AfPak Channel editor Peter Bergen and I have an opinion piece in the New York Times today in which we argue that there would be several strategic benefits to both the U.S. and Pakistan in recognizing the worst-kept secret in Washington: the CIA's program of using drones to target militants in Pakistan's northwest tribal regions.
First, there is the matter of Pakistani civilian casualties caused by
the drones. In a poll last summer, only 9 percent of Pakistanis
approved of the drone strikes. A key reason for this unpopularity
is the widespread perception that the strikes overwhelmingly kill
civilians.
A survey we have made
of reliable press accounts indicates that since January 2009, the
reported strikes have killed at least 520 people, of whom around 410
were described as militants, suggesting that the civilian death rate is
about 20 percent.
It’s possible, however, that the number is even
lower. An American counterterrorism official told The Times in
December that the civilian
fatality rate is only 5 percent, saying that “just over 20”
civilians and more than 400 militants were killed in 2009. Should the
American government’s claims about the small number of civilian deaths
be verified, some of the Pakistani hostility toward the United States
might dissipate. This would be much easier if the now-classified
videotapes of drone strikes were made available to independent
researchers.
Acknowledging the drone program would also help
advance our efforts -- and improve our profile -- in the region by
providing an excellent example of the deepening United States-Pakistan
strategic partnership. Since January 2009, up to 85 reported drone
strikes have killed militants who are responsible for the deaths of
thousands of Pakistanis. A good deal of the intelligence that enables
these strikes comes from the Pakistanis themselves.
Last,
Pakistanis once considered any military offensive against the Taliban as
fighting America’s war. But because of the cumulative weight of the
Taliban’s atrocities against politicians, soldiers, police and
civilians, Pakistanis now believe that battling the militants is in the
country’s own interest. As a result, over the past year, the public’s
support for the Pakistani Army’s efforts in the Swat Valley and South
Waziristan has surged. If Pakistan came clean about its involvement with
the drones, public backing for the program might similarly increase.
For me, the key point we make has to do with what happens when civilians are killed by the drone strikes -- something that the CIA is reportedly trying to minimize by using smaller missiles, write Joby Warrick and Peter Finn in today's Post.
By acknowledging the drone strikes, the Obama administration would also
have to admit that civilians are sometimes killed in these attacks. When
Afghan civilians are killed by American forces, their families are
often compensated by the United States. Surely, the families of
Pakistani civilians killed in American drone strikes deserve the same.
To read the full op-ed, click here; for our underlying research about the drone strikes, visit the database here.
(2)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE