‘Killing Them Softly’

Whichever path the US chooses, it must be explicitly labelled

Predator drones. UAVs. Hellfire missiles. Collateral damage. Innocent bystanders. These words have become a part of our national vocabulary. Every instance of these drone attacks is a piece of breaking news for all major channels.

The news angrily flashes in red across the screen, then plays a remarkably well-animated CGI representation of a drone targeting and decimating mud huts in some mountainous region of North Waziristan. And then an animated anchor regurgitates estimated damage and recounts a random figure that is feared to be dead, including civilians and children. This goes on for the next few minutes. Perhaps there is a brief conversation with a local asset, or an analyst who has something to say about the “irresponsibility of the American government” or “international laws regarding extrajudicial killings”. And then we forget about it. Out of sight, out of mind!

Until the next drone hits and the cycle starts all over again.

When did this happen? When did we become a nation that is actually bored with murder? Is it the nature of our national psyche? Or have we been rendered immune by the cycle of violence and violent crimes that is so prominently touted in the media? When did a child’s death simply become just another statistic? Why is it that when Malala gets shot, everyone, including us, is up in arms about the brutal nature of this injustice, but an estimated 411 to 884 civilian deaths in Pakistan are simply a number in an excel spreadsheet?

The problem is exacerbated by the scale of complexity it boasts. The resolve and might of a global power was challenged. The US went to war against what it considered threats. The war metamorphosed, evolved, shifted. New forms of horrific terrorism tactics emerged, and sophisticated, but equally deadly counterterrorism measures responded in kind. 2004 saw the first drone attack in Pakistan. There have been an estimated 367 since. Civilians, including men, women and children have been killed. While data on the subject is circumstantial, and highly politicized by the reporting faction, it stands to reason that the loss of civilian life further aggravates an already volatile situation, and generates powerful recruitment tools for the Taliban.

Yet, the program has resulted in the deaths of known extremist commanders, local leaders, and in some cases, major figureheads, such as Moulvi Nazir on January 2, 2013. The arguments for their use, while strictly a matter of perspective, make sense in the interests of American national security and sovereignty. This is not to say that it is completely justified, or even rational, but that perhaps in the eyes of the American administration, this is sometimes the only course of action, civilian loss of life notwithstanding. To oversimplify a convoluted mess, if you had the choice between allowing known extremists to plot to kill your family versus eliminating the extremist threat by any means necessary, what would you do?

“… For the families of those civilians, no words or legal construct can justify their loss”, said President Barack Obama, two days ago, on May 23, 2013, addressing an audience at the National Defense University in Washington D.C. He was outlining his administration’s drone and counterterrorism policies, which some senior officials claim, had been in the works since February. Under Obama, the drone programme was expanded aggressively, with an estimated 122 drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010 alone. The number of strikes has decreased significantly since, and 2013 has seen the sharpest decline. Drone precision is also improving, but the shift from “personality strikes” (where a clear target has been identified), to “signature strikes” (where a group of men is targeted based on behavior patterns associated with terrorists) has resulted in the notion that target selection is more arbitrary than anything else. Many think tanks, such as the New America Foundation, the International Crisis Group claim that drone strikes are not the long term solution.

Perhaps this was an omen for things to come, as this was the first time we saw a marked transformation of Obama’s policies in his address. He unequivocally accepted that drones had resulted in civilian deaths, and that because drones appear to be a much cleaner alternative to troop deployment, it can lead him and his administration to believe that drone strikes are a cure-all for terrorism. He called for “strong oversight of all lethal action”, which may be construed as rhetoric without any real significance. But there is an argument to be made about the shift in the mindset that drives the drone programme, both in the substance of the president’s speech, as well as the statistical information indicating a sharp decline in drone attacks on Pakistani soil.

“We must define the nature and scope of this struggle, or else it will define us”, he said. We must do the same at home. Pakistan must also define the scope and nature of our struggle with extremism and militancy, as well as our stance on drone strikes within our borders that go beyond lodging a strong complaint with the American embassy. As it stands, our apparent lack of empathy and seemingly tacit approval of the drone program implicitly lays bare our hypocrisy, especially when juxtaposed against incessant verbal protests following every strike. As it stands, we are a nation that is so deeply entrenched in internal hatreds and external threats, that we have grown immune to the terrifying nature of contemporary warfare. As it stands, we are a nation that is defined by this struggle, instead of the other way around.

It is time to make a stand. Imran Khan vehemently opposes drone strikes. Nawaz Sharif claims the same, but his statements, the latest from March, 2013 when the PML-N presented its manifesto, seem to perpetuate the same rhetoric that plagued and crippled the previous administration. His party, however, clearly states in the manifesto that they wish to curb terrorism through dialogue, and aim to bring FATA into the national fold. There are simply two options: oppose it, or support it, with the governments forming in the center and three of the provinces favoring the former than the later.

Passive condoning serves no purpose. It weakens Pakistan’s position as a sovereign nation that is equipped with a powerful military, renders us numb to the stark realities of war and its consequences, and further disenfranchises a people that have been historically alienated from the national discourse. The stand we must take could be explicit approval, a joint intelligence operation against known hideouts, a complete overhaul or a complete halt to the drone programme. Whichever path is chosen, it must be explicitly labeled, clearly identified and shared with the Pakistani public (or at the very least, the public representatives) in the interests of transparency, accountability and a larger national dialogue on the issue.

The writer is the Executive Producer for Planning and Research at Capital TV. He can be reached at @zeesalahuddin on Twitter or [email protected]