Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Stopping Pakistan Drone Strikes Suddenly Plausible
Until this week, it seemed like the conventional wisdom in Washington was that stopping U.S drone strikes in Pakistan was outside the bounds of respectable discussion.
That just changed. Or it should have.
Writing in the Los Angeles Times, Doyle McManus notes that counterinsurgency guru David Kilcullen has told Congress that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are backfiring and should be stopped. Until now Congress has been reluctant to challenge the drone strikes, as they are reluctant in general to challenge "military strategy," even when it appears to be causing terrible harm. But as McManus notes, Kilcullen has unimpeachable Pentagon credentials. He served as a top advisor in Iraq to General Petraeus on counterinsurgency, and is credited as having helped design the Iraq "surge." Now, anyone in Washington who wants to challenge the drone strikes has all the political cover they could reasonably expect.
And what Kilcullen said leaves very little room for creative misinterpretation:
"Since 2006, we've killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we've killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they've given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism. ... The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population."
Presumably, causing the Pakistani government to lose "control of its own population" is not an objective of United States foreign policy.
McManus says there's no sign that the Obama Administration is taking Kilcullen's advice and Obama administration is unlikely to abandon "one of the few strategies that has produced results." But a Washington Post report suggests otherwise:
Although the missile attacks are privately approved by the Pakistani government, despite its public denunciations, they are highly unpopular among the public. As Zardari's domestic problems have grown, the Obama administration last month cut the frequency of the attacks. Some senior U.S. officials think they have reached the point of diminishing returns and the administration is debating the rate at which they should continue.
Since it is manifestly apparent that 1) the drone strikes are causing civilian casualties 2) they are turning Pakistani public opinion against their government and against the U.S. 3) they are recruiting more support for insurgents and 4) even military experts think the strikes are doing more harm than good, even from the point of view of U.S. officials, why shouldn't they stop? Why not at least a time-out?
Why shouldn't Members of Congress ask for some justification for the continuation of these strikes? The Pentagon is asking for more money. It's time for Congress to ask some questions.
26 Comments so far
Show AllI cannot fathom the lack of intelligence necessary to not comprehend that firing missiles (via remote cotrol) on civilians is a bad idea.
And it takes the Pentagon weeks or months to get this thought through their thick heads??
We are being led by the worst, most evil and stupidest amongst us.
It seems that foreign policy actions are not alway consistent with stated objectives, and hidden agendas are common. Stated objectives are sometimes smoke screens to conceal private agendas of powerful people. If you accept these statements as true at least some of the time consider the actions of the US and imagine that there are unspoken agendas.
It seems obvious that US drone attacks in Pakistan will seriously undermine public support for any Pakistani government whether Pakistan tolerates, welcomes or opposes the attacks. The attacks display American contempt for Pakistani national integrity and callous disregard for civilian life, this can infuriate people all around the world, especially Muslims in Pakistan. One might imagine a revolution by anti-American forces seizing control of Pakistani nukes and using them even suicidally, perhaps even against Israel, if American targets are too difficult. Also against Israel since much of US policy is perceived as dictated by Israel.
There are many Americans who resent Israel's influence on America and other who have generally hated Jews in general since before WW2. There were supporters of Hitler among wealthy Americans, Brits. So how would these people who hate Israel feel if Muslim outrage leads to nuking Israel? Likely the would be pleased. Many Americans have a great deal of contempt and disdain for Muslims in the middle east as well, so if before being destroyed Israel manages to launch nukes at some middle eastern states, we can imagine that some people some where will cheer. Chances are that some people are even positioned economically to benefit from such mutual nuclear destruction. Perhaps oil rich states, and corporations that can gain more than they lose.
Since US policies are making more enemies than they are destroying it seems logical to suspect that this is the plan on somebody's part.
Interesting speculations, Elmwood.
It is hard guessing intent in very bizarre and apparently counterproductive policy decisions. And of course probably every individual involved in any part of the decision has at least a somewhat different motive.
