The cost of Obama's secret drone war

[hellheaven1987]

A little fun BBC article that was written by former US Assistant Secretary of State Philip J. Crowley.

By the time John Brennan, President Barack Obama's nominee to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency, finished three hours of public testimony before the US Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, two things were clear.

First, Mr Brennan will be confirmed. And second, despite nearly a dozen years of war, there are profound disagreements both within the United States and beyond about how this conflict has been and should be waged.

Mr Brennan provided a forceful defence of the Obama administration's war against al-Qaeda over the past four years, particularly its increased employment of drones in various countries he declined to specify.

He made clear that the administration believes it has the legal authority to use lethal force in self-defence against al-Qaeda and associated forces wherever there is an imminent threat against the United States and capture is not feasible.

The committee was clearly supportive of the continued use of drones in the ongoing war against al-Qaeda. Americans by a wide margin share this view.

However...

But that is not the case outside the United States. The rest of the world questions the legality of their use, viscerally so in a country such as Pakistan, where drone attacks increased significantly during President Obama's first term.

While Mr Brennan declined to discuss where drones are employed, Ambassador Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, displayed no such reticence.

In a discussion with reporters in Washington two days before Mr Brennan's testimony, she made clear that the civilian government in Islamabad views America's continued deployment of drones as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, as well as strategically counter-productive.

"We need to drain this swamp and instead it [the drone campaign] is radicalising people," Ambassador Rehman said.

"It creates more potential terrorists on the ground and militants on the ground instead of taking them out. If it's taking out, say, a high-value or a medium-value target, it's also creating probably an entire community of future recruits."

Recent polling tends to support Ambassador Rehman's view.

An estimated 74% of Pakistanis polled by Pew last year termed the United States an "enemy." Drones are a clear factor.

Damned I need to check out what evil poll he was talking about.

But rather than address Pakistani concerns publicly as part of a long-term public diplomacy approach, the Obama administration has chosen, at least at the moment, to pretend the problem does not exist.

It refuses to acknowledge (despite widespread news reports) the existence of a drone campaign in Pakistan.

Whether this approach is sustainable and for how long is an open question.

According to Pakistani authorities, whether or not there was close co-ordination regarding drone operations in the past, there is none now.

Ambassador Rehman denies that Pakistan criticises the use of drones in public, but co-operates in private.

"There is no question of any quiet complicity. No question of wink and nod," she insisted.

This represents a genuine conundrum for the Obama administration. There is no question that drone strikes have been a major factor in virtually eliminating the strategic threat posed by core al-Qaeda.

But what started out as a strategic campaign against high-value targets has morphed into something far more tactical.

Drones are increasingly employed not against al-Qaeda operatives plotting attacks against the American homeland, but to target lower-level Taliban forces that continue to attack US forces in Afghanistan.

Presumably, Washington wants to keep up pressure on al-Qaeda's sanctuary in the tribal areas until US forces withdraw from Afghanistan in 2014.

But at what cost?

At the start of the Obama administration, strengthening of civilian governmental institutions in Pakistan was considered the long-term solution to extremism linked to Pakistan.

Now the drone campaign undercuts the very civilian government the United States is spending billions in aid to build up.

Relations between the two countries have stabilised, but the lack of trust remains deep.

The Pakistani parliament has made clear that drones are a "red line", one Washington chooses for the moment to ignore, putting its long-term standing and influence with Pakistan in jeopardy.

"Every time there is a drone strike, you see it on 40 channels at least in Pakistan," said Ambassador Rehman.

"They lend an unfortunate view of US power and how the United States projects its power abroad."

Drones may be a key element in the US strategy, but as Ambassador Rehman makes clear, they are "not part of our playbook. The time for drone strikes is really over."

But based on the Brennan hearing, there is no indication the United States plans to follow her advice any time soon.

