Why drones won’t work
The truth is that drone strikes will not work in Pakistan’s case. The use of air power is especially problematic because the enemy is not a government with visible centres of power and institutions, but in fact, a highly elusive one. Even though drones come with the assuring tagline of ‘high precision’ and ‘smart’ weapons, there is no guarantee that they will precisely target only militants. Civilian casualties, a recurrent consequence of drone strikes, are strategically problematic because they may cause the local population to feel considerable resentment towards the party that is sending the drones and will most likely increase sympathy among the locals for the militants. Israel has often deliberately used air power on Palestinian civilians to pressurise them into relinquishing support for Hamas, but this has hardly ever worked and only served to strengthen local support for Hamas. So America should ask itself whether this is something that it is willing to accept given that drone strikes inevitably lead to civilian deaths.
America has been using drones as a tool of combat in Pakistan since 2004 but the fact of the matter is that this has still not achieved its intended policy objective of destroying militancy by decapitating its leadership and annihilating its human and military resources. It’s clear that snipping off the monster’s head will not automatically spell its death. Killing high-value targets like Baitullah Mehsud or the recent death of Abu Yahya al Libbi is unlikely to extinguish the militant movement, with a successor taking their place. And even though the status of Behtullah’s successor, Hakimullah Mehsud, is unknown at the moment — since there have been several rumours of his death in drone strikes — the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan is very much alive and kicking.
The fact is that Pakistan’s northwestern region is not the only place in the country that is plagued with militancy. So to selectively target hotspots where militants and their hideouts are to be found in Fata is to erroneously consider them as a kind of a ‘non-renewable resource’, which cannot be replenished by the network of well-equipped militants, spreading from Helmand province in Afghanistan to Punjab in Pakistan. This, in fact, raises an alarming question: Will America actually start targeting other parts of Pakistan if bombing select places in Fata does not yield speedy results?
A far more effective strategy to eradicate militancy would be to try and dry up its cause. The US should break its financial backbone by targeting the opium trade in Afghanistan and disrupting the flow of private financing, which potentially implicates its own allies like Saudi Arabia. While Washington has made some progress in tackling the opium trade in Afghanistan, tracking and clamping down on the global financial network that finances the militants has remained an elusive goal.
Thus, drone strikes, at least on their own are a strategic tactic that doesn’t seem to work, contrary to what the Obama administration would have us believe. Exertion of air power has hardly ever been the sole guarantor of success in war. However, when it comes to dealing with militancy in Pakistan, which now affects the entire country, drone strikes along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border can actually prove to be counterproductive. Thus, even though the US has stepped up its aerial attacks in Pakistan, it can hope to ‘win’ nothing more than worse relations with its ally and further loathing by a Pakistani population that is already against the US foreign policy.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 11th, 2012.
COMMENTS (67)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1730854420-0/plaqueboymax-(1)1730854420-0-405x300.webp "article")
1729080111-0/BeFunky-collage-(63)1729080111-0-165x106.webp "article")
1730838202-0/Trump-(1)1730838202-0-165x106.webp "article")
@kanwal: Yod dont need to worry about potatoes, as your Govt is buying it for you from their money, and last leave this hypocaracy, i guarentee you if the Americans offers you a VISIT VISA you wont refuse it. At last you are a Pakistani.
@Mujahid: By reading your name or nick name ( MUJAHID) its crystal clear that you are a true sympathizer of Taliban
truth and realities are quiet the opposit,what we are hearing through our main stream media.there is abundance of black sheep in every social media here in pakistan. gossips, whisperings,rumers.conpiracy theories are the order of the day the whole nation is entirly left on the mercy of these criminals.they are doing whatever they like.they will never let truth to prevail. the only way to get out of this mess,truth must be shown to the public and that is not possible without up rooting these black sheep from their dominating positions. public sentiments are the reflection of the given information.how ill informed is this nation alas!!
@Mahakaalchaka: Brilliant idea!!!! Trully a win win for both!
How about charging a transit fee for each drone? This could be a win-win situation for USA and Pakistan deep state.
