The Drone Doctrine

And a message for President Obama

The past decade in Pakistan has been a continuous and unrelenting tug-of-war between voices of peace and forces of extremism. A battle between the law enforcement institutions of the state and banned terrorist outfits. And in this ongoing conflict, the hapless civilian population of Pakistan – without any choice or consent of their own – has served as cannon fodder in the crusade between religious militancy and western hegemony.

The tip of the sword, perhaps, has been the consistent barrage of hell-fire missiles from unmanned Predator drones that have rained down from beyond the reach of the people suffering their consequences, in blatant violation of the territorial integrity of Pakistan, requirements of international law, and contours of the human rights discourse. There is a popular belief that the State of Pakistan (or at least some part of its military establishment) has afforded tacit approval to the Americans to carry out these barbaric episodes, making them complicit in the murder of hundreds of Pakistani civilians. And militant organisations – the alleged target of these attacks – being unable to shoot-down or stop the drones, have taken out their frustration and vengeance against these strikes through a series of terrorist attacks in the heart of Karachi, Lahore, Quetta and Peshawar, targeting civilian and state personnel alike.

But neither have the drone attacks stopped nor have the retaliatory aggression and violence subsided. And this spiral of violence, in addition to weakening the state and making Pakistan one of the most precarious nations in the world, has resulted in the loss of thousands of lives over the past decade.

As this cycle of violence continues, in a startling (almost apologetic) address, the American president, while addressing the National Defence University, on 23rd May, 2013, acknowledged that drone attacks could not be used as a long-term and effective weapon to counter terrorism in porous border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan. “Such interventions cannot be the norm,” Obama admitted, marking a shift in the drone doctrine of the United States.

The speech, however, fell short of Pakistani demands of declaring an end to drone strikes. The address, which was a protracted and indirect apology for the loss of civilian lives, included statements that accepted the fatal flaws of the drone doctrine, and its consequences in terms of loss of civilian life. Obama accepted that “for me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live”. As the US occupation of Afghanistan nears its end (in 2014), Obama declared that for any further use of the drone attacks “there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured”.

The salient features of a new policy, in terms of the drone attacks, stipulates that that i) a drone strike will not be ordered if a target can be captured, either by the US or by a foreign government, ii) a strike can be launched only against a target posing an “imminent” threat, iii) preference shall be given to the military to control the drone programme, although the CIA will continue to control the attacks in Pakistan (and Yemen). And the expectation is that this new approach will dramatically decrease the drone attacks, and within them, decrease the possibility of loss of civilian life.

Despite the welcomed move, this is all too little too late.

The people of Pakistan have been living in the shadow of the indiscriminate violence that the drone attacks ensue, and the consequent retaliation in terms of a spike in terrorist activities in our urban areas. This nexus, in most cases, has managed to augment the anti-American sentiment in this land. Many of those who were, some years ago, on the fence in terms of supporting the American “war on terror” next door, have now squarely fallen in line with the idea of opposing any and all American interference, regardless of the lofty rhetoric and peaceful intentions.

If there was any doubt about this fact, the election 2013 has put it to rest. Across Pakistan, a party that is right of the centre, and has long-standing ties with many of the religious organisations and political parties, has swept the polls. There is little hope of a push towards “fighting” the madrassah culture, during the next parliamentary term. And the talks of entering into ‘peaceful negotiations’ with the Taliban are already making rounds in Pakistan’s echelons of political power. The strategy of using force, without negotiations, has failed, and the battle to win the ‘hearts and minds’ of people has been all but lost (in light of the drone attacks). In Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the province bearing the brunt of the drone attacks, the political party that has triumphed is the one that has openly declared a keen desire to negotiate with the Taliban, staged a rally against the drone attacks, and has declared that, were they to be in power, they would order Pakistan Air Force to shoot down the drones.

In no uncertain terms, the choice for the average Pakistani, in these elections, was one of picking between the devil and deep blue sea – between America and the Taliban. For better or worse, even perhaps reluctantly so, the people have picked the deep blue sea.

This may not be the correct choice. It is certainly not the perfect choice. But under the circumstances the people have decided that this is the only choice that can keep their streets safe and children alive. Even if the resulting life and safety comes at the cost of tilting towards a retrogressive approach in terms of personal freedoms and gender disparity. Pushed against the wall, the people have chosen to negotiate with the beast, and send a message to the alleged guardian angel.

President Obama, I hope that you have gotten this message.

The writer is a lawyer based in Lahore. He has a Masters in Constitutional Law from Harvard Law School. He can be reached at: [email protected]