The number of US Predator drone strikes on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border by the CIA has risen dramatically in 2010 under President Barrack Obama. So far, this year, the US has carried out 57 strikes till June 30, 2010. With six months left to 2011, the total number of attacks between 2004-09, should be surpassed sometime in December at the current pace. The strikes continue to target top leaders of al-Qaeda, Taliban and allied Jihadist groups based in the tribal areas, as well as the Jihadi infrastructure and operatives who used to carry out attacks against Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the West. Interestingly, more than half of the strikes have taken place in the tribal areas controlled by North Waziristan Taliban leader Hafiz Gul Bahadur, Mehsud Taliban, Mullah Nazir, and the Haqqani network. Over the past year, 20 top Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders and operatives have been killed (between April 1, 2009 and April 1, 2010) by the Predator strikes in Pakistan. In her article, titled “The Rise of the drones”, Martha Raddatz reported that the drone strikes had killed more than 400 civilians.

The drone attacks in the tribal areas have drawn a strong reaction throughout Pakistan. Attacking militants on the soil of a longtime US ally, is strongly resented because the drones kill hundreds of innocent civilians, along with a few militants, causing widespread resentment against the Americans. This will force the moderate element to join the ranks of radicals to avenge the deaths of their dear ones killed in the drone attacks. In an article, titled “Drones: Backfiring on US Strategy”, Cesar Chelala illustrated an episode of “inaccurate and unprofessional reporting” by a team of Predator drone operators that killed 23 innocent men, women and children — and 12 more were seriously injured. The author warned of the risks involved in the use of drones, which many law experts see as violating the rules of war. While questioning the legal status of using unmanned aircraft, Phillip Alston, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions, accused the US administration of “carrying out indiscriminate killings in violation of the international law”. The Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf chief, Imran Khan, has recently requested the Supreme Court to declare the drone strikes as a ‘war crime’ and a violation of the sovereignty of Pakistan. According to the Alston report, the main concern about the drones is that they make it easier to kill without any risk to a state’s forces. For the operators, the war becomes no more significant than a video game. Philip Alston, a New York University law professor, says “The CIA, by definition, is not accountable”, except directly to President Barrack Obama. Alston suggested that unless the intelligence agency’s work could be made transparent, the role of conducting drone strikes should be transferred to the military who were better versed in — and capable of abiding by — the international law.

CIA Director Leon Panetta, without acknowledging the extent of the drone programme, has called it “very effective”. Vice President Joe Biden and his cronies argue to de-emphasise the troop strength in favour of unmanned drones attacks on Osama bin Laden, Mullah Umar and Ayman al-Zawahiri allegedly hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The drones’ proponents argue that since they have significant surveillance capacity and great precision, they are able to avoid collateral civilian casualties and injuries.They also state that since the drones may provide the ability to conduct aerial surveillance and to gather “pattern of life” information, they may allow the operators to distinguish between peaceful civilians and those engaged in direct hostilities. Nonetheless, the episode quoted by human rights activist Chelala is a clear demonstration of the fallacy of this argument and of the dangers to civilians in using such lethal weapons.

The objective of the air campaign has been to disrupt al- Qaeda’s external network, but it has longlasting fallouts on the global war on terror. Some of them are: (a) Drone attacks are a violation of Pakistan sovereignty, counter productive and not helpful in the effort to win hearts and minds of people. (b) Carrying out indiscriminate killings is a violation of the international law also. (c) As the drone operators undertake operations entirely through computer screens and remote audio-feed, thousands of miles away from the battlefield, there is a risk of developing a ‘Play-station’ mentality to it. (d) Drone attacks have made the war more deadlier and dangerous, since it affects only those who are targets. (e) The strikes have a blowback effect and may help al-Qaeda leaders in recruiting more militants. (f) The use of UAVs may affect the on-going military operation in Waziristan. (g) Although, those who operate the drones are far away from the theater of their operations, they can still watch the consequences of their actions. It is never a good sight to watch massacre of innocent women and children. In these conditions, the operators may develop psychological disorder more quickly than those fighting in the combat zone. (h) The countries having the drone capability may use these dangerous weapons more frequently, casting adverse impacts on the safety of innocent civilians.

Despite Obama’s tilt towards troops surge, Islamabad appreciates that the use of force is not a permanent solution, it only disperses the militants soon to regroup. As former CIA officer Bruce Riedel cautions, “The drones are a lot like attacking a beehive, one bee at a time. You can kill some very important bees, but the hive is going to remain.” Consequently, Pakistan wants to strike peace deals with the softer element of Taliban. The Jihadi groups resent bitterly the present role of the Pakistani Army to further the US agenda. It is high time the Pakistani civil and military echelons to oppose Nato’s war in Pakistan, and block the use of unmanned aircraft inside the settled areas of Pakistan. Only by so doing will Pakistan be able to win the sympathy and support of the Pakistani people — a support without which all its efforts in containing the Jihadis will become futile.

The drones are very effective technology; they have killed or wounded some senior terrorists. But they’re never going to defeat it by themselves. The US can’t eliminate the terrorist problem in Pakistan without Pakistan’s help. The Pentagon understands that Pakistan is crucially important as three-quarters of US logistics arrives via Karachi to Afghanistan. So, Pakistan must be brought to the US side. The Obama administration remains committed to its strategy in Afghanistan whereby the Taliban insurgency has to be dented to an extent that when reconciliation is pursued, the Americans can do so from a position of strength. Nevertheless, it is telling that in the wake of the McChrystal debacle, the American media has focused on the modalities of a withdrawal, sooner rather than later, from Afghanistan. In this perspective, Pakistan thinks that the way ahead is to broker a quick deal between President Karzai and various factions of the Taliban. A peaceful, stable and friendly Afghanistan, has always been in Pakistan’s interest. The only problem is that it is the mistrust prevailing between the US and Pakistan spearheading a common cause to fight out terror from this region