This past Friday, the leader of the Pakistani Taliban was
killed in North Waziristan, on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. The United
States’ drone program has been under sharp debate for months – proponents see
it as a way to wage more specific warfare against American threats with limited
civilian casualties and no American troops on the ground, while opponents see
it as a power that could be easily abused, and do not agree that civilian
casualties are necessarily limited. While the debate rages on, however, the
program has not abated, and Friday’s killing was considered a great success.
Hakimullah Mehsud, the leader killed, had a $5 million bounty over his head,
and was widely thought to be one of the most important figures in the hierarchy
of the Taliban.
This strike was not necessarily a success, however. Mehsud,
who was not exactly a revered figure in Pakistan and certainly not one in
neighboring Afghanistan, is now being mourned by the very people who despised
him while alive. That the U.S. killed him does nothing but exacerbate our
ongoing issues with civilians in the Middle East, who typically view our drone
program as too large in scope and unbiased in attacks. In killing a monster, we
created a martyr.
Mehsud speaking to supporters
But civilians discontent with the U.S. may not even be the
biggest setback from this strike. Pakistan announced yesterday that they will
be “reviewing” their relationship with the U.S., with some politicians going as
far as to say Pakistan should block U.S. supply routes to Afghanistan in
retaliation. This is not something new, and the U.S. hopefully prepared for
this fallout. Pakistan-U.S. relations have been strained for years because of
drone strikes liberally executed in Pakistani territory, many of which the
Pakistani government has no knowledge of until after the fact. This has sowed
seeds of mistrust, and the animosity directed at the U.S. will surely grow with
this latest strike.
Mehsud’s death highlights the glaring paradox that the U.S.
drone program has struggled with since its inception: a successful attack on
dangerous insurgents on one hand means those insurgents are no longer a threat
to U.S. interest. But on the other hand, how many family, friends, or even
bystanders affected by a successful attack will have their minds changed radically
enough that they themselves become threats to U.S. interest? It is impossible
to quantify this, but it certainly exists. Personally, I support the drone
program in a limited scope, and agree that the civilian casualties are almost
guaranteed to be less than that of conventional warfare, and that drone strikes
limit the number of Americans we need to put in the line of fire. But I do not
subscribe to the belief that the drone program works flawlessly. Terrorism will
continue to flourish if groups such as the Taliban can continue to portray
their fallen leaders as martyrs and encourage civilians to take up the fight on
their behalf. To ignore this would be a fatal mistake – the U.S. needs to focus
its efforts on combating propaganda in the future just as much as they focus on
eliminating these high-profile targets.
No comments:
Post a Comment