How much did the US gain by taking out a Taliban leader?

The death of the Taliban's leader is unlikely to bring the group to the bargaining table in Afghanistan. But drone strikes are a tool with potential – and risks.

|
Arshad Butt/AP
People stand near a coffin with the body of one of the victims reportedly killed by a US drone strike in Pakistan's Baluchistan province. The photo was taken at a local hospital in Quetta, Pakistan, on Sunday after news that the Taliban's leader, Mullah Akhtar Mansour, was killed in the strike.

President Obama on Monday lauded the United States drone strike that killed the Afghan Taliban’s leader as “an important milestone.”

Counterinsurgency experts don't think the strike, by itself, will bring the Taliban to the bargaining table, as Mr. Obama urged in his statement. And some warn that even at their most successful, such targeted killings leave behind hatred that may later reemerge in more damaging forms. 

But some experts see drone strikes as a useful if controversial tool – and one of the few at the Obama administration's immediate disposal – to pressure the Taliban.

At a time when the Taliban controls more territory than at any time since 2001, the killing of Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Pakistan Saturday is a symbolic victory for the US and Afghan forces in their effort to stabilize Afghanistan.

Such strikes can help achieve several objectives, experts say. At the very least, they divert the focus of insurgent groups, forcing them to protect their leaders or to engage in leadership struggles. Senior Taliban leaders are trying to move quickly to name Mr. Mansour’s replacement, in the hope of preventing major fissures, according to reports.

In some instances, strikes against key terrorist leaders can cause the organization to collapse, draining it of expertise and leadership faster than it can be replenished.

"The Taliban should seize the opportunity to pursue the only real path for ending this long conflict – joining the Afghan government in a reconciliation process that leads to lasting peace and stability," Obama said.

But that is not likely to be the case with the Taliban, and Obama made no pronouncements that this was a game-changing moment.

Strikes such as the one Saturday can also bring challenges. They can be a boon for a terror recruitment, leading to more aggressive leaders and retaliation. Collateral damage to civilians, and killing terrorist leaders without due process, also can put the US in a negative spotlight.

Avi Dicter, former head of Israel’s internal security service, has made the case for killing terrorists when possible because there is a limited number of effective leaders – there is a “bottom to the barrel.”

But “the Dicter philosophy requires that the ‘barrel of terror’ be drained more quickly than it is refilled from the well of resentment,” Alex de Waal, executive director of the World Peace Foundation, wrote in a commentary last year.

So the effectiveness of drone strikes may hinge partly on how long-established a group is.

comprehensive study of targeted capture or kill strikes on insurgent-group leaders concluded that the strikes have played a significant role in diminishing the life of insurgent groups, wrote Brian C. Price at West Point’s Counter Terrorism Center in a 2012 Christian Science Monitor op-ed.

But his research also showed that this tactic was most effective when the groups were new – within their first 10 years. After 10 years, the effects were cut in half, and after 20 years such efforts were likely to have no effect on a group at all.

Based on those metrics, targeting the Taliban leadership might not be very effective as a core strategy. After being routed by US and Northern Alliance forces in 2001, the Taliban regrouped in 2003 and, especially since the drawdown of US forces in 2014, has continued to target US and Afghan forces. 

The US adopted the tactic of assassinating high-profile leaders of terror groups at the beginning of the war on terror, following a strategy Israel used after the start of the second intifada in 2000.

“Israel dramatically stepped up its targeting of Palestinian terrorists, killing more than 200 of them. This campaign worked. Targeted killings – combined with the security barrier, military operations, and improved intelligence – reduced Israeli deaths from a high of 172 in 2002 to less than 40 in 2005,” wrote Daniel Byman, director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, in a 2006 Los Angeles Times op-ed.  “Even more telling, this decline in deaths occurred during periods when the number of attempted attacks by Hamas increased, suggesting that the organization became less capable even though its hatred did not diminish.”

But since then, other instances have shown how, if hatred does not diminish, terror or insurgent groups often splinter and morph into newer and more violent forms. Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has seen the rise of Al Qaeda in Iraq and now Islamic State.

Still, in key places where the US is seeking to counter terrorism, governments often aren’t viable partners – making drone strikes something of a last resort.

“Too bad a silver bullet is exactly what the U.S. is counting on in countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Yemen, where a lack of reliable partners on the ground make other strategies impossible,” Slate’s Joshua Keating wrote.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to How much did the US gain by taking out a Taliban leader?
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2016/0523/How-much-did-the-US-gain-by-taking-out-a-Taliban-leader
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe