Obama drone campaign drones on during 2014 in several countries

The U.S. drone attack program continued in several different countries during 2014. Although the number of attacks have decreased in countries such as Pakistan, the 400th victim in the country was counted last October.

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims that 2,379 people were killed by the strikes. The Bureau also says that only 12 percent of the victims actually identified have been linked to any militant organizations. The victims are routinely described as suspected militants. In October of last year Rafiq ur Rehman, a school teacher and his two young children testified before the US Congress about the death of his 67 year old mother as she gathered okra in her garden a year earlier when she was killed by a drone strike. Only five members of Congress bothered to show up.

Drone strikes in Pakistan have declined sharply in recent years from their peak of 128 strikes in 2010 but there were still 22 strikes with 104 people killed in 2014. For the first five months of 2014 there were no drone strikes in Pakistan but the total number killed during the rest of the year was more than in all of 2013. While Pakistani politicians constantly object to the strikes, they continue, and the Pakistani military appears to provide the US with intelligence to help targeting. In Yemen, strikes have sharply increased in number with 116 in total so far, all but one under the Obama administration. The estimated number killed is between around 800 to over one thousand with over 80 of them civilians.In Somalia, 2014 saw the highest number of casualties of any year.

 The U.S. government itself does not release figures on how many they kill through the drone program. The government insists that the drones target only confirmed terrorists. In May of 2013 John Kerry said: “The only people we fire at are confirmed terror targets, at the highest level. We don’t just fire a drone at somebody we think is a terrorist.” However, the administration considers any military-age males in a strike zone as a combatant.

 In 2014, as part of the intelligence authorization bill, a provision was inserted that would have required the administration to report how many civilians and combatants had been killed in US drone attacks. However, the provision was removed at the request of James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence. The provision was removed by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Clapper lied before Congress: Media observers have described Clapper as having lied under oath, having obstructed justice, and having given false testimony. As a person who has even lied to defend American citizen's right not to know Congress was eager to follow his advice. Another bill, the Drone Strike Transparency Act introduced in early 2014 never gained sufficient support to go forward.

The U.S. is now using drones in Syria as part of the war against the Islamic State. Elsewhere, Obama has set out restrictions on drone use that are supposed to ensure there are strikes only where there is "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured". The administration admits that it will not apply this criterion in air strikes in Syria or Iraq. The Obama limitation on strikes applies only to areas where there is no active conflict. National Security Council spokesperson Caitlin Hayden noted that the restriction had always only applied to "direct action" outside areas of active hostilities' as we noted at the time."

 In spite of the fact that the U.S. combat role in Afghanistan supposedly ended the end of 2014, U.S. drone strikes continue:   A U.S. drone strike killed at least three people in Afghanistan's eastern province of Logar Wednesday, according to local reports. Similar attacks as part of a U.S.-led campaign in the central Asian country killed another seven Sunday in the eastern Khost Province. A detailed account of the number of attacks in different countries and other statistics can be found here. Given increased U.S. involvement in Syria and Iraq the number of attacks will probably begin to increase again in 2015.

US launches 500th drone attack

As Micah Zenko noted in an article in 2012, November 3 that year marked the tenth anniversary of the first drone attack by the US. No one took notice. The same will apply to the 500th confirmed US drone attack today outside of combat zones.

In his 2012 article Zenko called the drone strikes America's Third War. Micah Zenko is the Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). He has worked previously at Harvard and the Brookings Institution. Targeted killings were originally directed supposedly at a small number of key terrorist leaders thought to be an imminent threat to the US. Now the attacks barely merit a mention in the press. As Zenko puts it in his 2012 article: What was once considered an immediate response to an exceptional threat to the United States is now a permanent and institutionalized feature of U.S. foreign policy. Perhaps by November 3, 2022, policymakers and the American people will have noticed.
 Certainly in November 2014 Zenko is one of the few who have noted that a recent drone strike in Pakistan was the 500th such attack. The attack destroyed a house in Mada Khei a village in North Waziristan. The attack reportedly killed six people and wounded three others. All six who were killed were said to be suspects but none were identified. The reports were from a security official in the area.
 The Pakistan military has been carrying out an offensive in the area and claims to have killed about 1,200 militants. Before the offensive the population of the area about a million people were told to leave their homes, creating a huge flood of displaced people.
In the final years of the Bush administration there were just a few attacks each year. However, since Obama came to power attacks have increased in number and been extended to both Yemen and Somalia. In all, the 500 attacks are estimated to have killed 3,674 people but only 473 are listed as confirmed civilian casualties with the rest usually never identified but classified as "suspects". The 500th strike was reportedly also the 21st strike of this year in Pakistan. The Pakistan government constantly complains about the strikes but does nothing to stop them. Of the 500 drone strikes 50 were authorized by president George W. Bush and the other 450 by the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama.

