The world is finally waking up to the disastrous aftermath of drone attacks conducted regularly by the United States in countries such as Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Recently, the release of a study by Stanford University and New York University’s School of Law, detailing the death and destruction caused by the drone programme in Pakistan, created a great hue and cry. The study corroborated the earlier findings by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism that drone strikes killed 2,562 to 3,325 people in Pakistan of whom, 474 to 881 were civilians. This figure included 176 children. It also details the deep psychological impact on the survivors of a programme that operates under the façade of being ‘surgically precise and effective’. Almost every major world publication ran a story on the issue. Now, hopefully, Americans will realise the real impact of these deadly weapons on innocent lives in another corner of the world. Maybe the current percentage of 62 per cent of Americans, as quoted by a Pew global attitudes project poll that favours drones as a measure of dealing with terrorists, will also decline. But will this debate find any real place in the upcoming American elections?
The answer is no. A look at the current election campaigns by both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama will tell you why.
When it comes to President Obama, he is still playing the ‘getting rid of Osama bin Laden’ card when it comes to dealing with terrorism, as was seen in the Democratic National Convention earlier this month and many of his other speeches as well. To add to it, he also takes credit for ending the hugely unpopular war in Iraq and the plan for withdrawing troops from Afghanistan by 2014. Drone attacks that have been repeatedly denied by the CIA and the White House until President Obama’s admission of the programme on a recent Google Hangout with the American public, find no place in his re-election campaign. They are not even mentioned on the list of issues he plans to address on his official website. In fact, the reluctance by President Obama to even discuss any measure that can potentially eliminate terrorists will be seen as a sign of weakness and carries the risk of negative repercussions.
On the other hand, Romney’s stance on the Afghanistan-Pakistan issue is mainly a regurgitation of President Obama’s plans, including the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan and working with the Afghan and Pakistan governments to end insurgency and fight terrorism. His recommendations on the region make no mention of the drone attacks, their benefits or drawbacks, or how his administration would deal with them, if voted into power. In fact, Romney has completely shied away from making any connection with the programme, despite its Republican legacy of having been started by former president George W Bush.
Finally, the American vote bank’s main concerns in this election are also a contributing factor to the lack of debate on drones. The average American is too distraught by problems at home to raise concerns about an issue that does not affect them directly. According to a report released by the Pew Research Centre on September 24, the main concern for voters right now is the economy, followed by jobs, health care and education, with terrorism falling eighth on the list of priorities. Furthermore, the importance of terrorism as an issue for voters has declined from the 72 per cent of 2008 elections to 60 per cent right now.
While we should appreciate the findings of this report and the discussions it has generated in academic and political circles, let us not be naive enough to hope that it will bring about any real change when it comes to mainstream American policy. The buzz of drones that have driven many to insanity and others to the grave will once again be drowned in political uproar until those seeking to be in power, figure out a way of manoeuvering this debate to their political advantage.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 6th, 2012.
COMMENTS (20)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
if pakistan military and government had done their part against terrorism properly than drones attack would not been made and number of youths joining terrorist would have declined significantly
The drone strikes are not controversial in the U.S. because it is assumed that any president would behave similarly: foreign military ops in terrorist-controlled areas are legal under post-9/11 international law (Pakistani sovereignty literally doesn't exist in such areas) and strikes against Al Qaeda and allied Taliban are clearly a matter of American self-defense.
"Actually I can. A very dear friend of mine died in serial bomb blasts in Mumbai locals in 2006 which we believe were planned in Pakistan. But my friends family did not then go around killing random innocent Muslims – nor should they have."
@gp65 Sorry to hear about your friend - but I totally take issue on your viewpoints.
The IRA did just that against my country, Great Britain. My home town was bombed and people died. The IRA were supported by american citizens giving them donations. This is how they paid for the bomb. The American citizens who funded this did not seem to mind killing random innocent civilians. Of course it was not all American citizens, as this applies to your argument too, it is not all the Muslims that go around killing random innocents. And you must remember that. My point is Americans can be involved in killing random innocents just as much, if not more.
Your country is already seen to be doing something about it. You have to imagine what it is like to have a much more powerful country invading your airspace and bombing what they consider to be terrorists against them. They must feel powerless. In the USA someone (e.g. a family member of a 911 victim) can join the army. But in Pakistan a family member of a victim hit by a drone, must join the "terrorists".
Reverse it and imagine Pakistan was much more powerful and bombed many USA cities and there was nothing the US could do about it. And many innocents were killed while they were trying to get terrorists. And terrorists that were mainly against Pakistan and not much in the was in the US. If you can really imagine this then you will change your mind.
Personally I am against much of the way this war is being fought. We are not winning over the hearts and minds, which is the crucial part. I think this was not taught enough in military training school, and generals just do not consider it. They take out military targets like terrorist leaders and think they are doing well. The continued killing of innocents by both sides will only continue the war by recruiting more people. Yes it may appear like Obama is doing something about it when news is heard back home that a terrorist leader is taken out (along with many innocents who just happened to be nearby in the streets, but they never report that in the USA). It may help him win the election. But in terms of stopping terrorists it will have the opposite effect. Leaders are easily replaced by new ones. More and more people will get mad. And they will be mad for some time. The US is going to have to spend a lot on protection / security in the years to come, which is a shame. And it will not stop all attacks, sadly that is imposible.
gp65: your comments are always relevant to the topic and well researched. I fervently hope that these have the desired impact.Drone attacks may be right or wrong. But they will continue. Forget these drones the new intelligent ones will select the target and follow the target till it gets them. Just wait till drones get to Quetta.
@mkz:
Actually we do, we just don’t want to killed by a lunatic set off a bomb or slamming airplanes into tall buildings.
i think drone attack is justified in a way .pakistan shelter and support most of dreadfull terrosist in world. it is right some innocent people are killed but by killing these terrorist we can save our future and killing of million people. can anyone hustify why osama bin laden was given shelter in pakistan by govt?
@mkz: "Please can people for ONCE put themselves in OTHER PEOPLES SHOES when considering things like this."
Actually I can. A very dear friend of mine died in serial bomb blasts in Mumbai locals in 2006 which we believe were planned in Pakistan. But my friends family did not then go around killing random innocent Muslims - nor should they have.
Also in 2002 in Godhra 60 pilgrims were burnt alive by Muslims and my Nanaji lives in GOdhara - my mother was visiting in Feb 2002 and she was tsuck there. All phones were disconnected and we were not sure if my mother was safe. The severity of this provocation led to riots that lasted over 2 days in which 797 Muslims and 250 Hindus died. But despite how sever the provocation was , civil society did not condone the riots and cases have been conducted and over 33 Hindus including a minister have been convicted. Thus in a civilized society, no-one should condone killing of innocents because your family members were killed. By your logic though that if someone's family member is killed they are justified in continuing the cycle of violence by killing other unrelated innocent people, I would imagine that you would condone Gujarat riots - right? You may but I don't and neither did the courts of India.
"Even if these figures are taken at their face value they still are not as huge as the number of Pakistani civilians killed by these terrorists. "
Most of the comments here have missed the key point that the drones actually ADD TO this problem. They really rile up the innocent civilians that are innocently killed. They cause many of the relatives to become terrorists. The exact terrorists that are against the USA, that the USA is trying to stop with these drones. When will the USA understand there will always be a supply of rocket genades, and machines guns. They can kill so many terrorists, but they can also CREATE far more by their actions.
The only difference between this study and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism is that the Bureau didn't even bother to interview anyone nor step foot in Pakistan -- this study hired a Pakistani based anti drone group to select some people for interviews. The authors of this study - never bothered to go into the tribal territories themselves nor did they talk to anyone who wasn't vetted by the anti drone group. Akin to a scientist writing a conclusion and discarding any evidence that might disagree with his findings.
@mkz: I respect your passion and argument no problem there. However, if my family is killed by a drone or by terrorists I am not going to go crazy and kill many many times more innocent Pakistani who had nothing to do with the killing of my family. I have no problem with the victims and their families they are they deserve our support. My beef is with the killers of 50 thousand innocent Pakistanis without any justification. No Pakistani civilians have declared open war on TTP and do not deserve to be blown up or beheaded. Hope you also understand my point. Thanks for keeping it civil, Regards, Mirza
Let me get this straight- it is legal for Pakistan to kill people who change their religion from Islam to anything else, but it is wrong for the US to use a cost effective means of killing terrorists with a 20% error rate?
"let us not be naive enough to hope that it will bring about any real change when it comes to mainstream American policy".
Valid conclusion.
"The buzz of drones that have driven many to insanity and others to the grave will once again be drowned in political uproar until those seeking to be in power, figure out a way of manoeuvering this debate to their political advantage".
It may not be just cynical politics but a genuine belief that drones are an efective way of killing terroristsa dn with minimum collateral damage as compared to any other option on the menu - be it F-16 bombings by Pakistan army or a ground operation. Not taking any action against terrorists that directly attack NATO forcs - of which Americans are the largest number is not an option any American President can consider.
If my neighbour's house is on fire, but my the neighbour refuses to douse it, I will make sure that I spray the fire with water, to ensure my house is not the next to catch fire - even if the neighbour gets wet by my spray! Same applies here - your govt. refuses to do anything about the hotbed of militant activity in those areas, what do you expect the Americans to do. It is shameful, that your army has to get permission from the militants to move their convoys around, that a national party leader has to request said militants for his security if he wishes to visit those areas. And what about Osama? The fact that he lived a stone's throw from a major military institution, and yet govt. inquiry focuses on how his whereabouts were leaked!
So where is your "sovreignity" in these cases? Your govt has no control over its own territory - you should be up in arms about that, not some made up excuse of "sovreignity"!
I don't quite follow the article - Now, why is there a need for 'readiness' on the part of the US to talk about drones? It is not like the US is in a bind with regards to the drone program and neither of the two political parties are making it a political issue. Therefore, there is no need for a "Drone talk" as long as the Pakistani establishment has privately agreed to the drone attacks and the CIA feels that it is yielding rich dividends.
" drone strikes killed 2,562 to 3,325 people in Pakistan of whom, 474 to 881 were civilians." Even if these figures are taken at their face value they still are not as huge as the number of Pakistani civilians killed by these terrorists. I am not in favor of any killing from either side but one cannot simply surrender to the terrorists. Aside from some liberals (me included) there are no worries about the drone attacks in the US. In fact people are relieved that the active combat is ending and the drones are doing a great job against the terrorists. There is no reason to believe that Obama govt is going to change its policy till after the elections. In case the Republicans come to power either in the White House or the Senate, then the war is only going to get momentum and not stop till the terrorists havens are wiped out.