Trust the Drones, Not Pakistan
By Laura Hughes
Pakistan is stepping up its criticism of the expansion of U.S. drone operations within its borders, calling the campaign to root out militant groups in the country's tribal areas "out of control." It is however, the Pakistani military's own ineptitude and sheer unwillingness to combat extremism within the country's borders that makes the drone offensive a vital part of U.S. strategy in the region.
That Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, as well as myriad other militant groups, operate with near impunity in Pakistan's tribal areas is an acknowledged, albeit frustrating reality to U.S. military and intelligence officials. Perhaps more infuriating is the Pakistani military's demonstrated inability to defeat the host of militant groups (some of which have ties to Pakistan's I.S.I.) or even curtail their operations along the Afghan border.
Whereas the Pakistani military's few forays into the tribal areas have failed, the expanded U.S. drone program has significantly reduced the number of militants operating in the region, thereby limiting their ability to plan attacks on U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan.
Last year saw a sharp increase in the number of drone strikes, up from 9 total strikes between 2004-2007, to 118 strikes in 2010. Last year, of the estimated 993 deaths resulting from drone operations, 939 were militants. As of March 2011, 141 people have been killed, of which 115 were militants. The majority of the strikes are concentrated in North Waziristan, the hub of extremism in Pakistan.
Moreover, drones have put direct "pressure on Al-Qaeda," says Bruce Riedel, a Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. Speaking recently at the launch of his new book, Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of Global Jihad in Washington, Riedel offered a compelling example of drone effectiveness. Before the Obama administration expanded the use of drones, Al-Qaeda's deputy leader, Ayman Al-Zawahiri "used to put out a new audio message every other week. [...] Last year [2010], due to the drones, he put out four messages, two of them were less than 15 seconds in length. His ops tempo has been disrupted."
While some resulting civilian deaths are regrettable and further complicate the tempestuous U.S.-Pakistan relationship, the number of civilians killed has been comparatively few to the number of militant deaths. Even the Pakistani military has stated publicly that U.S. drones target and kill militants, not civilians. There is of course the danger of becoming "drone-addicted," as Riedel says. Drones are "an awesome technological instrument, but they're not the solution."
But for now, drones are the best solution. There is not enough trust between the C.I.A. and the I.S.I to turn full drone control over to Pakistani leadership. A broader U.S. military presence, beyond the problematic number of American security personnel already operating in Pakistan, is out of the question. Full-fledged air strikes would likely result in far greater civilian deaths, not to mention further endanger American servicemen.
So what is to be done? Until Pakistan demonstrates an increased willingness to combat extremism within its own borders, let the drones get back to work.
Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons
Laura HughesAfter graduating from Denison University in 2008 with a B.A. in Middle East Studies, Hughes moved to Cairo, Egypt to work for a financial communications agency and to continue her research on the political evolution of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. During her subsequent two-year stay in Egypt, Hughes conducted media and security analysis for US Centcom. She is currently based in London, pursuing her M.A. in Intelligence and International Security in the War Studies department at King's College London. Apart from her interest in global security and terrorism, she's a Washington Capitals fanatic. Follow @LKennedyHughes
More Stories5 years agoFarming Inner-City Community Action5 years agoThe Endemic Problem of Overreliance on Private Military Contracting5 years agoAbortion: Not So Black and White, or Is It?5 years agoWhat's Worse: Candidates or the Coverage They Receive?5 years agoWhy it Feels Good to Be An Indian5 years agoHuman Rights in Libya: An Interview with a Libyan Activist Navigating Political Unrest5 years agoBREAKING NEWS: Tahrir Square Engulfed by Clashes with the Police5 years agoTahrir Square: Smoke, Despair and a Sense of Defiance5 years agoGoldstone 'Changes Mind,' So What Now?5 years agoRedefining Lebanon's Place in the Middle EastMust ReadsMic Staff2016 presidential polls: Tracking latest Trump vs. Clinton numbers through the electionAnna SwartzWhy does Donald Trump hate Rosie O'Donnell so much?Stefan BecketWhat to expect from Clinton and Trump in the second debate, based on the firstWill DraboldHere's why Donald Trump is wrong about the number of shootings in Chicago and NYC in 2016Stephanie GaskellWill Donald Trump boycott the next debate?