Pakistan calls U.S. ambassador on carpet over continued drone strikes

U.S. Ambassador Richard Hoaglands was summoned to the Pakistani Foreign Affairs Minister to receive a protest against continued drone attacks in the Pakistani Tribal regions. The U.S. has made it clear that the attacks will continue even though Pakistan has already passed three motions through parliament demanding they cease. The protests are becoming a sick charade. One wonders where the U.S. obtains intelligence for the strikes. One wonders too what if any consequences are supposed to happen since the U.S. has constantly crossed this red line.

For good measure the Pakistanis also complained about U.S. diplomats carrying illegal weapons. Several diplomats were found to have illegal weapons at a checkpoint but were quickly released no doubt on the demand of the U.S.

A Pakistani Foreign Office spokesperson said Hoaglands was informed of the government’s serious concern with the drone strikes. The spokesperson said: “Parliament had emphatically stated that they [drone strikes] were unacceptable. Drone strikes represented a clear red-line for Pakistan,” These types of complaints have been ongoing for ages but no action is taken.

While the transit routes through Pakistan have been closed for NATO since November the immediate cause of that was the killing of two dozen Pakistani troops in an attack on a border post. However, the drone attacks and other issues continue to make it difficult for Pakistan to reopen the transit routes without losing face. However since parliamentary motions on drones have been ignored the same could happen on other issues such as the demand for an apology for the border incident.

Releasing some of the several billions the U.S. owes to repay Pakistan for its help in the war on terror might help the situation. No payments have been made since 2010. Meanwhile the U.S. congress is withholding more aid. Meanwhile the U.S. continues to kill Al Qaeda leaders sometimes several times showing the success of the missions to U.S. taxpayers. For more see this article.

U.S ignores Pakistani demands and continues drone strikes

U.S. drone strikes are reported to have killed 10 in a village in North Waziristan. Such strikes are a clear signal to Pakistan that even though ceasing drone strikes has been made a condition of re-opening supply lines the U.S. will not stop the strikes, not even while talks are ongoing.

In spite of the ongoing attacks Pakistan did let some supplies in last week perhaps as a condition of being invited to the recent Chicago Summit.. According to this article the military have been authorized to negotiate a permanent opening.

The drone strikes are unpopular in Pakistan. Three parliamentary motions have demanded they cease but to no avail. The issue is being used by opposition parties to attack the ruling party and will be important in the next election.

Obama has defended the strikes as a vital and successful part of strategy in the region. He has ruled out ending them. However this puts the Pakistani government in a difficult position. Going along with the U.S. and ignoring parliamentary demands could doom the ruling party to defeat in the next election and cause unrest meanwhile.

Probably the routes will be re-opened soon with the U.S. releasing some of the several billion owed to Pakistan for its role in fighting terrorists in Pakistan. Fees for transport will go up too. Even if the routes are reopened there will no doubt be frequent attacks on the convoys with much damage by militants. For more see this article.

Pakistani students win film award in US but cannot attend ceremony

The FFTY or Film Festival for Talented Youth was held recently in Seattle Washington. A short film by Danish Qasim from Iqra University won the Best Audience Award in one category. The film was written and directed by Qasim along with five team members.

The 20 minute film revolves around the social, psychological, and economic effects of drone attacks on people in the tribal areas where the attacks occur..The film show the problems faced by families who have become victims of the attack and also how terrorist groups use families for their own interests..The filmmakers were all denied visas by the U.S. to appear at the awards ceremony.

Qasim said: “If we got the visa then it would have been easy for us to frame our point of view in front of the other selected youth filmmakers,” “The film gained interest from the audience across the globe compelling festival administrators to give Audience Award to the film,” Apparently U.S. officials are not anxious for U.S. audiences to hear Qasim's point of view. For more see this article. I have appended a very short clip from the film.

Jeremy Scahill speaks at the Drone Summit

Included at this site is video of a speech by Jeremy Scahill at a large conference on drone warfare. There are four parts and it is on You Tube. Jeremy Scahill writes for the Nation.

Scahill is one of only a few journalists to actually travel to Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen to interview people about the drone attacks.

The very first Obama strike in Yemen was authorized because the target was supposed to be an Al Qaeda training facility supposedly. The U.S. rained down cruise missiles and also cluster bombs. So much for precision targeting. Almost all the victims were women and children.