Source

To put a side note Philip J. Crowley resigned his post because he pissed off White House, hence there are possibilities he wrote this just to piss Obama more. Still, it does bring the point - if drone attacks only destabilize Pakistan and create more enemies of US, then what other choice US government has? How can US even get out that swamp?

[Captain Jin]

I'd be interested to see Pakistani opinion polls regarding the United States from before the start of the drone campaigns to really see how affectionate they were regarding the United States. I'm currently reading Ghost Wars and so far it's got some very interesting information-- not the least of which is that there were plenty in Pakistan that weren't big fans of the United States even during the Soviet-Afghan War thanks to the rise of militant Islam and groups like Jamaat-e-Islami. Things came to a head in 1979 when a protest escalated thanks to militant students belonging to the student union group associated with Jamaat-e-Islami. They burned the Embassy down and two Americans were killed in the process. It could have been much, much worse but fortunately the remainder of the American and local Pakistani staff were able to endure the onslaught in the safe haven, which is a reinforced place within all Embassies built for such emergencies. The attack lasted hours and yet Pakistani security forces never sent aid. Even more ridiculous was that it all started because of a radio report that the US was responsible for a terrorist attack in Mecca, so the young religiously fundamental Pakistanis in 1979 were as ridiculous and gullible/ignorant as those that live there today.

The whole cultural face of Pakistan changed greatly with the rise of this group and groups like it as a wave of militant Islamic beliefs swept over much of the country (especially post Islamic revolution in Iran). Teaching from so-called Islamic scholars in Egypt spread hate and discontent among youngsters and this religious groups bullied those who did not share their views. Additionally, Zia encouraged an increase in strictness regarding Islamic tradition in order to promote himself and retain power and used Saudi oil money during the Afghan war to build Madrassas all across northern Pakistan that simply teach religious dogma to young students and there is probably a very healthy dose of anti-Americanism along with that. And really this is where the majority of the hate and ignorance is going to come from. The very religious, ultra-conservative youths whose only education comes from venom filled Imams and clerics that teach at these madrassas. And all of this was going on long before the drone campaign or even the war in Afghanistan began.

So while the drones certainly have an affect, this is an issue that stretches back to the late 1970s and is far more complex. The drone's are simply the icing on the cake and given the relationship we've had with Pakistan I really don't care.

[mrmouth]

Pakistan had no problem when we were targeting the people they felt were dangerous to their survival. Or the use of UAVs to help beat back the advance of militants to within a few hundred miles of the capital.

And these are not drones. At best they are pre-programmed. But none are thinking and doing for themselves.

And once again I would counter with this article:

Peace activists and human rights groups have been vocal in their condemnation of the US policy of drone strikes against militant targets in Pakistan and Yemen.

The narrative often repeated by these groups is that drones are loathed in both countries, and are driving the population into the arms of militants. But the reality on the ground is much more complex.

According to Brian Glyn Williams, professor of Islamic history at the University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, and author of the upcoming book Predators: The CIA's Drone War on Al Qaeda, many local people in tribal areas support surgical strikes by drones over large-scale ground offensives by the Pakistani army. While public opinion in the rest of the country may be strongly anti-drone, he found, for those Pakistanis living under Taliban rule, it is not so clear-cut: "The local tribes turned on the Taliban for killing hundreds of their maliks (tribal leaders), enforcing strict sharia law, executing 'spies', closing schools for girls, carrying out suicide bombings, and generally terrorizing the population."

What has gone largely unreported is the fact that not only have drones been successful in disrupting terrorist plots and militant networks, but that the number of civilian casualties is actually low. According to the New America Foundation, which tracks data from major news sources in both the west and Pakistan, drone strike accuracy has been steadily increasing – going from a 9% to 10% civilian death rate in 2008 to a 0% civilian death rate in 2012. Two other studies, also working from both Pakistani and western data, came to similar conclusions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...pakistan-yemen

I'm currently reading Ghost Wars

Should be required reading for everyone.

[motiv-8]

Should be required reading for everyone.

