Recently, following a two year hiatus, the United States renewed an aid package worth $1.6 Billion to Pakistan, aid that aims to bolster Pakistan's military and economic capacity. The long gap in funds to one of America's most duplicitous, yet necessary partners in the global war on terror came as a result of the killing of Osama bin Laden and rapacious drone strikes, all of which represent violations of Pakistani sovereignty and create frosty relations.
Drone strikes are controversial not simply because of the ambiguity surrounding their use in other states' airspace but because of civilian deaths, which have steadily mounted in recent years. Civilian deaths are costly for a number of reasons. Strictly speaking, effective counterinsurgency doctrine necessitates the engagement of the civilian population, characterized by providing them with security. Improved security, in turn, creates a wedge between insurgents and the population, which provides them with refuge, intelligence and supplies. Drone strikes run counter to counterinsurgency doctrine. Drones do not engage the population, nor do they provide security, a fact manifest by the number of deaths experienced in recent years. But there is a high degree of uncertainty as to the real toll that drones have taken.
The discrepancies arise from various reports. According to the Pakistani government, there have been a mere 67 civilian deaths recorded since 2008, however according to the United Nations the death toll is exponentially higher, at around 450 civilian deaths. Not only does this indicate a substantial lack of transparency, it also calls into question the effectiveness and precise nature of drone warfare. John Brennan, the head of the CIA was recently quoted by Al Jazeera as saying there have been "no collateral deaths 'because of the exceptional proficiency, precision or the capabilities we've been able to develop." However, David Kilcullen, the counterinsurgency adviser to General David Patraeus, countered this, stating, "over the last 3 years (2009-2012) drone strikes have killed about 14 terrorist leaders... but they have also killed some 700 civilians (that total was collected by the Pakistani media). This is 50 civilians for every militant killed, a hit rate of 2%, hardly 'precision.'"
Overall, we see a massive discrepancy in the real number of civilian deaths, but more importantly, we must take into account the fact that drone warfare is largely imprecise and does little to win over the civilian population, whose support is so vital for attaining victory. Therefore, the question I pose, is whether or not you think drone strikes are an effective tool going forward, and if it is a strategy worth pursuing for the future?
Reinstating the military and economic aid package to Pakistan recently is slightly puzzling to me right now. As I understood it one of the main reasons we (United States of America) stopped the aid was because it was discovered by American intelligent forces that the Pakistani military was directly supporting Taliban forces. Not only was the Pakistani military providing aid to the Taliban but it was the ISI or Pakistani intelligence services that provided the most. But on the same hand the government of Pakistan has suffered attacks from its own domestic Taliban and Afghani Taliban including attacks at border stops and police stations. The true price of drones has yet to really be realized by the the American public and international community. Although drones may represent what the future of warfare technology looks like, it is also true that their accuracy rate is horrific compared to that of man aircraft. It is as if because we use unmanned vehicles it is less of a declaration of war to be flying military craft in sovereign airspace committing strikes off of the official battlefield. But at the same time because we pursue this new method to hunt militants, we are also slaying innocents at a new astonishing rate. The real issue when you kill 50 civilians for every militant is that people who before may have been supportive or indifferent to the US now view the US as an evil force unconcerned with the lives of innocent muslims. Which in the grand scheme is more dangerous than anything else when you make 50 new enemies for every 1 you handle.
ReplyDeleteI think the only way drones can be justified is if there is zero tolerance for civilian deaths. I don't think that's a reality right now. I find it ridiculous that the only apparent method to countering terrorism or insurgencies requires violating basic human rights. Although, we did discuss today that we are never entirely sure of how effective these efforts are. For all we know drones have been life savers. But I will always have a hard time trying to justify such drastic measures at the expense of innocent civilians. I totally agree with the above comment; capturing 1 at the expense of 50 doesn't sound too good. At the same time we have to take into consideration that the 1 that is captured may have been plotting a lot more damage.