The Yemeni government at that time headed by President Saleh took credit for the attacks. The U.S. was not mentioned. Photographer Abdulelah Shaye took photos at the site.The Yemeni version of events that claimed the victims were all Al Qaeda militants killed by a Yemeni strike was circulated around the world. Abdulelah Haider Shaye's photos at the scene, showed the remains of the missiles he found were clearly marked 'Made in the USA'. Among the dead were 14 women and 21 children. He is now imprisoned after intervention by the Obama administration when Yemen was actually set to pardon him.. The photos showed that the weapons used were ones the Yemeni government did not have. For more on Shaye see the Nation here and Al Jazeera here among other sites.

Next came the release of Wikileaks cables that showed that there was an agreement that such U.S. attacks would be claimed by the Yemen government so that the U.S. would not be seen to be involved. Of course when there is something to crow about such as taking out Awlaki the U.S. takes the credit.

The Obama administration has now approved expanded use of drones in Yemen the so-called "signature strikes". Scahill claims that such strikes are anything but surgical. In fact the strikes involve a type of profiling. You can decide whether a person or persons are legitimate targets by simply observing their behavior. However often the behavior may be misinterpreted as has happened a number of times in Afghanistan when locals were thought to be planting IED's when they were involved with other activities. For much more see the full article. 

Drones Bugsplat and Squirters

      Jennifer Robinson a human rights lawyer based in London has an article in Al Jazeera dealing with drones that she calls ""'Bugsplat""": The Ugly U.S. Drone War in Pakistan."" The term "bugsplat" according to Robinson is now the official term used to describe the killing of people  by drone missiles. Squirters are those seen fleeing the attacks.
    The term sees to have been first used to describe the shock and awe attack on Baghdad during the  Iraq invasion. See this article. in Ron Paul forums. Ironically there is a computer game of the same name.
    The term has the effect not only of dehumanizing the targets but even compares the attacks to squishing insects. Robinson recently attended a jirga in Pakistan where elders and villagers from the tribal areas being attacked discussed the effects of the drone attacks on their communities.
   Sitting behind her was a sixteen year old boy Tariq Aziz. Three days later she heard that he along with his 12 year old cousin were themselves killed as a car they were in was hit by a Hellfire missile. The official story is that the missiles are very precise so that there were will be few even no civilian casualties.
      In fact  John O Brennan who is Obama's top counter-terrorism adviser claimed last June :"there hasn't been a single collateral death because of the exceptional proficiency, precision or the capabilities we've been able to develop". Other sources however such as the Bureau of Investigative Journalism claim that at least 225 of those killed may be civilians
    In the case of the killing of Tariq and his cousin they were the sole victims according to Robinson's sources but the official report on the incident claims  only four militants were killed.  Of course given that reporters are not allowed in the area independent verification of events by third parties is virtually impossible. Tariq had volunteered to work with Reprieve a British charity using lawyers and villagers to try and document results of these attacks. For more see this article.

US surgical drones strikes are 12.5 per cent accurate

Although these are surgical strikes according to the official spin the surgeon strikes the wrong victim about seven out of eight times. In the US everyone gets excited if a doctor takes off the wrong leg just once but at least that doctor did not kill his victim. It seems to cause little fuss not only that the drone is judge and executioner without any trial but that innocent people are often killed. What on earth is wrong with people. Imagine if authorities used drones within the USA to target criminals and as a result killed 7 inn0cent people for every criminal eliminate. Drone attacks would never begin yet alone be increased. This is from presstv.

In Pakistan, more civilians fall victim to US drones


The civilian mortalities from US missile attacks on the Pakistani soil in 2009 indicate a threefold increase in compared to the previous year.

Using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or drones to carry out the attacks, the US Central Intelligence Agency, in cooperation with the Pentagon, are responsible for more than 700 civilian deaths in Pakistan this year, reports say.

In 2008, there were 32 strikes that killed about 240 people, according to Reuters. The attacks in 2009, meanwhile, had a mere 12.5 percent accuracy in targeting the supposed militants in Pakistan's northwestern tribal area, raising questions about the efficiency of the method.

The attacks, believed to be initiated from airbases located inside Pakistan's territory, have also played a strong role in the growing anti-American sentiment in Pakistan.

The CIA is accused of ignoring legal and moral principles in its running of deadly operations against civilians on a sovereign soil.

Meanwhile, in Washington, the attacks are hailed as a 'surgical' counterinsurgency tool. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmoud Qureshi recently condemned the attacks as "counterproductive and unhelpful."

The latest round of the attacks left some seven people dead in the northwestern area of North Waziristan over the past two days.

