President Obama is pursuing a dangerous and reckless course of action in Pakistan hoping to get a lucky kill on a top level terrorist that he can turn into political domestic advantage. While the Obama administration is complaining about the Bush administration giving a few admitted terrorists some pain, his reckless policy of escalating drone attacks in Pakistan has falsely claimed to have killed many terrorists but instead has only inflamed the Pakistani population against the U.S. Ironically his decisions may put him at risk of being labeled a war criminal by the international community.
Some time ago I was a consultant in the Middle East when I met three young sisters who had been horribly disfigured and lost portions of limbs from a misdirected attack by American forces that killed their parents as well. Despite their suffering they remained very much pro-American because they saw the intervention of the United States to help Kuwait as having good intentions and themselves as more the victim of the Iraqi Army then a U.S. mistake. I have mixed feelings about writing about this issue having served in the U.S. Army and want to make clear that my goal here is to criticize not our American military or intelligence forces but the commander in chief who is directing them. When Obama took office he clearly had the information in front of him that would have prescribed he take a different course of action than his current one. Bush had seen the effect of drone attacks and by June of 2008 was considering cutting back on their use.
I fear what could happen to a American soldier who is captured by a Pakistani village which has been attacked by drones. The Muslim teaching clearly separates warriors from civilians. This is one of the reasons Muslim faithful condemn terrorists who kill innocent civilians. Although liberal media types like Keith Olbermann say that waterboarding terrorist will create a Muslim backlash the truth is that a crime against an unarmed civilian in their eyes is a hundred times worse than abusing a fighter. Harsh interrogation of a combatant who you would try to kill on the battlefield is a universe away from Obama killing innocent children hoping to get a trophy. What is the difference between the Obama drone attacks and urban gangs who barrage homes in a neighborhood with gunfire? These drone attacks do much more than any complaints of harsh interrogation to degrade our standing in the world.
As an Army officer, I was taught a basic rule of engagement that before attacking urban areas we were supposed to evacuate civilians or warn them to take cover. If there were civilians in the area our duty was to use the minimum of force needed to accomplish the mission. The use of drone surprise attacks with significant heavy civilian casualties in urban areas would seem to be a violation of this rule. Traditionally bombing of targets was done to destroy a fixed structure such as a factory or large fighting force. The use of drones as snipers to target individuals is not a valid analogy. It appears that most of the attacks occur without immediate visual confirmation of the individual targeted and often rely on intelligence that may be hours to days old as to whether the target is in a building or not.
I am convinced that had John McCain won the Presidency the current Pakistani dilemma in which we find ourselves would be different. Obama and his media allies are acting more than dishonorable by questioning the motives and the methods of President Bush even to the extent of calling him criminal, while at the same time demolishing any sense of honor that many moderate Muslims once held for America by the senseless escalation of drone attacks.
The Obama administration has indicated that only 100 innocent civilians have been killed accidentally by drone attacks but evidence is beginning to come from moderate intellectuals who would normally be considered strong supporters of the U.S. policy that the number of civilian casualties caused by actions taken by the Obama administration since his inauguration have resulted in thousands of casualties. This week the Afghan Ambassador to the United States told the Obama administration that drone attacks were killing 48 civilians for every terrorist killed. He described that out of 60 attacks carried out between 2006 and 2009 only ten were able to hit their targets.
A defense analyst who wished to remain anonymous today in a leading Pakistani moderate newspaper is saying that the very few Taliban are being killed in comparison to civilian or even Pakistani security forces. As a result of U.S. drone attacks and Pakistani military action he states that in Swath region of Northern Pakistan instead of 100 civilians that actually 12,000 civilians have been killed while security forces have lost 200 and the Taliban only 75 fighters. He paints a grim picture of messy massive attacks that contrast greatly with the Obama administration’s picture of precise strikes.
On August 13, 2007 then candidate Senator Barack Obama made the following statement “We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there”. Pakistani leaders anticipated that a President Obama would be sensitive to civilian casualties but instead have become openly frustrated with the American President.
Today an editorial in the International News from Pakistan is actually advocating that all American CIA be withdrawn from Pakistan and that Pakistan actively shoot down any American drones operating within Pakistan. The writer points out since the drone attacks escalation by Obama, villagers who never before supported the Taliban are now contributing to buy the Taliban food, clothing, and ammunition.
Despite the advice of Senator John McCain and input from many other military advisers President Obama has continued to increase the number of attacks on villages. The New York Times and the Washington Post among others have said that there is covert agreement with the Pakistani government to carry on the attacks. More and more the situation appears that the Pakistani government has been tolerating the attacks as a condition for continued military aid and humanitarian aid. Moderate leaders in Pakistan are desperate now because popular opinion against any American influence in the region is overflowing.
Consistently many news sources have reported that Obama meets with his Principals Committee every Tuesday to specifically discuss how the operation (not called war) in Pakistan should be carried out. The Obama friendly media such as the New York Times repeatedly say he has many options and is studying the matter. These discussions remain secret but reports in the media have suggested that not all his national security experts agree with his decision to “ramp up drone attacks”.
A concern that has been brought up is that there is a considerable technology difference between the older version drone MQ-1C Warrior which was associated with several embarrassing incidents for the United States in its use in Iraq and the new MQ-9 Reaper. Amnesty International and admittedly leftist journalists like Diana Lee claim that the CIA often uses the older unreliable drones in poor conditions with poor intelligence in effect to take a pot shot at a village hoping to kill a terrorist. CIA operations and which drone they are actually using are kept top secret so there is no way to verify or disprove this claims. But a review of the 9/11 commission report done 2004 estimated that at least for the older version of the drone missions there was a failure about 33% of the time at hitting the correct target.
The armament of the drones is the Hellfire missile which is classified technically as a thermobaric weapon. They are designed to kill everyone inside buildings by dispersing a fine aluminum powder upon entry into the structure and then igniting it with 18 to 20 pounds of high explosive. Jim Grimbschaw of Lockheed Martin has been quoted as describing the effect “capable of reaching around corners to strike enemy forces hiding in cases, bunkers and hardened multi-room complexes.” They have been the subject of controversy because the United States and other nations may be bound by treaty not to use thermobaric weapons under United Nations agreements which can bind member nations even they are not signatories to specific treaties. Even though the manufacturer calls them thermobaric, the government of the United States and Britain have instead officially called them an “enhanced blast weapon”.
Thermobaric weapons were initially used and developed by the Soviet Union for use against in Afghanistan. Subsequently they received world wide condemnation when Russia used them against civilian populations in Chechnya. Senator Barack Obama voted for legislation in 2006 that would have effectively put the Cluster Munitions Treaty which bans thermobaric weapons in effect for the United States. Although most of the U.S. military allies have signed the treaty which was formed in 2008, President Obama has not. President Obama’s continued use of thermobaric weapons in Pakistan, however could put him at risk of a war crimes accusation by European or United Nations law.
If we are to retain the world reputation of the United States and try to save moderate influence in Pakistan there must be an immediate change of strategy by the Obama administration. More and more the Obama administration in Pakistan is beginning to look like the Johnson administration that failed in Vietnam.
Dr. Tony Magana was raised in McAllen Texas, attended Texas A&M;University, and holds a doctorate from Harvard University. He has served in the United States Army Reserve. He is a member of the National Association of Hispanic Journalists.
