Let’s step into the 21st century, an era of expeditiously changing war and geo-strategic dynamics. The recent US airstrike targeting the Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour within Pakistani territory has re-sparked the debate regarding the legitimacy of top priority airstrikes on another country’s soil. Obama has termed it a ‘milestone for Afghan peace’, defending the CIA’s action by claiming that the country will go after its enemies, ‘wherever they are.’ Pakistan, on the contrary, produced a strong reaction against it, terming it as a breach of their sovereignty, with the Interior Minister Chaudry Nisar slamming the US government for not notifying Pakistan beforehand. In this battle following the airstrike on the Taliban Emir, one must wonder, which side is right and why? Shouldn’t the death of one of the most renowned global terrorists be a win-win situation for both parties, plagued by years of terrorism? Did the unprecedented opportunity of targeting one of the biggest terrorist leaders give the US a moral right to lead a drone strike in another country? Or should it have considered Pakistan’s sovereignty and integrity beforehand, prior to leading the strike? These are some tough questions which not only both countries need to answer, but have become imperative to resolve given the vacillating war dynamics of the 21st century.
Let’s reflect on the US point of view. The US claims that it has mostly utilized its drone surveillance and attack technology to target only militants that are a threat to the US in Afghanistan and its strategic interests in the region. However, it doesn’t deny the death of innocent civilians in the process; the numbers of which according to the US are quite a few. While the tribal areas of Pakistan are a common target for the US drones operated all the way from its base in Nevada, the attack on 22nd of May came as a surprise, as the operation was conducted in an area not frequently used in drone strikes. Furthermore, even if the area was a common target, it does not save the US from justifying its military action within another sovereign state. Conversely, to respond to some of these criticisms, it is important to note that the US General Eric Holder claimed that the US is at war with a ‘stateless enemy’ and so is prone to shifting operations from country to country. Thus, the United States may strike at al-Qaida wherever it may be – even within the borders of another sovereign state. When possible, the United States does seek permission to launch drone strikes on foreign soil, but as Holder said, if a “nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States,” then an attack may proceed.
So how does one analyze this justification? While it is true that national sovereignty should be esteemed by all and the home country should be informed prior to any large-scale operations, I still personally believe that given the circumstances, the US had little choice than to attack its enemies in the region other than drone strikes. Yes, there are innocent casualties, and there is no denying their number – The New America Foundation reports that 396 drone strikes in Pakistan have killed roughly 2,200-3,600 individuals, of which about 250-300 were civilians. The Bureau for Investigative Journalism counts 415 drone strikes since 2004 that have killed approximately 2,500-4,000 individuals, of which about 400-950 were civilians. But has there been any war in history where innocents were not slaughtered? Or a country’s borders not violated?
It is quite imperative here that we reflect on the alternatives if any. The US could either totally bomb that given area or collaborate with the Pakistani government to launch a grand scale military operation – both of which would result in massive casualties than the drone option. Not to mention the enormous cost of deploying the latter. And if the target is located far from civilian life, the latter two options would be relatively time-consuming, with a risk of the target getting away. Furthermore, drones provide a comprehensive strategy to target only a specified area or location, not only mitigating collateral damage but also reducing the need for ‘boots on the ground.’
However, this by no means implies that the US should be given a free hand to violate any country’s sovereignty whenever and where it likes. Although options are limited, drone warfare could prove to be highly successful in targeting high-priority threats if collaboration with the Pakistani authorities is reached with both sides reaching a mutually satisfying conclusion to the issue. Trust is imperative here, for the future of the region to be fruitful. Pakistan itself has utilized many drones for hitherto military operations and is likely to use them more in the future. Both countries need to acknowledge the fact that it’s enemy is indeed a stateless enemy – conventional strategies of war would be of little use against it. If properly utilized, drone technology could pave the way for successful military missions unprecedented in the history of war.
Yes, there would be repercussions and damages. People would die, with the civilian spree spiking up. Nobody could ignore the massive innocent casualties and protests in Pakistan over drone strikes. Amnesty International has classified many of these strikes as illegal, and they are quite right in doing so. However, the dynamics of the war on terror is changing in the Muslim world, and we need to find a long-term solution for it. Drones could be a viable option, but nobody really knows what the future holds.