US govt-run radio fears coup in Pakistan

No doubt the US already has plenty of contacts and feelers out both to the generals and to the opposition politicians. There does not seem to be any big hurrahs from the US as the judicial system restores constitutional order in Pakistan. The decision to void the amnesty simply makes things more difficult for the US and weakens Zardari's government as both he and some of his key ministers were covered by the amnesty. Given that the US seems to be upping drone attacks it may be difficult for any overtly pro-US government to govern successfully in Pakistan.


US govt-run radio fears coup in Pakistan



Wednesday, December 23, 2009
WASHINGTON: “Conditions in Pakistan have been ripening, like the mango fruit eaten there, for another military coup d’etat. The economy has slumped, corruption is rampant, and terrorism is endemic. People are losing faith in the officials they brought to power,î US Congress funded Radio Free Liberty (RFE) said in a political commentary on Pakistan on Monday.

RFE is supervised by the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a bipartisan federal agency overseeing all US international broadcasting services. It is funded by the US Congress and broadcasts in 28 languages to 20 countries.

Written by Jamsheed K Choksy, a professor of Central Eurasian, Indian, Iranian, Islamic, and international studies, the commentary said: “This time, the soldiers may not have to use guns and tanks. They can bide their time until the elected government descends into chaos, then march in as national saviours. But the country’s judiciary is swiftly becoming a player to be reckoned with too.”

It said: “On December 16, Pakistan’s Supreme Court declared as unconstitutional a National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). The NRO was an amnesty granted in October 2007 by former coup leader, and subsequently president, General Pervez Musharraf, to politicians facing corruption and other criminal charges filed between January 1986 and October 1999. With that decision, all hell broke looseÖ”

“Even President Asif Ali Zardari faces the possibility of 12 corruption charges being reinstated. Worse, the Supreme Court has suggested that the government ask Switzerland to reopen a money-laundering investigation against him that was dropped on grounds of poor mental health. Under Pakistani law, Zardari — mocked as a highly corrupt ‘Mr 10 Per cent’ — cannot be prosecuted while he is president.

“But the calls for him to resign or be removed are mounting. So are demands by political opponents and the general public that his inefficient administration be stripped of power. A cabinet reshuffle is unlikely to placate either his opponents or the general public. Even before the latest debacle, Zardari had ceded his presidential role in the nation’s nuclear chain of command — yet another sign of his ever-weakening authority.

“Pakistan’s military has regained some of its prestige through considerable success in recent combat against Islamic militants within the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

“The generals remain one group — the other is the judiciary — seen as largely untainted by the political chaos that is engulfing the country. In recent months, they have been demonstrating their independence from the United States and loyalty to the nation of Pakistan by resisting demands to expand foreign involvement in counterinsurgency endeavors. Not unexpectedly, the military once again faces mounting pressure to restore order in Pakistan, even at the expense of democracy.

“So Pakistan’s armed forces often are expected to lead the nation in times of political uncertainty. As the generals remain silent, it is left to the government of President Zardari to deny the possibility of its ouster. Even if the civilian government survives the current legal crisis, it might not have long left in running Pakistan owing to the other mounting problems there.

“Zardari’s administration has been reduced to threatening people for SMS texting jokes about its corruption with jail terms of up to 14 years. This complicates matters for the United States, where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently declared “supporting democracy and fostering development are cornerstones of our 21st-century human rights agenda.”

“As Pakistan’s primary ally and aid donor, the United States may indeed face the distinct prospect of having to deal directly yet again with a military leadership in a strategically important and nuclear-armed state. That relationship is already tense, owing to ‘issues that continue to fester’, by the US deputy assistant secretary of defence’s own admission.

“Yet the United States is in the midst of waging a war against terror there and across the border in Afghanistan that is ‘not only necessary but morally justified’ as President Barack Obama said when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize. Hence, the US government dares not suspend either military-technology or civilian aid lest it risk losing Pakistan’s already somewhat-reluctant assistance.

“So, despite its avowed aim of promoting democracy and human rights worldwide, the current US administration may soon be stuck with having to accept an illegitimate Pakistani government led by generals trying to restore order.

“Such, if the past is an accurate indicator, will be the hefty price of realpolitik for both Pakistan and the United States. Not all comes up tails, however. In late July, Pakistan’s Supreme Court declared illegal an earlier state of emergency declared by the military. It is likely to do so again. “An increasingly independent judiciary bodes well for democracy in Pakistan — over the long term.”

Pakistanis see US as biggest threat..