Indeed. I put it up next to Rajiv Chandrasekaran's Imperial Life in the Emerald City and Ahmed Rashid's Taliban as the trifecta of truly outstanding journalistic work of the 2000s.

[Fernandez_1492]

Secrets? Not the most transperant administration ever!

[Surgeon]

But what if Obama isn't behind the drone war?

What if... the war is no longer Obama's?

[DarthShizNit]

It's Pakistan, they've hated us for awhile. If they didn't suck at stopping their people from killing ours we wouldn't have to do it for them.

[Roma_Victrix]

Although the drone attacks exacerbate things, the Pakistanis dislike us regardless and have for a long time. What I'm more concerned with is the administration's cavalier approach to assassinating U.S. citizens linked with Al-Qaeda without any judicial oversight. That must stop. Immediately. It sets only the worst precedent and quite frankly is unconstitutional. I know people just love to throw that word around to the point it almost loses its meaning. But in this case it is entirely true. One of the few reasons I did not vote for Obama this time around to be honest.

[Armenum]

Although the drone attacks exacerbate things, the Pakistanis dislike us regardless and have for a long time. What I'm more concerned with is the administration's cavalier approach to assassinating U.S. citizens linked with Al-Qaeda without any judicial oversight. That must stop. Immediately. It sets only the worst precedent and quite frankly is unconstitutional. I know people just love to throw that word around to the point it almost loses its meaning. But in this case it is entirely true. One of the few reasons I did not vote for Obama this time around to be honest.

It's quite troubling that such orders can be carried out. But yet again, if the individual is actively organizing/attacking US targets, is it at this point also very shady legally? This whole 'war on terrorism' has really stretched the boundaries of what is deemed legal or not. It's not a war on a battlefield where everything is more clear, but much more complex and this complexity leads to such legal issues that are tough to solve. The legal system should be more clear on this 'new war'.

[conon394]

While Mr Brennan declined to discuss where drones are employed, Ambassador Sherry Rehman, Pakistan's ambassador to the United States, displayed no such reticence.

In a discussion with reporters in Washington two days before Mr Brennan's testimony, she made clear that the civilian government in Islamabad views America's continued deployment of drones as a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty, as well as strategically counter-productive.

If they violate Pakistani sovereignty then why not shoot them down?

What a farce if Pakistan can't/won't/knowing does not control its boarder what is the US supposed to do?

In any case the article is BS - when has Pakistan been stable? Whatever the US does it remains hugely useful scapegoat for Pakistan's corrupt leaders and weak governments to distract their population from the fact they are running the country into the ground

[Rijul.J.Ballal]

@conon394 excellent point.
Pakistan would not have such a great problem if it actively ensured it's own forces were not playing on both sides of the fence...

[conon394]

That's the thing this is just a show - Pakistan must protest for public consumption and in reality to the extent we kill guys the ISI likes and funds and no doubt hope to use manipulate Afghanistan with (after the US exit) I am sure the the Military in Pakistan is annoyed, but of course they cannot admit that w/o loosing all their US aid.

On balance drones look to doing what the US would otherwise be doing with troops or planes with less collateral damage.

I would agree that the CIA programs that shade into Assassination are more problematic, but that is typical of all black ops. One need only look up the American citizens who got swept up in out oh so nice anti communism efforts in places like Guatemala to realize the ugly edge of Great Power foreign policy is not always nice or even legal.

[mrmouth]

One need only look up the American citizens who got swept up in out oh so nice anti communism efforts in places like Guatemala to realize the ugly edge of Great Power foreign policy is not always nice or even legal.

But these are fundamental differences that most people accept. It's those differences that led to the world siding with the West and the USA, after WW2.

If the Soviets hadn't been looking to place nukes in parts of the Western Hemisphere then these things do not happen. If American citizens are not plotting to kill other American citizens then these strikes do not happen.

