The Costs of Drone Strikes

Lisa SchirchDirector, 3D Security Initiative
Posted: October 13, 2009 04:59 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lisa-schirch/the-costs-of-drone-
strike_b_319318.html
http://bit.ly/1ysgeC

No matter the outcome of President Obama's deliberations about US strategy 
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the tactic of using unmanned drone strikes 
should be taken off the table. The many costs of disrupting Al Qaeda and the 
Taliban via drone strikes outweigh the benefits.

Some experts say drone strikes may become the weapon of choice as support 
for large numbers of US troops in Afghanistan decreases among the US public 
and policymakers. Advocates laud drones for disrupting Al Qaeda and Taliban 
networks and safe havens by killing nine out of 20 senior operatives from Al 
Qaeda and threatening key leaders without risking the lives of US troops. 
These measurable body counts appeal to some policymakers amidst a lack of 
any other tangible signs of progress in Afghanistan.

Yet the drone tactic undermines a long-term comprehensive strategy for the 
region. Drones kill more civilians than insurgents. The Brookings 
Institution estimated in July 2009 that a ratio of ten civilians die for 
every militant killed in a drone strike. Local authorities say the ratio is 
more like 50 civilians killed for every 1 insurgent. Regardless of the exact 
number, civilian deaths have both moral and strategic implications.

High civilian casualty rates, particularly from US unilateral military 
maneuvers, undermine both Pakistani and Afghan state sovereignty and 
legitimacy, stir political unrest, and challenge alliances. The governments 
of Afghanistan and Pakistan publically denounce drone strikes to distance 
themselves from public anger. While rumors posit that the government's 
privately consent. The expanding use of drone strikes gives the impression 
to an increasingly media-savvy public that these governments have little 
ability to influence or control external military forces.

The drone strikes draw attention away form the greater nuclear security 
threats in Pakistan. The threat of anti-government militants overthrowing 
the government of Pakistan and gaining control of its nuclear capability is 
a far greater danger than Al Qaeda. The weak, unpopular Pakistan government 
prevents the growing number of anti-American militants from gaining access 
to a functioning nuclear missile arsenal.

While militants themselves are unpopular, drone strikes seem to unite rather 
than separate civilians from militants. Drone strikes inspire frequent 
public protests, reproachful media coverage, and public polls showing 
widespread condemnation and fear of the strikes. Counterinsurgency experts 
claim drone strikes play into the hands of militant propaganda seeking to 
rally and recruit local people to their cause. Pakistani military leaders 
say that each drone killing of civilians brings several new recruits to 
Taliban leaders from drone victim's families who are required under tribal 
code to seek revenge.

A variety of actors challenge the legality of drone strikes. In July 2009, 
U.N. Human Rights Council Special Investigator Philip Alston chastised the 
US for failing to track, investigate, and punish low ranking soldiers for 
drone strikes that kill civilians, for failing to tell the public the extent 
of civilian deaths, and for not compensating families of victims.

Drone strikes lead to losing the 'war of ideas' as they exacerbate 
underlying grievances such as corruption, vast unemployment and lack of 
basic services. According to counterinsurgency expert David Kilcullen, 
"using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak" to local 
populations. Anti-American cartoons and jokes feature the drones as symbols 
of American impotence or cowardice. Given the importance of bravery and 
courage in tribal cultures, the use of drone strikes signals 
untrustworthiness, making it more difficult for the US to form agreements or 
even get information from key tribal leaders.

Relying on the short-term tactics of drone strikes postpones and undermines 
the development of a comprehensive strategy. A more successful strategy will 
center on population-centric rather than enemy-centric tactics, widespread 
investments in development, and robust diplomatic engagement at all levels.


[Lisa Schirch is Director of the 3D Security Initiative and Professor of 
Peacebuilding at Eastern Mennonite University.]


-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free