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.
Nathan Gardels: Is Defeating Taliban Key to Stopping Al Qaeda?
Some senior advisers fully aware of the risk of quagmire have concluded that to allow a Taliban victory in Afghanistan will amount to a "second Iranian revolution," but a Sunni one.
Abdulhadi Hairan: Time to Worry About Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons
The world should not just close its eyes to Pakistan and say, 'there is no danger, everything is safe.' There is currently a dangerous vulnerability in officials who still sympathize with Taliban militants.
Mark Weisbrot: Occupying Afghanistan Is Making Things Worse
More than a million Iraqis, according to the best estimates, are dead as a result of the Iraq War. Do we need to do the same in Afghanistan in order to "save" that country?
Jairus Grove: Who Keeps Fighting if the Troops Leave Afghanistan?
I have no idea what a drone sounds like. What I do know is that every child in the territory of Waziristan must talk about it constantly. This is slow sadistic torture.
If we can take out the Al Quieda and Taliban leadership wthout creating a military footprint in Pakistan, that would be the most awesome thing we could possibly do. Just because it is new technology does not mean that its use has moral implications that the other technologies, like a tank blast at a target, does.
Raytheon is developing the Griffin missile to replace the Hellfire missiles. The Griffin is less than 4 feet long and weighs 45 pounds. You can place 3 Griffin missiles on a drone that could only carry one Hellfire. I suspect that the newer Griffin missiles are quite a bit cheaper. Raytheon claims that the smaller warhead will reduce the "collateral" damage.
Probably not much comfort to the good Professor. War is hell.
As for Pierre Sprey, he was a "whiz kid" in 1966 and was involved in the design of the A-10 (kudo's there for sure) but as of 1986, records jazz music. Why was he on Bill Moyers?
I hate the fact that US soldiers are in Afghanistan but if they need ( I say "need" with tongue in cheek) to be there then have a crap load of drones there too.
However, being in the position of trying to kill genuinely nasty people spread thinly over half a million square miles is there an alternative from this starting point? It's a bit late for nation building.
these wars are for their support and profit.
Pierre Sprey was interviewed on Bill Moyers several months ago, where he indicated, not only the disproportionately high ratios of civilians who die for every single terrorist, but also highlighted that the criteria for dispatching such drones is based on highly questionable intelligence material, often culminating in nothing more than tribe members seeking to fulfill blood feuds with rival factions by ostensibly "outing" them to US authorities as alleged members of al Qaeda.