That said, one has to wonder at the motive for attacking Afghanistan in the first place, given that of course it was never intended to protect American civilians.
Clearly the themes include detouring oil and gas away from China, India, and Russia. Just as clearly, Someone feels it's worth the risk of sacrificing a city or two in the not-so-unlikely event that nuclear materials pass from group to group.
Gad.
Very interesting; thank you for that analysis.
I would question the scenario of Pakistan's nukes being seized, and used. Pakistani nukes are modular, with the components stored in disparate, highly-secure facilities armed by carefully selected, and highly dedicated forces. Should even the military revolt, I seriously question if rebels would have the muscle, expertise and technology to defeat the security protecting all the modules, seize them, and assemble them. I wish I could say the same for US nuclear-weapon security.
There is another line of defense around Pakistani nukes. I suggest that the majority of Pakistanis are proudest, in the national sense, of their nuclear program, as long as it stays behind locked doors. Every Pakistani I have spoken with are sincere when they speak of this engineering triumph, and that it is for defense purposes only. Nothing would demoralize this nation more than knowing their technology killed innocent people. These same people also loosely protect the weapons modules in their widely separated bases.
When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty - Lisa Macdonald, 2004.
Even if one accepts your hypothesis as true, the people who are doing it are still stupid. Much more stupid, actually. Making such that a possible nuclear war would occur is EVEN MORE STUPID, MUCH MORE STUPID than shooting missiles at civilians by remote control.
Stupid because nuclear war cannot be contained nicely and neatly.
What was it Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said decades ago...which is even truer today as ever - about america?
"I MUST WITH GREAT SADNESS AND SHAME SAY THAT THE GREATEST PURVEYOR OF VIOLENCE IN THE WORLD TODAY IS MY OWN COUNTRY AND GOVERNMENT".
america - leaders and "willfully" ignorant -- or "studiously ignorant" americans about what the US really DOES TO other countries --
is -- in a phrase :
ADDICTED to VIOLENCE .
And how is this not State sponsored terrorism?Bombing with remote control robotic drones, based on limited intelegence.This really wins us some hearts and minds in the "war on terra'Your tax dollars at work! peace
This IS state sponsored terrorism, and at this point in time as C-in-C, Obama is responsible for it.
Indeed, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are state sponsored terrorism, brought to you by the state sponsored terrorism that were the attacks at WTC
they will try to do that of course...that much is clear. HOWEVER....
as of TODAY --
if people recall:
the obama administration sent Vice President Biden to confront Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai to basically tell him they are unhappy with his inability to do America's bidding of controlling whatever it is they want him to control.....and that they are throwing their support to his RIVAL ...a tribal chieftain . and they PUBLICLY shunned Karzai to show "who's boss".
PROBLEM:
Karzai made backroom deals with several tribal leaders INCLUDING the one the USA wanted to replace him....
and that leader , a VERY influential one in Afghanistan and governor of a province there, made a VERY PUBLIC< POINTED "visit with the president of afghanistan"
and came out after 2 hours -- declaring publicly -- "i am withdrawing my presidential campaign ....our president is a great president".......
iN SHORT - KARZAI - KNOWS HIS PEOPLE better than the USA EVER WILL
and basically told the USA --
":I AM NOT going to be YOUR lackey anymore ".
the USA is going to try and topple HIM -- when HE has the support , suddenly of PRACTICALLY EVERY IMPORTANT CHIEFTAIN in afghanistan?
controlling 40 Million People?
IS OBAMA and the USA INSANE?
the IRONY is :
when Karzai was "installed" by the Bushies -- and Karzai was STILL feeling like the "favorite" of washington and complications were NOT yet as bad beyond even karzai's ability to satisfy washington's demands to "come up with results" as THEIR "dog" ...and then HE FAILED to satisfy THEM in washington, leading to his being "out of favor" with washington..........
