Imagine if, an hour from now, a robot plane swooped over your house and blasted it to pieces. The plane has no pilot. It is controlled with a joystick from 7,000 miles away, sent by the Pakistani military to kill you. It blows up all the houses on your street, and so barbecues your family and your neighbors until there is nothing left to bury but a few charred slops. Why? They refuse to comment. They don't even admit the robot planes belong to them. But they tell the Pakistani newspapers back home it is because one of you was planning to attack Pakistan. How do they know? Somebody told them. Who? You don't know, and there are no appeals against the robot.
Now imagine it doesn't end there: These attacks are happening every week somewhere in your country. They blow up funerals and family dinners and children. The number of robot planes in the sky is increasing every week. You discover they are named "Predators," or "Reapers" -- after the Grim Reaper. No matter how much you plead, no matter how much you make it clear you are a peaceful civilian getting on with your life, it won't stop. What do you do? If there were a group arguing that Pakistan was an evil nation that deserved to be violently attacked, would you now start to listen?
This sounds like a sketch for the next James Cameron movie -- but it is in fact an accurate description of life in much of Pakistan today, with the sides flipped. The Predators and Reapers are being sent by Barack Obama's CIA, with the support of other Western governments, and they killed more than 700 civilians in 2009 alone -- fourteen times more than the 7/7 attacks in London. Last month there was the largest number of robot plane bombings ever: 21. Over the next decade, spending on drones is set to increase by 700 percent.
The US government doesn't even officially admit the program exists: Obama's most detailed public comment on it was when he jokingly told the Jonas Brothers he would unleash the drones on them if they tried to chat up his daughter. But his administration says, behind closed doors, that these robot-plane attacks are "the only show in town" for killing suspected jihadis. They do not risk the lives of US soldiers, who remain in Virginia and control the robot planes using a Playstation-style panel. They kill "with accuracy," they say, and "undermine the threat to the West" by "breaking up training camps, killing many people conspiring against us, and putting the rest on the run."
But is this true? The press releases uncritically repeated by the press after a bombing always brag about "senior al Qaeda commanders" killed -- but some people within the CIA admit how arbitrary their choice of targets is. One of their senior figures told the New Yorker: "Sometimes you're dealing with tribal chiefs. Often they say an enemy of theirs is Al Qaeda because they want to get rid of somebody, or they made crap up because they wanted to prove they were valuable so they could make money."
Indeed, Robert Baer -- a former senior figure in the CIA -- says the agency now prefers to kill a suspect than capture them and assess their guilt or find out what they know:
Targeted killings are easier for the CIA or for the military to deal with than taking someone prisoner. No one really ever questions a killing, but when you take someone prisoner, then you are responsible for the person and then the headaches come. We have a logic which leads to more and more targeted killings.
Think about that sentence: "No one ever really questions a killing." How do we know who they are slaughtering? Just look at how good the CIA was at selecting people to put in Guantanamo: Almost all had to be released after being Kafkaed because they were demonstrably innocent, and included senile old men and children.
True, the program has certainly extrajudicially killed some real jihadis. But the evidence suggests it is creating far more jihadis than it kills -- and is making an attack on you or me more likely with each bomb.
Drone technology is relatively new: It was pioneered in the 1980s by the right-wing American defense contractor James Neal Blue, who wanted to use it against the democratically elected government of Nicaragua. It was then developed by the Israelis. They now routinely use remote-controlled robot aircraft to bomb the Gaza Strip. I've been in Gaza during some of these attacks. The people there were terrified -- and radicalized. A young woman I know who had been averse to political violence and an advocate of peaceful protest saw a drone blow up a car full of people -- and she started supporting Islamic Jihad and crying for the worst possible revenge against Israel. Robot drones have successfully bombed much of Gaza from secular Fatah to Islamist Hamas to fanatical Jihad.
