and-effect should make everyone cringe. For the time that the Nato supplies were suspended, suicide attacks continued, even when the ostensible reason for provocation had been eliminated. Let me speak plainly — the terrorists are not there because of drone attacks but precisely the opposite is the case: drone attacks continue (legally or illegally) because of these homicidal fanatics. There is nothing that you can do to ‘not’ provoke them, they want to be provoked, and in fact they are already provoked. I wonder if these new followers of Professor Chomsky realise that by this single ridiculous argument they are absolving these barbaric nihilists of all culpability of blowing up hospitals, school buses and Sufi shrines. Absurd parallels with the IRA and Vietnam are not worth a moment of serious consideration. This is no nationalist or anti-imperialist struggle. The Taliban subscribe to an ideology which glorifies and sanctions murder, with a promise of Paradise to boot. I assume, or, perhaps more accurately, hope, that they do not link the SSP/LeJ and the Mumtaz Qadris to drone attacks and Nato supplies, but you never know. The apology and rationalisation for the murder and thuggery of the terrorists does their argument (if they have one) against imperialism no favours.
Falling back on history offers them little in the way of consolation. Whereas the complicity of US and the Pakistan state is established and undeniable in creating these indiscriminate killing machines, it also implicates the present-day DPC and JI types who cheered the forces of imperialism along with the religious fanatics to bury ‘la-deen’ USSR in Kabul, and were also paid handsomely for the cheerleading. Imperialism needs to be fought today, again, but not with the help of these primitive murderers. In any event since we have played our part in creating them, it is only decent that we set the record straight by eliminating them.
Published in The Express Tribune, May 20th, 2012.
COMMENTS (39)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Cynical,
Your cynicism is affecting your recollection of events. The drones were sent first to make Bushbama's look good. Your so-called terrorists were the only fighters to voluntarily go the bombing area and openly challenge the drones to drone-to-drone fights.
@Kanwal:
"Drone attacks are in principle wrong. They are extra judicial killings of people who may or may not be proven in court to be worthy of death sentences. And perhaps most importantly, they are tools for the very people whose blatant lies directly caused the killings of hundred of thousands in Iraq."
I read this article the day it was published one the ET's website and wanted to say something along the same lines, but unfortunately I got busy. Now I am happy that you put up the same argument challenging the legality of drone strikes, which the author, though he himself belongs to legal fraternity, totally ignored.
@Ali
I respect your concern for human life. I really do. At the same I don't think I am insensitive to human life. I have all the sympathy for people who die while shopping in a mall, while waiting for buses at the terminal, while praying in a mousqe and at so many odd places. But on this issue of drones,I think your judgement is clouded by emotion (which is not a bad trait per say) rather than logic. We can ask ourselves a simple question. Who came after whom? Did the terrorists came after the Drones or, the Drones came after the terrorists?
@Cynical: I wish you had more sensitivity for human life.
@Cynical: They are not your slaves, they are people bound only by there riwayat. Bombing them and then hoping for their co-operation, how naive can you get? It would have been better if rather than starting the goddamned war we would have engaged with them first and asked them to restrain or expel their "guests" holding a jirga. A few thousand terrorist are in no position to hold up against a million armed tribals if only we were to proceeded with cultural sensitivity.
@Discostu:
I agree with you. The Sri Lanka model of dealing with these terrorists is the only way forward. Unleash the dogs of war - let your big guns speak. Along the way rid us of these barbaric mullahs and their ignorant followers.
I dont believe that the author is a lawyer. What norms of International law do allow such blind attacks on civilian dwellings killing women and children. He has plainly attributed the shallow and baseless charge of suicide attacks against those poor victims without proof. Wonderful lawyer ! His father was removed as Session judge on grave corruption and incompetence charges. So is the author. I would request the victim families to remember him.
Whatever the case, the problem will get bigger and bigger and only drones will not be the solution, rather big machines and arsenal will be operating over larger geographical area.
Setting aside all the rampant contradictions and distortions in your article, let me just say this: because drones have achieved such great results?
I fear that we will reach that point where we will have to act like Sri Lanka and take this fight to the terrorists. Which unfortunately means that many more innocent civilians will die, but when it comes down to statistics, if we kill them they will not have the opportunity to continue to kill us. It will be the same rationale for the atomic bombing of Japan, but at the end of the day it comes down to how many lives you can save by sacrificing a few innocents. To do nothing and hope the problem just goes away is just criminal. Action must be taken, our lack of action is what is causing the drone attacks to continue and will ensure more of us will meet in Elysium.