Karzai was practicallY DESPISED by the afghanis -- which is why he was called "the mayor of KABUL" -- IMPOTENT to do anything over the country because he had NO SUPPORT from the tribal leaders and THEREFORE the rest of the country
BECAUSE he WAS seen as a LACKEY of washington.
THE MOMENT he made DEALS with the tribal leaders - THEREFORE the REST of the country -- and DEFIED WASHINGTON......
his popularity SHOOT UP to the skies!
MEANING:
the AFGHANIs will NOT ACCEPT ANYONE washington rams down their throats
and clearly -- if washington INSISTS on it
america will see a BLOODBATH upon the american troops there and all hell is loose...and the MORE america TRIES to impose its will militarily
the MORE it will suffer the fate of all empires in teh GRAVEYARD of empires.
obama and USA are in a DEEP DEEP DOO-DOO!
The "tar baby" story fits in here someplace.
Cooperating with this arms industry driven strategy undermines the idea that Obama's foreign policy is different than Bush's. I have no problem with Obama being opposed to the rise of the Taliban, but Nintendo warfare is incompatible with his apparent affection for the rule of law.
Is it too much to ask for a bit of moral clarity here as we are subjected to an analysis of the drone attacks in terms of whether they are "working?" Is the philosophy of "pragmatism" that guides the Obama (and every other U.S. presidential administration) the be and end-all of whether to undertake a military operation? Let's say that a given operation would "work" in Pakistan: for example, a nuclear annihilation that would wipe out every person, terrorist or not, in Pakistan and every person everywhere else that might be offended by the operation. Should it be undertaken? Why not? Is one bringing an issue of right or wrong, of humanity or inhumanity, into one's "pragmatic" calculation?
Lately there's been a debate on whether torture as a mode of interrogation is "effective" in getting useful intelligence. Why is this question even raised? It could be as effective as hell (as Cheney claims for example) and would still be wrongful, illegal and a war crime. (It's practically a definition of a crime that it "works" for the perpetrator at the expense of the victim). I know Mr. Naiman isn't being a Machiavellian "end justifies the means" thinker in this essay, but to suggest that a morally right decision (to stop drone attacks) is "opened" by the supposed fact that they eren't "working" as we intended seems like a slippery slope of analysis that helps "open" further the door to the calculations of the moral imbeciles who occupy our Congress and White House.
Indeed, Jerry!
I've been carrying on for months at CD (except when banned) and elsewhere about how the zeitgeist of Pragmatism has further transformed politics into high-tech, high-stakes amoral machiavellianism.
Chris Hedges recently cited William Wilberforce's identification of "politics without principle" as a grievous sin or error. And Wilberforce wouldn't accept glorifying pragmatism ("what works") as a Great Commandment or Principle; actually, pragmatism is what remains when principle evaporates.
Thus, despite the superficial differences in style and less onerous policies in some areas, this administration practices the same shady and amoral "situation ethics" as its reprehensible predecessor. It reduces every question to a political calculus, and every answer to doing what is most expedient.
ยท Yr Obd't Servant
Beautifully put, YOB! Can't wait to see our pragmatist brethren go to work on you and me. Maybe Naiman himself will again set us straight.
Pragmatism, or realpolitik, is trotted out by US elites to fill in the huge gaps in their obtuse and disjoint principles of camouflaged oppression and domination.
So,we are finally learning that the drones, because they are killing innocents and because they are uninvited and imposing a foreign presence are doing more harm than good. Surprise, surprise. The most elementary excercise in empathy would ask how we would feel of foreign drones were flying over say, the Sonoma valley and killing our citizens. We would be apoplectic. Apparently there's no one in Congress who can think that way--the American conceit is so blinding. But like it or not we will learn.
The more fundamental American conceit, it seems to me, is the implicit underlying assumption that nation states (the United States, at least) can engage in targeted assassinations - openly commit acts of war like air strikes across international boundaries, killing persons denominated as enemies along with innocent civilians nearby - yet expect there will be no blowback, legal or otherwise.