Is the same thing happening in Pakistan? David Kilcullen is a counterinsurgency expert who worked for General Petraeus in Iraq and now advises the State Department. He has shown that two percent of the people killed by the robot-planes in Pakistan are jihadis. The remaining 98 percent are as innocent as the victims of 9/11. He says: "It's not moral." And it gets worse: "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud, and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially as drone strikes have increased."
Professor John Cole puts it more bluntly:
When you bomb people and kill their family, friends and neighbors, it pisses them off. They probably even form lifelong grudges when they find their mother and children in thousands of bloody pieces in their former home. This is not rocket science. If they were not sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda before, after you bomb the shit out of them, they will be.
The polling from Pakistan shows that a desire to strike back against the US increases after every drone attack. (The floods were seen as a great opportunity to ramp up the attacks.) That translates into young men volunteering for the jihad. It's why all the people who have been captured or defected from Osama Bin Laden's circle, from his bodyguard to his son, say the same: He is delighted when Western governments fight back by recklessly killing Muslims. It vindicates his story that the West is evil, and sends waves of recruits his way.
Of course jihadism is not motivated solely by attacks against Muslim countries by the West. Some of it is motivated by a theocratic desire to control and tyrannize other humans in the most depraved ways: to punish women who wish to feel the sun on their hair, or novelists who want to write freely. Yet it is a provable fact that violence against Muslims tips many more people into retaliatory jihadi violence against us. Even the 2004 report commissioned by that notorious lefty Donald Rumsfeld said that "American direct intervention in the Muslim world" was the primary reason for jihadism.
A good example of this is Faisal Shahzad, the 31-year-old Pakistani-American who tried to plant a bomb in Times Square in May. A police survey of his emails over the past ten years found he was obsessed with US attacks on Muslims and insistently asked: "Can you tell me a way to save the oppressed? And a way to fight back when the rockets are fired at us and Muslim blood flows?" The Pakistan drone attacks -- on the part of the world he came from -- were the final spur for him. When he was arrested, he asked the police: "How would you feel if people attacked the United States? You are attacking a sovereign Pakistan." At his trial, he was asked how he could possibly justify planting a bomb that would have killed children. He said: "When the drones hit, they don't see children, they don't see anybody. They kill women, children, they kill everybody... I am part of the answer... I'm avenging the attack."
When I interviewed former jihadis in Britain, they all said the same. One of them, Hadiya Masieh, summarized their view by asking: "What are we meant to do, just stand still and let them cut our throats?"
Yet many people defend the drones by saying: "We have to do something." If your friend suffered terrible third-degree burns, would you urge her to set fire to her hair because "you have to do something"? Would you give a poisoning victim another, worse poison, on the grounds that any action is better than none?
I detest jihadism. Their ideology is everything I oppose distilled: Their ideal society is my Hell. It is precisely because I want to really undermine them -- rather than pose as macho -- that I am against this robot slaughter. It enlarges the threat. It drags us into a terrible feedback loop, where the US launches more drone attacks to deal with jihadism, which makes jihadism worse, which prompts more drone attacks, which makes jihadism worse -- and on and on, in a state with nuclear weapons, and with many people in Europe who are from the terrorized region. It could be poised to get even worse: Bob Woodward's Obama's Wars says the US has an immediate plan to bomb 150 targets in Pakistan if there is a jihadi attack inside America.
The real and necessary fight against jihadism has to have, at its core, a policy of systematically stripping them of their best recruiting tools. Yet Obama and the CIA are doing the opposite -- to an accompanying soundtrack of the screams of innocent civilians, and the low, delighted chuckle of Osama Bin Laden.
Johann Hari is a writer for the Independent. To read more of his articles, click here or here.
To read an earlier article by Johann about the growing role of robots in warfare, click here.
You can follow Johann's updates on this issue, and others, at www.twitter.com/johannhari101
Follow Johann Hari on Twitter: www.twitter.com/johannhari101
Now that we've figured out a way to do that- predator and reaper drones- people are whining about those, too.