ReplyDeleteIm glad you made this post Benjamin because it is somewhat relevant and similar to the one I did a couple weeks ago on Nuclear Weapons vs. Drones. You bring up a good observation that the effectiveness of these drones is highly up for debate. When I made my post, I stated that drones are fairly inconsistent in killing select targets rather than innocent civilians. There were numbers of different comments on my post of various people saying that my findings were wrong and that Drone warfare is actually extremely accurate. So I find it very fitting that you address this issue that everybody interprets drone effectiveness differently. Addressing your question, I think that despite the high numbers of civilian casualties from drone strikes, I feel that it is still worth pursuing because accuracy and effectiveness will only improve over time. The ability to use effective drone attacks is a much better alternative than the use of nuclear weapons which inevitably result in high civilian casualties. If the use of drones could cause the same effects as nuclear weapons do, without the civilian casualties, it would become the new "technology or weapon" to have.
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern regarding the use of drones and their lack of precision that has resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians. However, in war civilian casualties are an unfortunate reality and if these strikes are still effective in neutralizing high value targets then I can see why drones are still used, given the nature of their attacks and the fact that they don't require "boots on the ground" that would potentially result in more casualties for both sides. The real problem I see with drones in the foreseeable future is the prospect of countries like China and Russia gaining this technology and using it in their spheres of influence despite our disapproval. Concerning Pakistan and the continued aid we give them, I find it annoying that we support a nation who appears to have undermined our efforts to combat terrorism. Bin Laden was living in a secure compound 800 yards from the Pakistani Military Academy and Mosharraf Zaidi, a leading Pakistani columnist, suggests that "It seems deeply improbable that Bin Laden could have been where he was killed without the knowledge of some parts of the Pakistani state." Furthermore, why are we still giving billions of dollars of aid to people when we are trillions of dollars in debt?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile civilians have been unlawfully killed by drone strikes, the number of combatants killed is always higher, even in the reports that gave a high estimate of civilian deaths. A study conducted by Avery Plaw and Matthew S. Fricker from the University of Massachusetts in Dartmouth, estimated that 70.7 percent of people killed by drones were combatants. Of the remaining percentage, 5.3 percent were civilians while the remaining 24 percent were unknown. So even though drones have killed civilians, the number of combatants killed is much higher.
ReplyDeleteAvery Plaw also analyzed four other studies that counted drone strike deaths. He then estimated the ratio of civilian deaths to combatant deaths. The ratios for the four studies were 4 percent, 6 percent, 17 percent, and 20 percent respectively. He then estimated that when a conventional army pursues militants in tribal areas, the number of civilian deaths is 46 percent. He also estimated that during conventional wars of the past two decades, 33 to 80 percent of deaths were civilians. So even the high end estimate of death by drones, 20 percent, is much lower than when a conventional army tries to eliminate combatants (Shane).
Drones strikes are also becoming more and more accurate. The studies by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, which has some of the highest estimate of civilian deaths by drones, shows that drones strikes are killing fewer civilians and more combatants. In 2008, they estimated that 28 percent of deaths were civilians, while in 2011 only 16 percent were civilians. This shows that the increased use in drones is leading to more accurate and targeted strikes.
Clearly drone strikes are not effective. If they have a hit rate of 2% then we need an alternative. While I'm all for the use of drones, I'm not for the collateral damage they cause that I just read about. There has to be a way to increase precision from these expensive drones in order to prevent the death of those we need to 'win over' as Benjamin put it. To have that many civilian deaths is just absolutely unacceptable in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe drone strikes should be the first approach in counterinsurgency measures due to their inability to connect and provide security for the local civilian populations. However I do not completely disagree with their use, when there is an imminent threat to U.S. forces I believe drones should be used preemptively. The “hit rate” of 2% is unacceptable for drone strikes when officials such as John Brennan claim they have no collateral damage; much more transparency should be attributed to the U.S. drone program for this reason. I feel if people were more aware of the overall success percentage in killing hostiles, they would be more opposed to this program. Also as Thomas mentioned in an above comment, countries like China and Russia are not too far away from developing drones capable of similar objectives. For that reason it is imperative that the U.S. reconstruct its program and rethink its criteria necessary for carrying out a strike.
ReplyDeleteI also came across an article yesterday that mentions some new developments in the U.S. drone program that some of you may find interesting, here is the link: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/12/12/u-s-seeks-spy-edge-with-stealth-drone/?iref=allsearch