Where in the Constitution was the executive branch of the federal government ever delegated legal authority to commit premeditated murder overseas as a tool of conducting foreign policy?
Since when did American presidents assume a generalized right to draw up a secret, classified hit list of foes abroad to be rubbed out, whether by a robot drone from on high or by a contract thug, up close and personal?
Even if you finesse language and logic to rebrand such extrajudicial killings as the waging of war against enemy combatants by unconventional means, what consequences are likely to arise when we blur the lines between military acts, and acts of paramilitary murder, beyond all recognition? Does the United States really want to invite those chickens to come home to roost some day?
Kilcullen's stats, regarding an 18 to 700 kill ration of putative bad guys to innocent civilians using Predator technology as a counterinsurgency tactic, seems to me to be a good first step in policy analysis.
Maybe Wilberforce put it backwards. Principle remains on the table for debate, right after pragmatism makes its case and vanishes.
Bill from Saginaw
Sioux Rose
BILL: Thank you for stating "my thoughts" so eloquently! (LOL)
"Some senior U.S. officials think they have reached the point of diminishing returns "
Actually, that point was reached just about thirty seconds after the first drone strike and has been all downhill from there.
This is very interesting, though. Kilcullen is either off the reservation, or he's moving the discussion. If he's soloing, the Administration hasn't said anything to swat him down, Betreaus hasn't distanced himself from his (former?) advisor. But Kilcullen may be changing Congress's understanding of the situation ahead of this week's AFPAKUS meeting, signaling a change of strategy or at least, opening up space for it.
It remains to be seen if this meeting makes any difference.
If we'd had the realist Kilcullen rather than the brown-nosing Petreus in charge of the occupations, we would have been out of this conflict years ago, WITH honor.
Never criticize a man until you've walked a mile in his moccasins - Native American proverb.
I agree with others that "effectiveness" isn't the way a great nation should judge its own war crimes.
I do wonder, however, the basis of the assertion that "we" have killed ANY "senior AlQaeda leaders." I suspect these numbers are just made up for public consumption. Of course, if we had a real press or non-Quisling congresscritters, someone might actually ask for verification of the identity of those killed.
Sigh.
Drone Strikes serve US goals-Causing Taliban attacks, Unrest and Rioting, the Nuclear Weapons will be "in danger of falling into AQ's hands" ("see Fox New at 10:00 for details as the Story Unfolds,")....until the US Cavalry is "invited" in to Save The World aka Occupy Pakistan. A US Goal. joe c., northern california.
I think the plan is to destabilise Pakistan such that intervention is "regrettably" required. Only temporarily, of course.
After all, nobody is getting anywhere in Afghanistan and a good scapegoat is that it is all Pakistan's fault for giving safe harbour, blah, blah, blah.
So why not move next door where the action is coming from and waste them a little? Kick butt with the latest rapid fire cannon that fires bullet shaped evangelical bibles.
"...latest rapid fire cannon that fires bullet shaped evangelical bibles"
HAHAHAHAHAHA8181818181818181818181!
But you and azjoe (in northern california?) are infortunately, quite likely, correct that Pakistan is in line for some Democracy Lessons at gunpoint.
CV, Hello, yeah, norcal now-
CV, 1. Yesterday, Front page, NYT's-Picture of a Mother and her children watching as she smokes Opium....(oohh Evil) Pure Reichministry Propaganda.
So now, not just AQ & the Taliban, Afghan Mommies are Bad. This will make it easier to kill them.
2. We are amassing troops, many along the Pak border, in Af. 100,000 within months. 2a. The nuclear weapons are surrounded....by IslamoFascist Killers.
3. Zardari is History. Nawaz has sold out his people so we may install him. Then Khiana in a Proud Pak tradition will bloodlessly coup his way in-and, 5. Invite us or "an international peacekeeping force" (us) to provide security for the nuclear sites.
About the only thing in the way is 167 million Pakistanis.