@Jenai Dau: Why should America take responsibility for financing such projects? Such petty thinking is what has already made us slaves to our so-called leaders. If we are to ever evolve as a nation we need to take the task of education (of the masses) on our shoulders.
Sovereign matters aren't just restricted to territorial integrity. Sovereignty extends to defense budgets, education, universality of rights, health care, public policy and administrative affairs. Our leaders never mention that in their speech. Please for gods sake stop thinking everything is America's responsibility. We can tackle every issue in this country on our own, all we need to do is pick the right people that can bring the legislation required to do so.
Iam for the drone but also for the establishment of educational institutes so the next generation can be educated,america should take responsibilitie for financing on such projects.
Suicide bombing werent a Pakistani invention. It was an Arabian Al-Qaeda invention. Yet U.S. is unwilling to go to the source of the problem simply pointing finger at Pakistan.
American delusion isn't going to win the war.
@Karim: Most people do not get it. Most of the world terrorism problems emanate from America. One way or another America finds a way to attack and then control countries it does not approve of, and the disapproval may be over issues such as politics, religion, economics or security with the end game being world domination, or as close as they can get to it. Starting over twenty years ago, after they realized Asia was out, America started a training program for terrorists in South Asia, then they convinced Iraq to attack Iran and got a damaged nose out of it, then they attacked Iraq and succeeded, then they tried it with Georgia against Russia and got a damaged nose over it, then tried it on Africa and appear to be succeeding, they tried it on Serbia and succeeded, they tried it on Libya and succeeded, they have tried it on Syria but Russia seems to have put a spoke in the wheels, they have tried it on Afghanistan but the militant groups have been surprisingly successful in combating them, which gets us to Pakistan. The U.S. Defense Secretary, Mr. Leon Panetta, has openly said that "America is at war in Pakistan". What he has not said, so far, is that they are upset with Pakistan because of a refusal to roll over and become a U.S. minion who will do everything they are told. What is happening though is that America is running a terror campaign in Pakistan and using a reluctant Pakistan to help them. This is not unusual because most of the Western world are cooperating poodle style to help the Americans. However, I think, or I hope that Pakistan is aware of their status in American eyes, they do not like it, and are helping somewhat, but not all the way. It is my belief that the Pakistan Government could get a little tougher, because if American cannot defeat a few bearded militants in eleven years they would be reluctant to take on Pakistan. However, getting back to the drone issue, Maria Wager wrote a good article, and Pakistan may well settle down to a more peaceful existence if the so called war-on-terror did not include drones. The peace would be even better if America went home.
India has given several dossiers and Pakistan has disposed them in the trash can.Hafiz Saeed is enjoying his freedom. Dossiers don't work.It is naive to think America will have behave in the same non-confrontational way like India. Whether drones will work or not it is for America to decide .They won't seek an opinion from Pakistani leaders if drone attacks are effective or not.What Pakistan has to decide, is, the best way to counter drones or what are the factors it can control.
@MilesToGo: Best alternative will be for Pakistani army to arrest the suspected militants, and then prosecute then in court of law that provides them an opportunity to defend themselves legally. Once convicted, punish them. A man with bounty moves freely and running a party with ex Generals, and our judiciary finds no evidence, have you ever heard, any terrorist convicted by our honorable courts. Actually we are not trusted ally so American are carrying on their work, themselves. Simply is that.
@khan: The most silly idea ever to say that US drone strikes would have been a good thing for Swat. The entire Swat population would have sided with Taliban if drones were used.
Get it in your heads liberals, outsiders cannot be used to solve your own problems.
@Kanwal: You are right that there is bloodshed in Karachi and you do not support outsider to come. Good! But in Waziristan it is not internal problem. Dear we have foreign militants organizations using my land as a lunching pad for their inhumane end.
@Karim Their grand strategy is to uphold their national security? Well, OBL is dead, Drones go on and yet just few days ago i read La Clinton's statement saying Al Qaeda is spreading over the world. That looks anything but successful to me at least. And its such a huge error to separate out them from Pakistani military and politicians, all inter-related, all intertwined interests-wise. What i can not understand is, exactly how this corresponds to success? Iraq = failed. Afghanistan = failed twice. Al Qaeda spreading. and a crippling recession breaking europe and USA middle and lower middle class. The war-mongers and their friends getting richer by the second. I am not including any of the other military / strategic failures. In this whole scenario, the most impotent participant is both Pakistani and USA military machines and rogue politicians. This is utter failure.
Funny part is they don't care what you think. Who said they're out there to win this war? Their grand strategy (yes, they have one; unlike us) is to uphold their national security. There haven't been any terror attacks on US soil since 9/11 so YES they can claim drone strikes have been successful.
You only provide one side of the picture, they did put an offer on our table. They said they would stop the strikes if our army went to North W. but the army refused. Claiming that soldiers weren't prepared to take on the militancy in that region and they have already suffered enough losses. Which is why the US is still targeting the region via drones.
It's sad to hear about civilian casualties and "kill-lists" but from their perspective they will do whatever they can in order to safeguard their security, while they are still a hegemon. What Pakistan needs to do is prepare and implement an effective strategy to curb militancy and extremism.
The author only mentions Saudi Arabia but fails to recognize that most terrorism in Pakistan is home-grown, did we all not learn from the Lal Masjid episode? Why is it that most militants were captured/killed in Pakistan after 9/11? Our population finds it easy to call everything a 'foreign conspiracy' but fails to hold the government responsible for what we're suffering through today.
If we are to ever challenge militancy and extremism, our government needs to overhaul the police force. Better train/equip them to deal with militants and empower them to crack down on madrasahs that are breeding extremism. That way you cut the head off, dear author.
And another very important question is: Since when USA has begun to win ANY war really. They lied about Iraq and have destroyed the country. They failed very miserably in Afghanistan and ran away. And i dont even need to mention Vietnam. So i repeat, i would nt buy a bag of potatoes from them and their pet friends in Government and military here, let alone buy the Drone theory and practice.
"I m amazed to see certain above comments declaring drone strikes as legal"
Under UNSCR 1373 Pakistan has the binding sovereign obligation to eliminate terrorists, terror havens, etc. from its territory. No action to do so - as in the Wazirstans - means Pakistan's sovereignty is null when other countries attack terrorists on Pakistani territory.
In such cases Pakistan can't claim a sovereignty violation and as long as the attacking nation claims their action is in self defence it is legal in international law. However, Pakistan's refusal to endorse such military action does mean other nations have a hard time justifying attacks on terrorists that don't threaten them. By default, that means the "Pakistani" Taliban are not as aggressively pursued by drones as Al-Qaeda or the "Afghan" Taliban.
@Khan! I am also from the same valley but will never support your idea about drone attacks, here I will just agree with the comment of kanwal, If america will continue the drone attacks for hundreds ov years but will not achieve its target...
Nicely done. Your best piece so far. I am impressed Maria!!
What you have to realise is that the drones are not intended to counter insurgency. Countering insurgency is Pakistan's concern and not the US'
@Kanwal: If Afganistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and others are bleeding due to Saudi financed terrorists, then it is not American fault, is it!
@vigilant: In times of war, there will always be kangaroo justice. Are militants taking people to court, or just killing them?
@Wasil Arien: First they should try to get hold of Afghanistan as a whole. They themseleves are incapable of clearing Afghanistan from Taliban and also incapable of effectively guarding the eastern Afghanistan border. They are dependant on other countries to provide food to their armies. How can they think of attacking Pakistan which is a nuclear state. Just one bomb will be enough for entire NATO Forces and they know the quality of Pakistan Nuclear bomb is good enough to tackle them
I m amazed to see certain above comments declaring drone strikes as legal........i want ask one question.........Any criminal, murderer, rapist or terrorist is killed without fair trial, chance to prove his innocence???........would u support hanging of murderer in your respective countries without fair trial???.....people killed in drones strikes can be innocent human beings.......i heard some-where that "Main point of fighting war with monster is safe yourself from becoming one"
The writer is naive to believe that drones are not working for Pakistan. its perfectly working for the military and civilian establishment of Pakistan. with drones doing all the collateral damage along with hunting down the top brass of Al-Qaeda is saving Pakistan and its military with all the money, resources and manpower they would have to deploy in the dangerous areas. moreover, its also helping them saving their face from killing their own people and other related stuff.