@AFPAK
We all know that UN security council resolutions in 2001 were legally problematic and biased towards facilitating US intervention.
Yes, there is no justification for Pakistan to harbour terrorists. But the writer needed to construct a proper logical, legal and moral argument about why drone strikes are okay. He can't just go on telling us really OBVIOUS things (US funding for the mujahideen during 1st Afghan war etc, Taliban are evil, the army is at fault) to say that's OKAY to bomb some place where there is often no clear way of distinguishing militants from innocent civilians.
@Skocpol:
Read the UN Security Council Resolutions passed in September and October 2001 which are binding to all member states including Pakistan.
My question: What is the justification of Pakistan for nurturing, training, arming, sheltering, funding, protecting and launching all types of terrorists (foreigners, locals, Tribal and Taliban) into its neighboring countries?
Saroop, Brilliant as always saying things in a plain way. Yes we can only whisper other wise will be labelled as traitors.there is no other narrative in Zia's Pakistan God bless you
Problem of militancy and radicalization is much more deeprooted and requires an approach that is more holistic and long term than a simpleton solution of "drone attacks untill we eliminate them".It is absolutely naive to think that we can eliminate them with drone strikes alone.It disperses them but does not eliminate them. As Author pointed out people like Mumtaz Qadri and his supporters are not reaction to drone strikes,and so by dint of same argument will not be eliminated by them.
Whilst it is important that miltary establishment backs away from supporting these Miltants,and we should dronestrike them untill it undermines their ability to create cross border nuisance;Problem for pakistan society will remain as long as their is socioeconomic deprivation providing recruits to madrassahs which will continue to radicalize them.
Another important piece of Jigsaw puzzle is understanding the tribal culture/norms and the reason why they provide tacit support to these militants allowing them sanctuaries on their soil. We need an analysis which not only keeps global perspective in mind but also takes into account local cultural and sociopolitical dynamics.
What we need desperately is a commonsense Man in the White House like Harry Truman!
Every action has an opposite and equal reaction.
Well to put it in simple punjabi english, Mr. Saroop, what you are saying is that drones are great and further needs to be done to eliminate the whole lot. Now thats ok for you because US army is using these drones. Had it been Pak army using the drones, OMG Mr. Saroop, that would had been pre-judicial murders, wouldn't they. The problem of terrosrism and its cause whether drones or otherwise are probably discussed in better details at "Chacha's Tea Stall' in my village. However, they are a step ahead of you, they do have innocent soultions to the problem, You have none!
You know what the problem is...we have two extremes One like you tell us that beware of the Taliban ideology, the only want to murder innocents, we should kill them all, what if for every 90 terrorist 10 innocents are killed... At least they are not 'our innocents' On the other extreme r the Taliban ...pointing at the 10 innocents and many more in Afghanistan...telling the people there that America n it's friends kill innocents and we should target their supporters ..so what if we kill innocent children ...they killed ours And we the middle are those who suffer ...
A great Op Ed in the best paper of Pakistan! What came first, drone attacks or the terrorist havens where they proliferate without any fear? As OBL’s letters showed that he wanted his men out of Pakistan because of drone strikes. In other words drone attacks put the fear of God in terrorists otherwise they were free to kill Pakistani civilians at will.
There are four fundamental questions Pakistan should have asked. 1) Was it right to recruit all and sundry from the 'Islamic caliphate' to jihad against the Soviets ? They should have armed and trained only the local rebels WITHIN Afghanistan. 2) Is it right to now kill the very mercenaries you once created in the name of Islam ? They should have been given a means of rehabilitation after the war on Soviets were over. 3) In the meantime, was it right to use these mercenaries to play politics within Afghanistan after the Soviets left ? That was interference in another country. 4) Now is it right to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds ? Doesn't Pakistan still protect some Taliban ?
NATO supplies route were closed; however drone attack were continuing. In any case we did not have this problem before our participation in so called war of terror. Common sense tell us this so called war against terror is the root cause of terrorism in Pakistan. We should withdraw. Secondly it seem to me writer like you wants to give credit to civilian govt when something good happen, but when something bad happen, military is blamed.