Now, there has been talk of using drones along our shared border with mexico, which I find repugnant. But we cannot ignore the fact that these drones are useful and, to some extent, deserve our gratitude: http://sladeisking.com/2010/10/09/celebrate-october-7th-as-predator-drone-day/
drones are perfectly in line with our end objective- not to find valor on teh battlefield but to quickly and smoothly eradicate those who wish to do us harm!
supporting the drones is the best way to protect our soldiers! support the drones, for pete's sake!
http://sladeisking.com/2010/10/09/celebrate-october-7th-as-predator-drone-day/
This is the ONLY way some semblance of normality can return to Afghanistan.
There's nothing worse for the future of Afghanistan than having these arrogant religious fanatics actually believe they are winning.
And no amount of politically correct sloganeering will change that.
If the village people knowingly harbor the enemies of the bully, whoever that bully may be, then their old people, women and children are fair game, because "there are no rules". If death becomes too much of a problem then they should consider engaging in problem solving strategies that may lead to a safer outcome, not the least of which is "don't piss off the bully.
War is heinous and should be addressed always at it's root. If I should ever have to engage in a war I believe to be just (WWII was the last), I will observe NO rules because protecting my family and people are all that matter.
In world warII they had air craft plants that mass produced bombers. Why can't we do the same for the drones? Or is it that we might save lives and tax dollars?
While Iraq had suspected WMD (weapons of mass destruction), Pakistan on the contrary have confirmed WUD (Weapons of ultimate destruction). You can still try your luck.
Mike:
Why? Because (a) the idea that the jihadis were going to get their hands on nukes is yesterday's news and has been repeatedly debunked as totally unlikely or essentially impossible and (b) the idea that you cite the bogus threat as a "justification for the war in Afghanistan" demonstrates that the military propaganda has worked.
Or, maybe it's because you seem entirely unaware that it was the US of A who created these jihadis in the first place. Or, maybe it's because you seem entirely unaware that Pakistan's leaders have almost without question universally been puppets of Washington.
Everyone knows that the Taliban fighting in Afghanistan use bases in Pakistan for training, logistical support, and leadership. We cannot use a classic counter-insurgency strategy in Pakistan because that requires troops on the ground to secure and protect the population and many other things such as building relationships with local leaders not possible there without invasion.
The situation in Afghanistan will fail horribly if the Taliban have a secure base of operations on the other side of the border. The drones can hit targets without a technical invasion and that has worked pretty well in taking out some key leadership elements but it is not the total strategy.
In military conflict pretty much any violence you do creates enemies. If a sniper shoots a soldier on the other side they will create enemies. True for both sides. This is the nature of war and has always been. It is more so when civilians are killed.
We can just throw our hands up about Afghanistan but the blowback from that is too terrible to think about.
I've had the opinion to just leave afghanistan they way it is and bring troops home. Why spend more money and effort in that god forsaken country , when they dont even want us there.? just leave them to their own fate. its sad , but one cannot rescue everybody, and especially not people that dont want to be rescued.
If the Pakistanis are hypothetically going to attack us, and I'm going to die either way, I would much rather have it be with robot planes that kill 1400 Americans (we have roughly twice the population of Pakistan, so I've scaled the number up) than with an invasion that kills 1,000,000 Americans (we have roughly ten times the population of Iraq, and our war is estimated to have killed about a hundred thousand of them).
There is no meaningful boundary between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There's a war underway, mostly in Afghanistan, in which each side bears at least a substantial share of the blame for thousands of deaths. ("Each side" includes at least Soviets, northern warlords, Taliban, Americans, the ISI, and the so-called "Afghan government".) If Americans were getting killed in those numbers, I hope I would want the war to end, regardless of which particular weapon system several hundred were killed by. But then again, that's mostly because I want the war to end anyway.
The Taliban and the "Afghan government" are having high-level talks. Let's make sure we don't get in their way. Don't worry about ending the drone attacks. Worry about ending the war.
Cheers,