Pak Taliban: ‘the Drones are Very Effective’
Pak Taliban: ‘The Drones are Very Effective’ | Danger Room
* By Noah Shachtman Email Author
* May 5, 2009 |
* 9:29 am |
* Categories: Af/Pak, Drones
creech_reaper_cropped
The New York Times speaks today with a 28 year-old Pakistani logistics tactician for the Taliban. He’s utterly underwhelmed by America’s war plans for the region — well, except for one element.
The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. “The drones are very effective,” he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area.
In this year alone, the U.S. has launched at least 16 unmanned assaults on suspected guerrilla camps in Pakistan. Government officials in both Islamabad and Washington say the robotic strikes have decimated Al Qaeda’s ranks in Pakistan. But recent reports in the local press have portrayed the drones as wildly ineffective, killing only 14 militants while slaying 700 civilians. The Taliban tactician seemed to reinforce the official line, saying that “29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.” Men no longer gathered in large groups in his home base of Wana, according to the tactician; they’re worried about being seen by the robot planes.
Instead, “the drone attacks simply prompted Taliban fighters to spend more time in Afghanistan, or to move deeper into Pakistan, straddling both theaters of a widening conflict. The recruits were prepared to fight where they were needed, in either country.” The Times story doesn’t say whether these drone-displaced militants are taking part in the latest Taliban offensive within Pakistan, that has brought the militants to within 60 miles of the capital.
At the same time, the attacks continue to spark resentment among the Pakistani public, the Los Angeles Times reports. “These drones are very bad,” Lahore apparel merchant Ashraf Bhatti tells the paper. “What would America think if someone started shooting rockets and killing people in their land?”
In American military and political circles, a growing number of opinion leaders are wondering whether the political blowback is beginning to outweigh the drones’ lethal value. According to the Washington Post, “some senior U.S. officials think [the robotic attacks] have reached the point of diminishing returns and the administration is debating the rate at which they should continue.”
As the influential Abu Muquwama blog notes, the tactician’s “reference to drone attacks being ‘very effective’ could be traditional Pashtun appreciation for an enemy’s prowess. Or, encouragement for a self-defeating course of action.”
[Photo: Noah Shachtman]
==========
Acting President condemns attack on security forces - PPP, PML (N) agree to continue previous coalition government arrange... - PM condemns attack on security forces - PM approves Rs. 500 million grant for NWFP government - Logistic support mandatory for sustained operations: Naval Chief - PM nominates Syed Zia Hyder Rizvi as private member PPSMB
Petraeus adviser tells U.S. Congress drone attacks in Pakistan ‘backfiring’ PDF Print E-mail
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?...75163&Itemid=2
WASHINGTON, May 3 (APP): A key adviser to U.S. Army General David Petraeus, who is the head of Central Command, has called for ending the highly controversial and unpopular drone attacks against militant targets in the Pak-Afghan border region, saying the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate.
“We need to call off the drones,” said David Kilcullen Kilcullen, an Australian who served in Iraq as one of the counter-insurgency warrior/theorists involved in designing Gen. Petraeus’ successful “surge” of troops into the streets of Baghdad.
During a congressional hearing earlier this week, when a congressman asked Kilcullen what the U.S. government should do in Pakistan, Kilcullen called the missile strikes “cowardly” and said they should be stopped.
The LA Times said, Kilcullen’s objection to the U.S. strategy isn’t moral or legal . Kilcullen’s objection is practical. “He says the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate”.
“I realize that they do damage to Al Qaeda leadership,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.
But that, he said, was not enough to justify the programme.
“Since 2006, we’ve killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we’ve killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly
unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they’ve given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism. ... The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population.”
Another problem, Kilcullen says, is that “using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak.”In the Pashtun tribal culture of honor and revenge, face-to-face combat is seen as brave; shooting people with missiles from 20,000 feet is not. And besides, Kilcullen says, “There are other ways to do it.”Kilcullen didn’t elaborate on those “other ways.” Pakistani leaders visiting Washington this week for bilateral and trilateral talks involving Afghanistan on security and development efforts in the region, are expected to raise the issue. Islamabad has repeatedly objected to the U.S. drone attacks and termed them as counterproductive to overalll anti-terrorism effort and violative of its sovereignty.
==========
Personal thought - we should ratchet it up a notch. Seems to be working.
As for legality, it does not strike me as illegal to conduct strikes against Taliban/AQ targets.
Pak Taliban: ‘The Drones are Very Effective’ | Danger Room
* By Noah Shachtman Email Author
* May 5, 2009 |
* 9:29 am |
* Categories: Af/Pak, Drones
creech_reaper_cropped
The New York Times speaks today with a 28 year-old Pakistani logistics tactician for the Taliban. He’s utterly underwhelmed by America’s war plans for the region — well, except for one element.