UPDATED ON:Monday, August 10, 2009 05:42 Mecca time, 02:42 GMT

AL JAZEERA EXCLUSIVE GALLUP PAKISTAN POLL
Pakistanis see US as biggest threat
By Owen Fay
About 43 per cent of Pakistanis support dialogue with the Taliban, the survey said [AFP]A survey commissioned by Al Jazeera in Pakistan has revealed a widespread disenchantment with the United States for interfering with what most people consider internal Pakistani affairs.
The polling was conducted by Gallup Pakistan, an affiliate of the Gallup International polling group, and more than 2,600 people took part.
Interviews were conducted across the political spectrum in all four of the country's provinces, and represented men and women of every economic and ethnic background.When respondents were asked what they consider to be the biggest threat to the nation of Pakistan, 11 per cent of the population identified the Taliban fighters, who have been blamed for scores of deadly bomb attacks across the country in recent years.Another 18 per cent said that they believe that the greatest threat came from neighbouring India, which has fought three wars with Pakistan since partition in 1947.But an overwhelming number, 59 per cent of respondents, said the greatest threat to Pakistan right now is, in fact, the US, a donor of considerable amounts of military and development aid.Tackling the TalibanThe resentment was made clearer when residents were asked about the Pakistan's military efforts to tackle the Taliban.
Keeping with recent trends a growing number of people, now 41 per cent, supported the campaign.
About 24 per cent of people remained opposed, while another 22 per cent of Pakistanis remained neutral on the question..............When people were asked if they would support government-sanctioned dialogue with Taliban fighters if it were a viable option the numbers change significantly.Although the same 41 per cent said they would still support the military offensive, the number of those supporting dialogue leaps up to 43 per cent.
So clearly, Pakistanis are, right now, fairly evenly split on how to deal with the Taliban threat.
Drone anger
However, when asked if they support or oppose the US military's drone attacks against what Washington claims are Taliban and al-Qaeda targets, only nine per cent of respondents reacted favourably.
A massive 67 per cent say they oppose US military operations on Pakistani soil.
Forty-one per cent of Pakistanis say they support the offensive against the Taliban
"This is a fact that the hatred against the US is growing very quickly, mainly because of these drone attacks," Makhdoom Babar, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's The Daily Mail newspaper, said.
"Maybe the intelligence channels, the military channels consider it productive, but for the general public it is controversial ... the drone attacks are causing collateral damage," he told Al Jazeera.........................Lieutenant-General Hamid Nawaz Khan, a former caretaker interior minister of Pakistan, told Al Jazeera that US pressure on Pakistan to take on the Taliban was one reason for the backlash.
"Americans have forced us to fight this 'war on terror'... whatever Americans wanted they have been able to get because this government was too weak to resist any of the American vultures and they have been actually committing themselves on the side of America much more than what even [former president] Pervez Musharraf did," he said.
Pakistani leadership
The consensus of opinion in opposition to US military involvement in Pakistan is notable given the fact that on a raft of internal issues there is a clear level of disagreement, something which would be expected in a country of this size.
When asked for their opinions on Asif Ali Zardari, the current Pakistani president, 42 per cent of respondents said they believed he was doing a bad job. Around 11 per cent approved of his leadership, and another 34 per cent had no strong opinion either way.That pattern was reflected in a question about Zardari's Pakistan People's party (PPP).Respondents were asked if they thought the PPP was good or bad for the country.
About 38 per cent said the PPP was bad for the country, 20 per cent believed it was good for the country and another 30 per cent said they had no strong opinion.
Respondents were even more fractured when asked for their views on how the country should be led.
By far, the largest percentage would opt for Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and leader of the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) party, as leader. At least 38 per cent backed him to run Pakistan.Last month, the Pakistani supreme court quashed Sharif's conviction on charges of hijacking, opening the way for him to run for political office again. Zardari 'unpopular'
Zardari, the widower of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, received only nine per cent support, while Reza Gilani, Pakistan's prime minister, had the backing of 13 per cent.
The survey suggests Sharif is Pakistan's most popular politician by some distance [AFP]But from there, opinions vary greatly. Eight per cent of the population would support a military government, 11 per cent back a political coalition of the PPP and the PML-N party.
Another six per cent would throw their support behind religious parties and the remaining 15 per cent would either back smaller groups or simply do not have an opinion.Babar told Al Jazeera that Zardari's unpopularity was understandable given the challenges that the country had faced since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.
"Any president in Pakistan would be having the same popularity that President Zardari is having, because under this situation the president of Pakistan has to take a lot of unpopular decisions," he said.
"He is in no position to not take unpopular decisions that are actually in the wider interests of the country, but for common people these are very unpopular decisions."
For the complete poll results, click here.