Funny how people who have never been to KP or FATA but constantly moan about drones are condemning the author for having never been to KP or FATA.
The UN Security Council Resolution 1373 of September 2001 states that the state’s sovereignty means that a state is duty-bound to control its territory and obligated to not allow its land to be used by non-state actors or terrorist groups to carry out attacks against its neighbors.
This resolution, adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter and thus binding on member states, obligates them to “deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens”. This also forms the basis for drone attacks and serves as premise of what appears to be a Pakistan-specific ‘retribution’ plan, which, according to Bob Woodward, will be triggered if there is a 9/11-like attack against the US by terrorists sheltered, trained, funded, protected or originating in Pakistan. Woodward notes: “Under this plan, the US would bomb or attack every known al Qaeda, Taliban or similar terrorist outfit compound or training camp in the US intelligence database.
Hear, hear! A sensible analysis of a difficult situation. We should never have blocked the supply lines. It was stupid to bite the hand that, if not feeding us directly, was fighting our war against the murderous and barbaric Taliban. Someone in the comments mentioned (cynically) the possibilty (he meant the impossibility of it) of killing all the Taliban, to this I say let's give it our best shot. A good Taliban is a dead Taliban. I'd like to see tribal men rise up and takeup arms against these murderers.
On a lighter note the word "drone" was often used for fat, effete men who were sexually ambiguous. In this regard the drones are misnamed because they posses a potent punch.
The irony here is that to prove a point (or your opinion, really), you are doing exactly what you blame others for. The world is not divided into silly liberals and silly Difa-e-Pakistan Council ideologues. Most would tell you there is/can be/may be a link between drone attacks and terrorists. No one from outside the silly liberals and silly DPC would for a minute try to argue for or against the point you are trying to make (that silly DPC people allege that drones are the only things ever in the world that create terrorists). Simply because that is a ridiculous argument and so is your counter-argument to one that does not exist.
The same DPC mullahs recruited thousands of children from poor families, indoctrinated them and had them killed in Kashmir to tie down Indian army, and in Afghanistan to create strategic depth. And the middle class supporters were cheering this murder in the name of jihad.
@Ali
If one feeds or protects/shelters a terrorist, he or she is a ligitimate target. The crux of the security of the tribal people lies in their cooperation with the authorities in their effort to fish them out.
Superb as always, Saroop! Your analytical and nuanced analysis of the state of affairs of Pakistan is very much appreciated, for it cuts through the spin doctoring and obfuscation of the puppeteers, like very few contemporary writers in Pakistan can do. And as you alluded, 'jingoistic honor knows no price', the price is being paid by this nation through diversion of national resources to indulge the insatiable jingoistic impulse. But that suits the puppeteers fine. They have perfected the art of playing the proxy pawns, whether the likes of DPC or sentiment against the drone strikes. Alas, the price which is being paid by this nation collectively has not been factored in this equation, as has always been the case in their strategy. Thank you again, and please keep writing.
Good thinking: "Drone-a-day, Keeps Terror Away!"
A balanced read. The one thing that comes through is that both our internal and external issues are in the hands of people whose priorities are elsewhere. The public are fed-up and willing to cut off the nose in order to spite the face - a dangerous situation indeed.
Unless you've firsthand gone to the NWFP and seen an area where there are drone strikes, and asked people what the strikes are actually hitting, I don't think anyone is going to take anything you say seriously.
Talking from behind a desk about the legalities of an issue and calling it "complex" is meaningless. All the analysis and strategy has been an utter disaster this past decade. The problem is only exacerbating.
Excellent.
guess swallow the bitter pill and eliminate these fanatics once in for all - its naive to hedge 'good terrorists' and run after the bad ones....realisation should set in that nurturing terrorists for proxy war is unworkable and expensive!!!!
And the drones are so incredibly accurate that they kill only terrorists and not peace jirga members or funerals or innocent kids, men and women, right? We need to get these foreign terrorists off our soil and the only way we can succeed in this battle is if the local tribes are on our side. Guess what, bombing them and making them live in constant fear does not sit too well with winning their trust to oust the terrorists.
I am sure your visits to tribal areas and Afghanistan, your interaction with the people there, your interaction with 'drone victims', your vast understanding of tribal culture and norms must have contributed in this analysis you came up with And I agree with your solution, we should kill all of them,the talibans...I mean how difficult can it be?