Because unmanned, precision targeting drones weren't available during World War II, there were more than 60 million casualties or 2.5 % of the world's population. Just think about it.
One can see increase in drone strikes with the decrease in suicide bombings in Pakistan (outside northern areas). It would be delusional to not assume its just correlation and not causation.
The reaction of establishment and its supporters after the death of OBL and now Libi, proves the US tactics are working. Drones are an integral part and principle weapon of the US war on terror. They have determined that it is the most efficient way to combat terrorists without boots on the ground. The US loss is min compared to the loss of terrorists. So what should the US do, sit and let the terrorists plunder the local population? Doing nothing has not helped Pakistan, has it?
Selective ignorance and collections of aphorisms impress those already prejudiced but to the knowledgeable and unbiased reader the author's "arguments" - for they aren't, really - are quite unconvincing.
Essentially it's an aerial war - Probably conducted to soften targets - Methodically clear population areas before a land invasion ;(
they are working.
As Pakistani army is both incapable and unwilling to deal with militants as they claim to do, the only option left for USA is to put boots on the ground which they are likely to do as the problem can not possibly be solved by drone attacks as articulated by the writer.
Drones is probably not the best alternative.
Best alternative will be for Pakistani army to arrest the suspected militants, and then prosecute then in court of law that provides them an opportunity to defend themselves legally.
Once convicted, punish them.
Dear Author, you are totally out of touch with the reality. Please do some research before writing on such issues. I would advise you to talk to some locals from Waziristan and you can ascertain the accuracy of the drone strikes. You will come to know that thebackbone of militants present in Fata has almost been broken by these drones. Compare that to the PAF sorties which have mostly brought civilian casualties and huge unnecessary damage to infrastructure including homes of innocent civilians. As far the financing is concerned, the financial apparatus has been severely damaged by americans, and currently the major source of income for these militants in kidnappings for ransom. Please do your homework.
@Kanwal: The analogy you presented is totally misplaced. Waziristan is a totally different story. It is a region where militants have complete sway and they dispense their own justice. And the perpetrators are not just local taliban but a sizeable number is outsiders. Have you ever heard the term "Locally Displaced Peoples", that is the people from Waziristan and Fata forced to leave their homes, their lands and in some instances even their standing crops, for fear of their life due to presence of these militants. Hope this makes things clearer to you.
@Kanwal: In Karachi, it is internal fighting and it is an internal problem. In the border areas, it involves different nations involved in the fight, and the instruments of war are many and varied depending on the capabilities of national involved.
@Kanwal: I was referring to repeated request to USA from Musharraf, Kayani, Gillani and many others to transfer the Drone Technology to Pakistan. Musharraf allowed bases for Drones in Pakistan only in the hope that Pakistan shall have access to Drone Technology. He thought that some parts of the technology could be learnt by allowing bases in Pakistan. But the technology is too complex and advanced. I know of one company that manufactures Drones. Pakistan's military have contacted them for Drones. Drones made by this company were in operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. But these are surveillance drones and not predator drones. So, Pakistan was not interested. US had also offered surveillance drones which did not interest Pakistan. The Drone that went down in Iran was surveillance and not predator drone. My view of civilian deaths is also different. As more and more terrorists get killed, the terror organizations shall have less and less power to attract for the relatives of civilian victims to join them. This is the Phase US is entering now. It will intensify significantly after Obama's reelection.
Re Drones and "civilian casualites." Anyone got some photos or videos of these "civilian casualties"? How many and where? If there are civilian casualties don't you think they'd be going to town across the world with the evidence? At the U.N, at Amnesty, at other civil liberties and human rights meetings? How come Drone-hit spots are cordoned off and bodies are whisked away? And as someone pointed out, isn't it strange that there were no anti-Drone rants till couple of years ago when the Deep State exerted its influence. Most of all, like someone else pointed out, Drone strikes are bad/inaccurate/cause civilian casualties if America uses them. Pakistan can use them without problem -- probably against the Baloch I guess. The moment America sells Drones to Pakistan all complaints will cease. Breathtaking. Just breathtaking. And all this ISI-fed piffle and propaganda coming from this young lady shows how brainwashed Pakistan has become.
Drone-a-day, Keeps terrorists away!
@Author: Why drones won’t work
I beg to differ. Drones are extremely efficient in taking care of extremists. Now that President Obama has ordered the Drone attacks to be increased, watch out for more and more terrorists running around, hiding for cover.
Insurgency can never be eliminated through drone strikes. Drone is a tactical weapon that heavily relies on ground intelligence. And intelligence is more of the most important factor in an insurgency. But US has failed in establishing a reliable intelligence network in Afghanistan and FATA
Who said they are using "only drones"? Drones is only one little part of the stick to be used against Al Qaeda, and they are working just fine for the aim they are being applied. As the people in swat welcomed the drones, so the people in Wazirastan welcome the Drones. It is the armchair generals of Pakistan and the jihadis who do not like the Drones. When the jihadi blow up pakistanis which they are now doing on a regular basis, no one in pakistan raises a hue and cry about sovereignty for the simple reason they are terrified of being taken out by the mullahs. Americans will be leaving in another year or so, and Pakistan will be on its own facing the taliban. It will be interesting to see how the generals will spin at that moment. I bet it will be all "foreign hands" all the time.
A rather unconvincing argument. What's the guarantee that targetting the drug trade and the financiers will also not be piecemeal and ineffective? Just as you assume that militancy is a "renewable resource" - the funding for militancy is, likewise a renewable resource. The more financiers you tap down on, the more are likely to emerge from the middle east or the rest of the islamic world. How do you suggest that the US goes about eliminating funding for terrorism any more easily than they can eliminate terrorists using drones? And as for the drug trade, maybe you are overestimating how easy it is to bring an end to drug trafficking in a particular region. If the US cannot control the drug trade going through Mexico and the US southwest, it's pretty unlikely that they can effectively bring it to an end in Afghanistan.
What is 'working' in the first place? They do kill civilians. They may not be able to target all the terrorists. But yes, they create lot of hatred and remorse in the people. They are successful in creating a difference in the government and the people. They are successful in showing the world in general and Pakistan in particular that they can violate all International rules. They can kill when and where they like, regardless of invading borders and national sovereignty. They are successful in my opinion of creating mistrust and chaos amongst the people. Thats what they wanted.
@Raj - USA Thats a deranged and inhuman comment. What do you think about Iran? they served you right, did nt they?
@khan I belong to Karachi and there is bloodshed everyday. But i dont hope for outsiders to come and "help" me, if that is what the purpose of the drones is anyway.
@Ali Wali US used Drones in Afghan and Iraq wars successfully? Really? How do you define success? Becasue the last time i checked, both Iraq and Aghanistan, including Pakistan were burning rather more badly then before USA tried to poke its might nose in. And you still must be living in some fool's paradise to not realise that drone attacks are based on a level of information which caan only be provided by Pakistani agencies. How easy to fool you all.
So what will work then, care to explain. The TTP is not US problem at the moment and PAK army is dealing with them with jets. Drones kept the AFG Talibans and global Jihadis at bay and the finical transaction routes are squeezed.
Until PAK is ready to go after these militants like they did in swat, the drones will be flying around.
The TTP along with mercenaries are focused on PAK since she is a soft target. PAK military is using jets to blow up the villages in Waziristan and is having heavy machine duel with the TTP. How long it will continue depends on the resolve of PAK.
When drones stop, the run on PAK by TTP will begin, as it was in AFG. Let us ask the question whey PAK army took to jets in recent days.
Sour Grapes !!!! Drone technology denied. So, Drones don't work.
Good to know that political science doesn't extend itself into warfare.
The pakistani taliban and al qaeda militants are using pakistani territory to launch attacks in Afghanistan. The US is fully lawful and fully entitled to invade on the ground if they wanted to, resulting in vastly more civilian deaths than the use of drones.