Out of Range-on drone attacks

This is one of the few articles that analyse the moral dimensions of drone attacks. At least this does point out some of the moral dimensions but does not discuss the issue in terms of international law or even mention such obvious facts as that the accused terrorists are killed without benefit of trial with the US being judge and executioner all in one. Even so the article is a welcome addition to discussion of the matter and a relief from the tripe and sound and text bites that pass a journalism nowadays in much of the mainstream press.

Antiwar.com Original - http://original.antiwar.com -
Out of Range
Posted By Ryan McCarl
The ongoing U.S. military strikes in Pakistan generally do not constitute front-page news in the United States. There has been little or no debate about their legitimacy or their efficacy.
But what to one community is a series of "strikes" or "special operations," a footnote in the news, to the community on the receiving end is aggression and war.
Take, for example, a common event of recent months: the U.S. attacks, by means of robot drones, suspected Taliban or al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. In the process, civilians are killed and civilian property and infrastructure is destroyed. Our headline, buried on the third page, behind the latest political scandal and the fluctuations of the stock market, reads: "Eight killed in Pakistan Drone Strike."
The same event, as understood by someone directly affected by it, will be seen as: my cousin (or parent, friend, or acquaintance) was killed by an American missile that fell without warning from the sky.
Everything depends on the direction one is looking down the gun: down the shaft, or up the barrel? And this difference in perceptions has consequences, especially over the long term. How much of the rise of anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim Middle East can be explained by the enormous gaps that separate the way each side of the "War on Terror" understands the history of America’s involvement in the region?
This perception gap is the result of at least two closely related factors: first, spatial and temporal distance from the conflict, and second, the asymmetrical power relationship between the U.S. and its enemies. Technology and wealth have made it possible for the U.S. to exercise decisive military power anywhere in the world. But our technology and our wealth often outrun our wisdom, our prudence, and our moral sensibilities.
Perhaps a particular drone strike carried out by the U.S. on Pakistani soil is ethical, or at least sensible – say, it eliminates an active al-Qaeda terrorist or Taliban leader without destroying too many civilian lives or too much civilian property. But how would we know? The truth is that most of us aren’t paying close enough attention to determine whether our strikes into Pakistan are ethical or sensible. The distance between the American public and the conflict makes the issue too easy to avoid.
America’s drones conduct offensive military operations against targets living in destitute, remote tribal communities on the other side of the world. But that is a one-way street, and the story, for Americans, ends there. The voices of those on the receiving end of the strike are rarely heard. If there is video footage of the strike, it is generally shot from above, from the perspective of the drone, rather than from below, the perspective of its targets and victims. The robot presumably returns to its base and tells no war stories, and at no point need any American soldier or citizen come face-to-face with victims of the attack.
With the exception of the pacifist and nonviolent traditions, most of our moral thinking about war acknowledges that there are at least some circumstances under which violence and killing, including organized political violence (or war), is morally acceptable. But are our theories about the ethics of warmaking up to the task of determining when, if ever, it is permissible to kill a relatively impotent enemy from a safe and anonymous distance, by robot or missile?
When we think about the ethics of drone strikes (and, for that matter, long-distance missile strikes), we must remember that we are missing a critical piece of information: namely, knowledge of the individuals and communities whom our missiles affect, and a multidimensional understanding of them in the fullness of their humanity. Such knowledge and understanding is a prerequisite for empathy, and without empathy, we cannot imagine the concrete reality of the suffering and death our military actions cause. And neither can we understand the depths of rage and grievance that these actions sow abroad, or the way this rage fuels anti-Western terrorism.
For their operators, controlling these "drones" must not be so different from playing a video game – something almost fictional, bearing at most a tangential relationship to the reality of face-to-face killing and dying that informed our ability to understand the depth of the tragedies of previous wars we have fought.
For the communities, families, and individuals on the receiving end of the drone strikes, however, it is no game. For them, there is no projection of power across unimaginable distances; war and its terrors come to them. We can understand what this means only by reflecting on what our own families and communities mean to us, and by reasoning through analogy toward a sense of what it might mean to have one’s family and community directly threatened by war.
Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com
URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/mccarl/2009/05/14/out-of-range/
C
Copyright © 2009 Antiwar.com Original. All rights reserved.

Nawaz Sharif asks Obama to part ways with Bush policy

This is from thenews (Pakistan). Sharif obviously has gained considerable political capital with his successful demonstrations that forced that government to re-instate the chief justice and many judges. Now Sharif may be able to have the decision not to allow his candidacy overturned. As can be seen from the article Sharif is hostile to the US mode of attacking terrorism especially the use of drones and is also for negotiation with the Taliban rather than direct confrontation.
Obama seems to be even more aggressive in his stance towards Pakistan than was Bush.


