US drone attack kills 18 in restive North Waziristan, despite Pakistan protests
US missiles killed 18 suspected militants near the Afghan border, just a day after the Pakistan government summoned a US diplomat to protest the use of drone attacks.
(Page 2 of 2)
Drones are seen as more efficient than sending in US troops, Mr. McDonald notes:Skip to next paragraph
Latin America Editor
Whitney Eulich is the Monitor's Latin America editor, overseeing regional coverage for CSMonitor.com and the weekly magazine. She also curates the Latin America Monitor Blog.
Russia boosts its naval presence in Syria, sends regime new missiles (+video)
Afghanistan blast targets NATO convoy, kills at least 6 (+video)
I spy, you spy: Russian officials downplay Fogle incident
Syrian rebel's video surfaces amid intensified pressure for action on Syria
A flurry of diplomacy over Syria, but will it amount to progress?
Subscribe Today to the Monitor
Conventional wisdom seems to suggest that drones are a useful and effective way of combating the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, especially in remote terrain and difficult warscapes. Get in, gather the intel, launch a surgical strike, get out, no troops lost.
“Any time you can use a drone instead of using a Marine, I think it’s a good thing,” said Stephen A. Cheney, a retired Marine general who is CEO of the American Security Project, a research group in Washington.
“Policymakers like drones because they are considered an efficient, effective way to gather intelligence and target suspected terrorists,” said a fact sheet recently published by the security project.
Drones also can be deployed (or reassigned) quickly. Their missiles are relatively precise. They are seen as better data collectors than ground-based sources. And they don’t get tired.
But despite all the potential “pluses” to implementing drone strikes, there are many costs, McDonald points out. Targeted killing can have large social and political costs in the country where they take place, and some question whether the potential negatives are worth the security achieved.
Are drone strikes legally and morally defensible? There has recently been some reporting that suggests drone pilots are now carrying out “double-tap” attacks, firing on people who arrive to help the wounded from an initial strike, or to carry away the dead, or to salvage vehicles and equipment.
And what of the collateral damage at home? Even thought they fly their drones remotely, nearly half of all Reaper, Predator and Global Hawk operators report “high operational stress,” as my colleague Elisabeth Bumiller has reported.
Another issue concerns targeting. Is the intelligence on the ground reliable? Men with weapons “acting suspiciously” – is this reason enough to fire at them?
And what about compensation for collateral damage and civilians being killed in drone strikes? Merely establishing that real, identifiable innocents have been killed can be problematic, especially in the tribal areas where physical access is difficult and census records are unreliable.
“If we kill someone innocent, there should be compensation,” says Ms. Fair. “We do it in Afghanistan.”
Pakistani intelligence said today’s drone-fired missiles hit three suspected militant hideouts, and that each of the compounds were hit by two missiles. These hideouts are frequently used by militants crossing into Afghanistan, reports AP. An additional 14 people were injured in the attacks.
Pakistan’s Foreign Office Spokesman Muazzam Khan said today that it has been in contact with the US over the use of drones and that they are reviewing different options, according to Pakistan’s News International.
Making a Difference