The New York Times reported today on a series of interviews with an unnamed Pakistani Taliban tactician. Among other things, he commented on the ease of crossing back and forth between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the effectiveness of air strikes by armed U.S. drones.
Predator UAV
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. He said 29 of his friends had been killed in the strikes.
The U.S. has made 16 such air strikes so far this year (there were 36 last year). The Predator UAVs are based inside Pakistan and flown by the CIA.
According to a Pakistani news article, out of 60 Predator strikes carried out in Pakistan between January 14, 2006 and April 8, 2009, only 10 were able to hit their intended targets. The Predators killed a total of 14 wanted al-Qaeda leaders and 687 innocent Pakistani civilians, it was claimed.
Such reports prompted outrage:
“These drones are very bad,” said Ashraf Bhatti, an apparel merchant, drinking tea in his shop with several friends in the Anjuman bazaar in Lahore. “What would America think if someone started shooting rockets and killing people in their land?”
On the other hand, the Pakistanis who actually live in the tribal areas along the Afghan border offer mixed opinions. Some are pleased that extremists, especially foreign fighters, are being hit.
Danger Room’s Noah Shachtman notes that “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.”
Also, the tactical effectiveness of UAV strikes may have reached the point of diminishing returns. Taliban fighters have become careful about gathering in the border areas targeted by the CIA, spending more time in Afghanistan or deeper inside Pakistan.
UPDATE: CNN’s Nic Robertson interviews Zabiullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
65.100.217.80#1 by Ben Johnson on May 5, 2009 - 9:48 pm
You talk about the use of UAVs as if they were some sort of productivity. The only purpose of UAVs are to keep live personnel out of harms way. As far as this purpose is concerned they are as effective as ever. The use as a means of realtime delivery of ordinance is also just as effective. The mere incident of “blowback” in your terms, is nothing to be considered since we are not in a war for popularity. Since when has war of any kind been 100% popular with indigenous people? Remember that some of the residents are supporters of the Taliban, what kind of response would you expect from them anyway? Your post is poorly thought through. Why would you even consider the negative response of people who are likely to be your worst enemy? It is people like you that support a President that goes around apologizing for America and bowing to mid eastern royalty.
4.228.243.52#2 by Richard Warnick on May 6, 2009 - 6:28 am
Ben–
Your thoughts are welcome. Thanks for commenting.
Consider the fact that people want to be left in peace. Does U.S. national security benefit from causing millions of people to hate America? Al-Qaeda depends on the concept of defensive jihad to gain supporters– why help them?
Some people in Pakistan support the Taliban, you say. True, but we have to consider that the Taliban is one name for a diverse collection of groups, many of whom are open to negotiation. Under normal circumstances, they feud with one another– not a superpower on the other side of the planet.
75.121.232.123#3 by Anonymous on May 6, 2009 - 6:55 am
It seems to be as legal and effective as water boarding…and the Obama administration owns it.