.'The best of a bad set of options'
Amid concerns that missile attacks by unmanned US aircraft on Al Qaeda and Taliban targets in Pakistan are against international law and cause civilian deaths, US President Barack Obama has allowed the CIA and the US military to carry out "signature" drone strikes on militant targets in Yemen. US counter terrorism adviser John Brennan admitted for the first time that civilians are sometimes killed in drone strikes. "It is extremely rare," he said, "but it has happened."
After he became president in 2008, Obama increased drone attacks against militant targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, slowing down only in 2012 after tensions rose between the two countries over American airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on an outpost on the Afghanistan border. Seeing drones as effective weapons against Al Qaeda, the Obama administration has decided to increase their use to target militant groups linked to Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and other countries in West Africa.
"In Pakistan's context, drone attacks have worked and brought remarkable results," says security expert Emma McEachan, who has served with NATO. "Pakistanis have been cooperative, but quiet." She said there were limitations with how to verify who is being killed because the US had to reply on local agents rather than forensics. "Drone attacks obviously come with costs, but they are the best of a bad set of options."
An Obama administration official who has a major say in the drone policy told The Friday Times the drone attacks would continue despite the trust deficit. "Privately, the Pakistani military officials tell us we are doing a good job. Publicly, they take a different line. That is understandable."
But Pakistan seems to be rethinking its drone policy. "We have raised the drone attacks issue with the US at various levels. We are trying to resolve this issue on a priority basis," Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Khan told reporters in a recent briefing.
An important argument against drone attacks is that they fuel more terrorism than they prevent. There is a significant backlash against the attacks in the Pakistani media, and a number of polls indicate a majority of Pakistanis oppose them. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani admits drone attacks have killed key terror suspects, but has spoken against them in the parliament and on public forums.
But a poll conducted by the Aryana Institute in the tribal areas shows the local people support drone strikes. A top Pakistan Army commander stationed in FATA and fighting Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other militants, told local journalists he favoured drone attacks. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who are seen as enemy by the Pakistani military, have also been targeted in drone attacks. The TTP publicly acknowledged sending out a Jordanian suicide bomber who killed 14 members of CIA working at a drone command and control station in Afghanistan.
In June 2004, the first ever US drone attack killed Nek Muhammad Wazir in Wana, South Waziristan. Since then, drone attacks have not only killed important leaders of Al Qaeda, but also killed militant leaders considered enemies of Pakistan, such as Baitullah Mehsud, Ilyas Kashmiri, and Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. Drone attacks have killed more enemies of both Pakistan and the US than ground offensives or any other strategy attempted since 9/11.
Mohsin Afridi, an activist who opposes drone attacks, says many of them have killed children. "While the US kills us from sky, Pakistanis kill us on the ground in revenge attacks." He claimed more than 4,000 civilians have been killed in drone strikes. Other sources say the number of verified civilian deaths is much less.
"Pakistan needs a clear policy on drone attacks along with an above-board counter terrorism policy that doesn't pick between the good terrorists and bad ones," says Carl Adams, a former NATO commander. "For its part, the United States needs to realize that any policy on drones needs to be carefully worked out with Pakistan before any more strikes happen."
The use of CIA personnel to operate and conduct drone strikes has also become a serious legal issue. CIA personnel are not part of the US armed forces, are not subject to military command structure, and do not wear uniform. Under international law, they are therefore civilians directly participating in hostilities, much like the fighters they target.
But Matthew Waxman, adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy with the Council on Foreign Relations, believes there is legal justification for the attacks. "In general, lethal force is legally permissible against enemy fighters in an ongoing war and such force may be used on the territory of a foreign state," he said, "if that state consents or if it is unwilling or unable to take action."
The Friday Times
After he became president in 2008, Obama increased drone attacks against militant targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, slowing down only in 2012 after tensions rose between the two countries over American airstrikes that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers on an outpost on the Afghanistan border. Seeing drones as effective weapons against Al Qaeda, the Obama administration has decided to increase their use to target militant groups linked to Al Qaeda in Yemen, Somalia, Nigeria and other countries in West Africa.
"In Pakistan's context, drone attacks have worked and brought remarkable results," says security expert Emma McEachan, who has served with NATO. "Pakistanis have been cooperative, but quiet." She said there were limitations with how to verify who is being killed because the US had to reply on local agents rather than forensics. "Drone attacks obviously come with costs, but they are the best of a bad set of options."
An Obama administration official who has a major say in the drone policy told The Friday Times the drone attacks would continue despite the trust deficit. "Privately, the Pakistani military officials tell us we are doing a good job. Publicly, they take a different line. That is understandable."
But Pakistan seems to be rethinking its drone policy. "We have raised the drone attacks issue with the US at various levels. We are trying to resolve this issue on a priority basis," Foreign Office spokesman Moazzam Khan told reporters in a recent briefing.
An important argument against drone attacks is that they fuel more terrorism than they prevent. There is a significant backlash against the attacks in the Pakistani media, and a number of polls indicate a majority of Pakistanis oppose them. Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani admits drone attacks have killed key terror suspects, but has spoken against them in the parliament and on public forums.
But a poll conducted by the Aryana Institute in the tribal areas shows the local people support drone strikes. A top Pakistan Army commander stationed in FATA and fighting Taliban, Al Qaeda, and other militants, told local journalists he favoured drone attacks. Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), who are seen as enemy by the Pakistani military, have also been targeted in drone attacks. The TTP publicly acknowledged sending out a Jordanian suicide bomber who killed 14 members of CIA working at a drone command and control station in Afghanistan.
In June 2004, the first ever US drone attack killed Nek Muhammad Wazir in Wana, South Waziristan. Since then, drone attacks have not only killed important leaders of Al Qaeda, but also killed militant leaders considered enemies of Pakistan, such as Baitullah Mehsud, Ilyas Kashmiri, and Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. Drone attacks have killed more enemies of both Pakistan and the US than ground offensives or any other strategy attempted since 9/11.
Mohsin Afridi, an activist who opposes drone attacks, says many of them have killed children. "While the US kills us from sky, Pakistanis kill us on the ground in revenge attacks." He claimed more than 4,000 civilians have been killed in drone strikes. Other sources say the number of verified civilian deaths is much less.
"Pakistan needs a clear policy on drone attacks along with an above-board counter terrorism policy that doesn't pick between the good terrorists and bad ones," says Carl Adams, a former NATO commander. "For its part, the United States needs to realize that any policy on drones needs to be carefully worked out with Pakistan before any more strikes happen."
The use of CIA personnel to operate and conduct drone strikes has also become a serious legal issue. CIA personnel are not part of the US armed forces, are not subject to military command structure, and do not wear uniform. Under international law, they are therefore civilians directly participating in hostilities, much like the fighters they target.
But Matthew Waxman, adjunct senior fellow for law and foreign policy with the Council on Foreign Relations, believes there is legal justification for the attacks. "In general, lethal force is legally permissible against enemy fighters in an ongoing war and such force may be used on the territory of a foreign state," he said, "if that state consents or if it is unwilling or unable to take action."
The Friday Times
posted by madtom at 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home