Nawaz asks Obama to part ways with Bush policy

Wednesday, April 08, 2009Calls for support to democracy, development, respect of Pak sovereignty; to appear before SCBy Muhammad AnisISLAMABAD: Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz Quaid Muhammad Nawaz Sharif has urged US President Barack Obama to part ways with the Bush administration policy to fight terrorism.“Diplomacy and development should be given priority,” Nawaz Sharif said while talking to US Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen during a meeting at the residence of US Ambassador Anne W Patterson at a luncheon meeting here on Tuesday.Sharif said fight against terrorism requires consensus at all levels and Pakistan’s sovereignty must be respected. The former prime minister reminded the senior US officials that drone attacks were counter productive.Later, talking to reporters at the Punjab House after meeting with the US special representative, Nawaz Sharif said he shared his stance with the US officials. Nawaz said he told the visiting officials that President Obama will have to change the US policy regarding drone attacks.He urged the nation to get united to deal with the prevailing challenges. To a question, Nawaz said he has no intention to rejoin the federal cabinet, saying it was the party’s decision to part ways with the federal government.The PML-N Quaid said the Charter of Democracy (CoD) should be implemented now. He stressed the need for stabilising the country on economic and political fronts. “I have complete confidence in judiciary following the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry,” he added. He said now they would appear before the Supreme Court in their case.Nawaz said he had nothing personal against President Asif Ali Zardari, adding his differences were based on principles.Online adds: The PML-N Quaid said he had no personal grudge with President Asif Ali Zardari. “Our dispute was based on principles. The whole nation rejoiced the restoration of judiciary. The need is to implement the Charter of Democracy like the reinstatement of the judges, he said.Nawaz said judiciary would provide justice to the nation in real sense following the restoration of the deposed judges.

US drone strike kills six in North Waziristan

The US is not even making a pretense of stopping these attacks and Pakistani complaints are becoming more and more hollow and perhaps shows that there is indeed a tacit agreement to allow the attacks even though they are likely counterproductive and just produce more militants bent on revenge. Even if Pakistan wanted to shoot down the drones, they are often in areas unsafe for Pakistani forces to venture themselves. This is from antiwar.com.

US Drone Strike Kills Six in North Waziristan





A US drone fired missiles at what was described by local officials as “the houses of a suspected Taliban militant” near Mir Ali, in North Waziristan Agency, killing six people and injuring an unknown number of others. A local intelligence official said Taliban cordoned off the attacked site, and suggested this could mean a high value target was among the casualties.
The strike is the first reported hit by US drones into Pakistani territory this month, and the latest in dozens of strikes across the border as part of what has been described as a deliberate escalation of attacks on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Pakistan’s government has condemned the strikes publicly, but is reported to have privately reached a “tacit agreement” with the United States regarding them. Pakistan has also claimed it is considering shooting down the drones, but once again there is no indication that they made any effort to do so.
compiled by Jason Ditz [email the author

At least 23 killed as US drones attack school in North Waziristan.

This is from antiwar.com. It seems that the U.S. and NATO are becoming ever more aggressive in violating Pakistan borders without any authorisation it would seem. This makes the situation even more difficult for Pakistan in attempts to reach some type of accomodation with the tribal areas. Of course the U.S. does not care what difficulties this creates for Pakistan and seems indifferent to the fact that these actions inflame anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. It is simply another sign of great power arrogance. The total hyocrisy of the U.S. should be evident. The leader they are targetting was a hero when he was fighting the Soviet Union and the U.S. even wanted to make him president of Afghanistan! Now of course he is evil and to be eliminated.
Many of these reports have the format: officials say. They are often anonymous and not independently verified.



At Least 23 Killed as US Drones Attack School in North Waziristan
Posted September 8, 2008
Last Updated 9/8 3:05 PM EST
This morning two US Predator Drones attacked a small village two miles north of Miramshah in Pakistan’s North Waziristan Agency, killing at least 23 and wounding 20 others. Ten of those killed were said by officials to be militants, although a previous official was quoted as saying “no foreign militant was killed” in the strike. At least four women and two children were reported among the dead and most of the wounded are also reported to be women and children.
The attack centered on a religious school founded by Jalaluddin Haqqani, a religious scholar and veteran commander of the US-backed mujahideen who fought against the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. Haqqani is well-connected in both militant and government circles, having been accused of ties with both al-Qaeda and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence by US officials.
Haqqani has recently been accused of a role in the bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, and was also allegedly linked to an assassination attempt earlier this year against Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Incredibly enough, the United States attempted to install Haqqani as Prime Minister of Afghanistan, a position which he refused citing the number of Afghans killed in the 2001 invasion. Haqqani was reportedly in Afghanistan at the time of the attack.
The strike comes just days after an earlier US drone strike on another village not far from Miramshah, but on the Afghan side of the mountainous border, killed at least five civilians. It also comes less than a week after US ground troops killed 20 civilians in an attack on a village in South Waziristan, an action which led to widespread condemnation from Pakistan’s government and military, as well as anti-US protests among the tribesmen in the area. Pakistan’s government recently cut off supply lines to NATO troops in Afghanistan though there was some disagreement, even within the Pakistani government, whether this was in retaliation for last week’s South Waziristan attack. So far the only comment came from Pakistan’s military, who admitted the incident had occurred and said it was investigating the cause.

