SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Stopping Pakistan Drone Strikes Suddenly Plausible
May 05, 2009
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.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
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.
Robert Naiman
Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East.
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.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.