The one thing that impressed him were the missile strikes by drones — virtually the only American military presence felt inside Pakistan. “The drones are very effective,” he said, acknowledging that they had thinned the top leadership of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the area.
In this year alone, the U.S. has launched at least 16 unmanned assaults on suspected guerrilla camps in Pakistan. Government officials in both Islamabad and Washington say the robotic strikes have decimated Al Qaeda’s ranks in Pakistan. But recent reports in the local press have portrayed the drones as wildly ineffective, killing only 14 militants while slaying 700 civilians. The Taliban tactician seemed to reinforce the official line, saying that “29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.” Men no longer gathered in large groups in his home base of Wana, according to the tactician; they’re worried about being seen by the robot planes.
Instead, “the drone attacks simply prompted Taliban fighters to spend more time in Afghanistan, or to move deeper into Pakistan, straddling both theaters of a widening conflict. The recruits were prepared to fight where they were needed, in either country.” The Times story doesn’t say whether these drone-displaced militants are taking part in the latest Taliban offensive within Pakistan, that has brought the militants to within 60 miles of the capital.
At the same time, the attacks continue to spark resentment among the Pakistani public, the Los Angeles Times reports. “These drones are very bad,” Lahore apparel merchant Ashraf Bhatti tells the paper. “What would America think if someone started shooting rockets and killing people in their land?”
In American military and political circles, a growing number of opinion leaders are wondering whether the political blowback is beginning to outweigh the drones’ lethal value. According to the Washington Post, “some senior U.S. officials think [the robotic attacks] have reached the point of diminishing returns and the administration is debating the rate at which they should continue.”
As the influential Abu Muquwama blog notes, the tactician’s “reference to drone attacks being ‘very effective’ could be traditional Pashtun appreciation for an enemy’s prowess. Or, encouragement for a self-defeating course of action.”
[Photo: Noah Shachtman]
==========
Acting President condemns attack on security forces - PPP, PML (N) agree to continue previous coalition government arrange... - PM condemns attack on security forces - PM approves Rs. 500 million grant for NWFP government - Logistic support mandatory for sustained operations: Naval Chief - PM nominates Syed Zia Hyder Rizvi as private member PPSMB
Petraeus adviser tells U.S. Congress drone attacks in Pakistan ‘backfiring’ PDF Print E-mail
http://www.app.com.pk/en_/index.php?...75163&Itemid=2
WASHINGTON, May 3 (APP): A key adviser to U.S. Army General David Petraeus, who is the head of Central Command, has called for ending the highly controversial and unpopular drone attacks against militant targets in the Pak-Afghan border region, saying the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate.
“We need to call off the drones,” said David Kilcullen Kilcullen, an Australian who served in Iraq as one of the counter-insurgency warrior/theorists involved in designing Gen. Petraeus’ successful “surge” of troops into the streets of Baghdad.
During a congressional hearing earlier this week, when a congressman asked Kilcullen what the U.S. government should do in Pakistan, Kilcullen called the missile strikes “cowardly” and said they should be stopped.
The LA Times said, Kilcullen’s objection to the U.S. strategy isn’t moral or legal . Kilcullen’s objection is practical. “He says the strikes are creating more enemies than they eliminate”.
“I realize that they do damage to Al Qaeda leadership,” he told the House Armed Services Committee.
But that, he said, was not enough to justify the programme.
“Since 2006, we’ve killed 14 senior Al Qaeda leaders using drone strikes; in the same time period, we’ve killed 700 Pakistani civilians in the same area. The drone strikes are highly
unpopular. They are deeply aggravating to the population. And they’ve given rise to a feeling of anger that coalesces the population around the extremists and leads to spikes of extremism. ... The current path that we are on is leading us to loss of Pakistani government control over its own population.”
Another problem, Kilcullen says, is that “using robots from the air ... looks both cowardly and weak.”In the Pashtun tribal culture of honor and revenge, face-to-face combat is seen as brave; shooting people with missiles from 20,000 feet is not. And besides, Kilcullen says, “There are other ways to do it.”Kilcullen didn’t elaborate on those “other ways.” Pakistani leaders visiting Washington this week for bilateral and trilateral talks involving Afghanistan on security and development efforts in the region, are expected to raise the issue. Islamabad has repeatedly objected to the U.S. drone attacks and termed them as counterproductive to overalll anti-terrorism effort and violative of its sovereignty.
==========
Personal thought - we should ratchet it up a notch. Seems to be working.
As for legality, it does not strike me as illegal to conduct strikes against Taliban/AQ targets.
Comment