FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Droning On and On

by JOANNE MARINER

I’m struck by contrasting public views on the US drone warfare program. In the United States, where the public has long been aware of the program, drone strikes have received increased critical attention in recent months because of the disclosure that an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, has been targeted for attack. Al-Awlaki, a radical cleric now based in Yemen, is alleged to have helped al-Qaeda organize terrorist plots against the US.

In the wake of news about al-Awlaki’s reported targeting, the US Congress for the first time held hearings on the drone program, examining the legal issues the program implicates and, specifically, the legality of carrying out strikes against American citizens. As the chairman of the subcommittee that held the hearings acknowledged in introducing the second hearing, in April, “accounts of the recent addition of an American citizen to the target list have received widespread attention.”

The hearings were long overdue. In recent years, the US has carried out drone strikes in several parts of the world–Pakistan, above all, but also Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia–and US use of drones has been increasing.

But because it is the CIA that is responsible for strikes outside of declared war zones, the program is highly classified and the US government has been reluctant to confirm even basic information about the program. Most of the press reporting about drones relies on anonymous administration sources for its key claims.

Both critics and supporters of drone warfare agree that the US government needs to do a better job of engaging with the public about the drone program. State Department Legal Advisor Harold Koh’s recent legal defense of the program was, from this standpoint, an important contribution.

But US views are only part of the picture. Not a single drone attack has taken place on US soil; the US is the source of drone strikes, not their recipient. What of the countries in which the attacks occur; what kind of debate is occurring there?

In Pakistan

If Americans have been roused by the possibility of their co-nationals being targeted for drone strikes, Pakistanis have faced this question from the beginning. Some 1,000 Pakistanis have been killed by US drone attacks on Pakistani soil since 2004. Lately, in the border states of North and South Waziristan, drone strikes have been a weekly, or even more frequent, occurrence.

Pakistani views of the US drone program are strikingly negative. A Gallup-Al Jazeera poll from August 2009 concluded that only 9 percent of Pakistanis approved of drone strikes, while 62 percent opposed them. Indeed, a just-issued survey carried out by a Pakistani think-tank found that three-quarters of the people surveyed, in the Swat Valley region of Pakistan, believed that US drone attacks have increased support for the country’s militants.

Pakistanis are angered by what they view as a violation of their country’s sovereignty (though it is an open secret that the Zardari government in Pakistan has allowed the strikes), and by excessive civilian casualties.

While the numbers of civilians vs. militants killed in these attacks are unclear–and hotly disputed–there is little doubt that the Pakistani public believes that the civilian costs are high.

The Pakistani press is replete with articles about drone attacks. Many set out high civilian casualty figures, while describing how women and children have been killed. (A typical headline: “60 drone hits kill 14 al-Qaeda men, 687 civilians.”)

Different Worlds

Pakistanis and Americans live in different worlds when it comes to US drone strikes. This is true both in reality–Pakistanis actually face the strikes–and in terms of perception–Pakistanis are much more cognizant of the strikes’ negative costs.

Americans are not accustomed to feeling vulnerable to another country’s military might, and may not easily understand the extent to which Pakistanis dislike being in the another government’s cross-hairs. But they should gain at least the beginning of insight into Pakistani views when they consider their own heightened sensitivity to the US decision to target an American citizen.

Now take that concern and multiply it by 1000. Then imagine that another government is behind the trigger, and that Americans are being killed on US soil. The outrage isn’t hard to imagine.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York City.

WORDS THAT STICK

 

More articles by:

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

February 19, 2018
Rob Urie
Mueller, Russia and Oil Politics
Richard Moser
Muller the Politician
Robert Hunziker
There Is No Time Left
Nino Pagliccia
Venezuela Decides to Hold Presidential Elections, the Opposition Chooses to Boycott Democracy
Daniel Warner
Parkland Florida: Revisiting Michael Fields
Sheldon Richman
‘Peace Through Strength’ is a Racket
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Taking on the Pentagon
Patrick Cockburn
People Care More About the OSFAM Scandal Than the Cholera Epidemic
Ted Rall
On Gun Violence and Control, a Political Gordian Knot
Binoy Kampmark
Making Mugs of Voters: Mueller’s Russia Indictments
Dave Lindorff
Mass Killers Abetted by Nutjobs
Myles Hoenig
A Response to David Axelrod
Colin Todhunter
The Royal Society and the GMO-Agrochemical Sector
Cesar Chelala
A Student’s Message to Politicians about the Florida Massacre
Weekend Edition
February 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
American Carnage
Paul Street
Michael Wolff, Class Rule, and the Madness of King Don
Andrew Levine
Had Hillary Won: What Now?
David Rosen
Donald Trump’s Pathetic Sex Life
Susan Roberts
Are Modern Cities Sustainable?
Joyce Nelson
Canada vs. Venezuela: Have the Koch Brothers Captured Canada’s Left?
Geoff Dutton
America Loves Islamic Terrorists (Abroad): ISIS as Proxy US Mercenaries
Mike Whitney
The Obnoxious Pence Shows Why Korea Must End US Occupation
Joseph Natoli
In the Post-Truth Classroom
John Eskow
One More Slaughter, One More Piece of Evidence: Racism is a Terminal Mental Disease
John W. Whitehead
War Spending Will Bankrupt America
Robert Fantina
Guns, Violence and the United States
Dave Lindorff
Trump’s Latest Insulting Proposal: Converting SNAP into a Canned Goods Distribution Program
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Zaps Oxygen
John Laforge
$1.74 Trillion for H-bomb Profiteers and “Fake” Cleanups
CJ Hopkins
The War on Dissent: the Specter of Divisiveness
Peter A. Coclanis
Chipotle Bell
Anders Sandström – Joona-Hermanni Mäkinen
Ways Forward for the Left
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: Winning Hearts and Minds
Tommy Raskin
Syrian Quicksand
Martha Rosenberg
Big Pharma Still Tries to Push Dangerous Drug Class
Jill Richardson
The Attorney General Thinks Aspirin Helps Severe Pain – He’s Wrong
Mike Miller
Herb March: a Legend Deserved
Ann Garrison
If the Democrats Were Decent
Renee Parsons
The Times, They are a-Changing
Howard Gregory
The Democrats Must Campaign to End Trickle-Down Economics
Sean Keller
Agriculture and Autonomy in the Middle East
Ron Jacobs
Re-Visiting Gonzo
Eileen Appelbaum
Rapid Job Growth, More Education Fail to Translate into Higher Wages for Health Care Workers
Ralph Nader
Shernoff, Bidart, and Echeverria—Wide-Ranging Lawyers for the People
Chris Zinda
The Meaning of Virginia Park
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail