The Rise of the Drone

“Predator strikes are the worst kept covert secret in the history of U.S. foreign policy.”
–Micah Zenko, Fellow for Conflict Prevention, Council on Foreign Relations

Although General Stanley McChrystal recently made headlines over his anti-Washington comments in Rolling Stone magazine, he made a similar uproar last Fall when he publically criticized and dismissed Vice President Biden’s suggestion that the U.S. should rely more heavily on electronic surveillance and drone attacks in Afghanistan as opposed to increasing troop numbers. While those comments only led to a mid-air reprimand by President Obama on Air Force One, McChrystal’s comments helped to stir the debate about the best way to move forward in Afghanistan. And while counterinsurgency has been the goal in this almost decade long war, there have been an ever increasing number of drone attacks both in Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan.

As of June 10, 2010, there have been 91 drone strikes in Pakistan under Obama’s watch compared to just 45 in Pakistan under the Bush Administration between 2004-2008. Additionally, the number of strikes in Afghanistan increased from 58 in the time period between July and December 2008, to 83 during the same period in 2009. Clearly, President Obama favors the increased use of drones to eliminate his enemies; however, the rules surrounding the use of drones along with the true number of civilian casualties resulting from the strikes remains a mystery.

Those who support the use of drones claim that they have “inflicted severe blows to militant groups” because they allow the U.S. to “get at dangerous terrorists operating in areas otherwise inaccessible to the central government or to conventional military units.” They also argue that drones are “effective, exact and essential" and that precautions are always taken to avoid and lower civilian casualties. Despite this claim, which is difficult to assess, critics argue that it is almost impossible to know the exact number of civilians killed by drone strikes given that Muslim religious doctrine calls Muslims to bury their dead as soon as possible after death. U.S. officials claim that fewer than 50 civilians have died as a result of drone strikes since 2008, but without personnel or contacts on the ground, the U.S. cannot get DNA samples or properly identify the exact number of dead and injured. Without this information, it is difficult to truly understand the full impact of a drone strike. Strikes, depending on their size and location, can affect a great number of people and raze large areas of a village or town.

While there are tighter standards dictating drone usage under President Obama than there were under President Bush, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) still has authority to strike anyone deemed to be a threat to the United States “even when the U.S. does not know their names or has only fragmentary information about their intentions.” In addition, government records show that the “list of approved drone targets has been expanded from terrorists to drug lords.” Critics accuse the U.S. of also targeting terrorist financiers and propagandists, who should have the right to a trial by jury as opposed to an extrajudicial execution by a drone strike. Given this perceived freedom to target almost anyone deemed dangerous anywhere in the world, it is vital that the United States along with the United Nations begin to set clear and transparent guidelines on the use of drone strikes, especially in places, like Pakistan, that are outside of declared warzones, yet receive an average of more than two strikes per week.

Currently, at least 40 countries around the world have drones, and while many of these are surveillance drones, there are quite a few with armed capabilities. In the absence of clear international standards on the use of drones for targeted killings, there is nothing to stop nations from using drones on anyone they declare an enemy. In many places, including China and Russia, state enemies often include journalists, ethnic minorities, or human rights activists among others. Drones, like other previous weapons of war, are once again changing the face of war. It is better to set standards on them now than risk serous problems and abuse in the future.

Rethinking Pakistan

US foreign policy in Pakistan has played a large role in the heated debate regarding Muslim militancy in the Middle East over the past few years. As the US has traditionally aligned itself with Pakistan - except for a few years when it placed sanctions on the country as punishment for pursing its nuclear weapons program, which was socially and economically devastating to the nation - aid from the US is crucial to continue positive development in Pakistan, especially with volatility in the nation, where religious fundamentalists typically take advantage of socio-economic and political problems for their own gains, using religious vernacular to articulate larger issues that are not inherently based in religion.

There is much debate about what the US's role should be in Pakistan, with critics who are frustrated by the apparent loss of control by the in its northern regions to militants pursuing a more aggressive US foreign policy towards the nation, allies explaining that the country has done and is doing the best it can given the circumstances, and others who emphasize complete disengagement.

While I think the US has made many poor choices in the Middle East and South Asia, and in Pakistan in particular, I do not think disengaging with the nation is a wise option, nor is pursuing an aggressive strategy. I think it is important for us to recognize first that Pakistan is a very young nation, barely 60 years old. While it has had fair economic success over the past years, it is still a developing nation, with a majority of the population suffering from poverty. Pakistan faces social, political, environmental, and economic problems similar to many nations, especially today considering the state of international affairs and the common global issues.

As the Bush administration seeks to shift over $200 million to Pakistan in military aid, we must be wary of our apparent ease in transferring such great funds to the Pakistani military with practically no "check up," (we must be wary of this anywhere, anytime, really) and recognize the negative consequences in the way we dealt with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Those who argue for increased air strikes in the northern regions forget that there are still over 250 Afghan refugee and IDP villages in the north, with many children, that often face the brunt of religiously-inspired violence and retaliation from the international community. Those who call for sanctions and disengagement forget the dependency of Pakistan's economy to the US, and the interdependent regional and global economies that are already suffering, a backlash of globalization.

What needs to be done now is a shift in focus. The US should support largely non-security projects in Pakistan, helping develop the infrastructure: building schools, roads, access to clean water and sanitation, and hospitals. Also, the US should show support for greater judicial, political, and democratic good governance reforms. Economic, environmental, and human rights concerns need to be addressed, while aiding the large and ever-increasing refugee population. In essence, poverty reduction is key.



Religiously inspired violence is the direct result of socio-economic and political problems that marginalize a community of people, causing a rebellion that is articulated in religious terms. Instead of truly reflecting or believing in some violent religious ideology, these aggressor seeks to change the socio-economic or political status-quo that marginalized them, using religion as a tool for mobilization. A change in policy measures that focuses on the root of the problem rather than its outcome is likely to be more successful in Pakistan and around the world. Additionally, it will make facing current important threats, like Al-Qaeda, much easier, more effective, and efficient. Security aid should be based on incentives and performance, rather than serving as a blank check. More importantly, however, we must recognize that security aid is only useful in the short-run and relying only on military means will have negative consequences in the long-run, as we have historically seen.

I can only hope that the tough talk that our current Presidential candidates are espousing will be seriously reevaluated. Pakistan is on its way to be at the forefront our foreign policy focus for the next few years, and it'd be nice not to, for once, repeated out mistakes.