U.S. offers Pakistan 7 billion in non-military aid.

This is from The News (Pakistan)The U.S. is obviously abandoning Musharraf. The new government is much more worried about U.S. violation of Pakistani sovereignty and has quite different ideas about how to deal with terrorists. Note that the provocative drone attacks are to cease and that negotiations with the border states is envisioned. The U.S. may not be happy with this but leverage may be limited. There seems to be no clear policy any more from the U.S. side.

US offers Pakistan $7 bn in non-military aid




WASHINGTON: The US has promised to curb air strikes by drones against suspected militants in Pakistan as part of a joint counter-terrorism strategy agreed with the new civilian government in Islamabad, the Guardian has learnt.

That strategy will be supported by an aid package potentially worth more than $7 billon (£3.55 billon), which is due to go before Congress for approval in the next few months. The package would triple the amount of American non-military aid to Pakistan, and is aimed at "redefining" the bilateral relationship, US officials say.

Pakistan will also be given a "democracy dividend" of up to $1 billon, a reward for holding peaceful elections and forming a coalition government. Of that, $200 million could be approved in the next few days.

The aid package, being put together by Democratic Senator Joseph Biden, will mark a decisive break in the US policy on Pakistan, which for much of the past nine years focused on President Pervez Musharraf and the Pakistani military as Washington's primary partners in the "war on terror". Officials in Washington said on Wednesday that the shift had already been made.

"Senator Biden wants to show the relationship is much broader than a military one, and that we are willing to sustain it over time," one of the senator's senior aides said on Wednesday. A US administration official said: "Each day Musharraf's influence becomes less and less. Civilians are in control. People aren't meeting with Musharraf any more ... we are very pleased with the new civilian government."

Pakistani officials say much of the new counter-terrorism aid will be spent on civilian law enforcement institutions, such as the interior ministry, the Intelligence Bureau and the Federal Investigation Agency, rather than being channelled almost exclusively through the Army and the military-run Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

The new government says it has also won American support for its policy of opening a dialogue with tribes along the Afghan border, led by the Awami National Party. The new understanding on air strikes by US Predator drones is seen in Islamabad as a critical benchmark for the new relationship.

In January senior US intelligence officials flew to Islamabad and struck an agreement with Musharraf to give the American military a freer hand in the use of Predators against targets in Pakistan's tribal areas, which have become havens for al-Qaeda and other foreign Jihadists as well as Taliban forces fighting Nato forces and the government in Afghanistan, according to The Guardian.

The subsequent increase in Predator strikes – estimates of the number range up to eight – caused outrage in Pakistan. Britain also broke with Washington over the reliance on air strikes often guided by uncertain intelligence.

Pakistani officials say they have been given assurances by Washington that there will be close consultation with the civilian government, not with Musharraf, before any future strikes. However, the use of Predators is held as a closely-guarded secret and US intelligence is reluctant to share information about targets, and there is some skepticism in Islamabad over whether the deal will stick.

"We'll have to take them at their word, won't we," said Information Minister, Sherry Rehman, in an interview in Islamabad. She added that Washington's previous emphasis on ties to Musharraf and the Pakistani military "hasn't provided the results that were supposed to happen on the ground".

The US has given Pakistan about $10 bn in military aid during the past seven years, but it has not diminished the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan, while Pakistani extremism is also on the rise. Some officials in Washington believe most of the money has been used to build up Pakistan's conventional forces for use in a possible future conflict with India, rather than spent on counter-insurgency.

Furthermore, much of the money being used for counter-terrorism is being misspent, both Pakistan and US government officials say. As an example they say that Musharraf distributed the $25 million reward money for capturing or killing "high value" al-Qaeda targets in the form of an "inverted pyramid".

"A few thousand would go to the police constable on the ground, who actually spotted the guy, but the millions go to the generals up the chain," a Pakistani official said. No wonder, he added, the tip-offs stopped coming in and the number of high-profile arrests dropped.