[Diglytron]

On otherhand America can ask it selves what the costs would be if the drones were not in use

[OCWife]

Better a drone war than a clone war.

[Captain Jin]

It is a great read so far and filled with great information that spans a long time. I'm still in the middle of the Soviet-Afghan war, however.

That's the thing this is just a show - Pakistan must protest for public consumption and in reality to the extent we kill guys the ISI likes and funds and no doubt hope to use manipulate Afghanistan with (after the US exit) I am sure the the Military in Pakistan is annoyed, but of course they cannot admit that w/o loosing all their US aid.

And not just to use in or against Afghanistan but also as proxies against India. Remember that Pakistan is still very much threatened by India as a foe.

From the start the ISI has always funded Mujaheddin that they sought to control-- Gulbuddin Hekmatyar is a perfect example of this. Even as far back as the Soviet-Afghan war the ISI funneled a great deal of money to him because he didn't have any home grown support so they thought they could control his rise and cut him off from whatever support he was able to raise for himself simply by cutting off aid.

In many ways we're sort of paying for the lack of oversight regarding funding to the Muj in 1980s. What started small and was decently controlled by the CIA expanded more and more once politicians got wind of what was going on. And the CIA, after all that nasty intrusive business during Vietnam, was averse to getting into the intricate tribal politics that existed in northern Pakistan and Afghanistan and figured the ISI would be a better proxy. And in some ways they were right, but as the ISI and Zia found it was easy to get money from other locations as well and Pakistan began to fund those Madrassas, principally through money funneled in by Saudi Arabia (who was matching every penny of US contributions) as well as wealth from other wealthy Arabs in the Gulf States.

It even expanded to the point where the Muj themselves were going to other countries lobbying for additional monetary support. They found it quite easy to go to Mecca and basically panhandle for money there and sidestep the ISI, CIA, etc.

So far it seems a great example of what happens when a tight clandestine operation gets broadly expanded without any concern of the long term effects in the region. And this was not the CIA's fault, at least insofar as your career intelligence officers who were against the expansion. But the decision to expand the operation was taken away from them at the behest of DCIA William Casey who was almost a fanatic in his desire to destroy the Soviet Union in Afghanistan coupled with a pack of howling, ignorant congressmen (like Charlie Wilson) that saw little danger in pumping hundreds of millions of dollar into an area to support fighters, many of whom were firmly militant Islamic fundamentalists, and then do so at such a rate that it was almost impossible for the CIA to track where all the money was headed. And then when it was all said and done they just left the muck and those involved to its own devices.

We should have just left the Afghanistan to the Soviets and at most remained in the early stages of clandestine support to the Muj when it was just the CIA working quietly with the ISI.

[lemondude]

I have only one question, is America still a democracy and if the answer is yes, how can one man be responsible for anything but the actions of him or herself?

How can this be Bush or Obama's war when it is a war that the people have signed off on as evident by their respective re-elections?

(Maybe a bit off on the Bush, didn't have time to read it but I assume it to be something middle eastern?)

[motiv-8]

We should have just left the Afghanistan to the Soviets

Absolutley, unfortunately we had no way of knowing in 1979 that the USSR was only a decade from collapse, in fact when they invaded Afghanistan we were sure it was a sign that very much the opposite was true. Too bad.

[Kanaric]

[conon394]

How can this be Bush or Obama's war when it is a war that the people have signed off on as evident by their respective re-elections?

I'm not sure what you are getting at - yes its true that in a broad why a democracy implies the Policy belongs to the people, but you must realize that saying Bush or Obama is shorthand for their entire Administration. Thus the Obama administration has taken a very conservative view of using US conventional troops (out of Iraq, A-stan, not in Libya much, Let the French do Mali and avoid Syria) but at the same time a wide ranging expansion of the use of Drones. Yes this is America's policy, but it is the one implemented by the Obama administration and to paraphrase Truman noted the buck stops at the Oval office. So saying Obama's Drone war is reasonable and not inaccurate.