Support for the drone strikes is actually higher among Pakistanis in the areas where the drone strikes are actually happening, because the civilian population fears and despises the taliban so much.
Don't waste your time criticizing drone strikes, particularly given the fact that they are supported behind the scenes by Pakistan.
"worse relations with its ally" One problem with this analysis is that, like so many others, it is based on the assumption that Pakistan is an "ally" with whom the US strongly desires good relations. This may have been a correct assumption a year ago; it is no longer. Pakistan is now, clearly, an enemy of the US, and US official rhetoric is beginning to acknowledge that status.
@iftikhar hussain: These 10 / 20 miscreants groups have killed nearly 40,000 Pakistanis. Satisfied now.
So militants are not afraid of drone strikes in the FATA region? Pakistan gives safe haven to terrorists, so what do you expect?
Dear writer, I agree with most of your article but have certain reservations regarding the way facts have been presented. Drone strikes have been in operation since 2004, no Pakistani official had any objections until 2009 when a string of events changed the ground rules (1) Kerry Luger bill was passed which gave civilians the upper hand in Pakistan (2) Drones targeted Haqqani network, we all know they are the protected specie of Pakistan agencies. (3) Americans signed Defense agreement with India giving them the clear on nuclear technology sending alarm bells in Pakistan establishment. One final thought, any form of weaponry is tactical not strategic as implied by the writer.
@An Observer: Apparently waiting for the drone attacks to stop so that the assets can have a breather. To tackle militancy is to knowingly put your hand in a hornet's nest. It is not just the tribal areas which are militarized. These groups have well established support networks and recruiting centers in urban, mainstream Pakistan. Only the long term solutions would work and only if the nation is drawn towards a more pluralistic and tolerant version of curriculum, ideology and politics.
Exertion of air power has hardly ever been the sole guarantor of success in war
True but what is the alternative if Pakistan doesn't want to go after the mass killers? Drone tactic is not perfect but it works. Law doesn't work for cold blooded murderers like Hafiz Saeed. I do not believe Pak army is unable to bring these thugs to book but unwilling to do so to counter perceived Indian influence in Afghanistan after 2014. 'Pakistan Today' editorial surprisingly did not mince words about the misguided foreign policy.
http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2012/06/10/comment/editorials/a-foreign-policy/
There is no other alternative. Yes! the innocent should not be killed but the innocent should also not provide asylum to gangsters.
i belong to Swat valley, and the woes and miseries we suffered during insurgency are not that easy to explain, we the Swatis so wished that drones should come and give us relief from those stone age barbarians as our own security forces had left us on the mercy of those animals , and i believe the people belonging to Waziristan wont mind it if a drone comes and kill some of these animals. i wonder where do these writers go when Taliban killed more than 700 tribal elders, leave aside the rest they killed
War creates a kind of fog, which if given enough time to stay in the air, does create a SHOCKING result. That result could very well be any war-mongers' own being dead in the kind of numbers that were never possible if there was no such fog. Especially, when in the madness of killing spree, the machine gun or missiles are mistakenly targeted or directed towards your own population or actually being operated by your own enemy. I believe wars are waged by highly desperate people and those who wage a war in defense are the real victorious people at the end of the day. History of any such wars is open in many books out there. Who will spare some time to read it and learn the lessons before its too late? Life is a very fragile existence, endangering your own selves to HAMMER your version of thought process in another human mind is the most foolish and stupid kind of war which is bound to fail and lose. No amount of weapons has ever conquered the power of patience and love. Let the history continue to repeat itself!!!
"A far more effective strategy to eradicate militancy would be to try and dry up its cause." What is Pakistan doing in this regard?
Well researched and well thought out
U can not kill 1000 innocents while trying to target 10 / 20 miscreants
"The truth is that drone strikes will not work in Pakistan’s case. The use of air power is especially problematic because the enemy is not a government with visible centres of power and institutions, but in fact, a highly elusive one"
This is why they are using drones in the first place. In Iraq they did not use drones for the same reason.