Audacious propels drones, cowardice perishes intone!

Audacious propels drones, cowardice perishes intone!

Maimuna Ashraf

February 10, 2012 A verity well recognised has been officially acknowledged now; President Obama has admitted that US drone aircraft have hit Taliban and al-Qaeda targets within Pakistan. In October, US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta acknowledged the CIA’s drone programme but without specifically indicating where they were used in Pakistan, however now Obama has indicated that most of the strikes were in Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), 'Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone, a region where the capacities of the military in that country may not be able to get them’. The all lately said by Obama about use of drones in a chat with web users on Google + and YouTube, tells about Obama’s endeavour to better the notorious status of drones, to justify the 'blind weapon’, to tell its people that drone is perfectly hitting the extensive targets and to give an impression that American strategies and soldiers are really showing upshots. Nevertheless other than these, there are numerous other pros and cons implied by several queries.It is said by Obama "drones are the targeted focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists, who are trying to go in and harm Americans, hit American facilities, American bases and so on". If it is such an American centred strategy, then are we supposed to express joy that these drones are killing American enemies and securing Americans? What’s about Pakistan’s security? The drones are falling on Pakistan’s territory so what safety it is bringing for Pakistan? These drones are stated as targeted focused effort, so have these drones always focused its target and never killed any one beyond its target?Drone is an Unmanned Aircraft System or a remotely piloted aircraft. It functions either by the remote control of a navigator or pilot autonomously, as a self-directing entity. However using a pilotless machine to execute terrorists is a scariest move as drone warfare is becoming more automated and the lines of accountability becoming less clear. Many familiar with robotic warfare are incredulous about this claim. It is estimated that in near future drones with artificial intelligence would be able to take decision about a human whether the person is terrorist or not and to shoot the target or not. It will indeed be a dangerous escalation, as the human error in any machine can’t be neglected. It is said by a robot expert that 'some critics have worried that UAV operators – controlling drones from half a world away – could become detached and less caring about killing, given the distance, and this may lead to more unjustified strikes and collateral damage’. Isn’t the drone domination fanning the blind and dirty war? The man versus machine antagonism willresult in unpardonable, unlawful human homicides?In last year, 64 US missile strikes were reported in Pakistan’s tribal belt, down from 101 reported in 2010, according to AFP tallies. Aren’t these drone strikes less meddling than troop’s incursion? Isn’t it a cross border violation? Aren’t they infringing national and international law? Pakistan’s Foreign Office in response to Obama statement has called the strikes unlawful, counterproductive and hence unacceptable, however just condemning the act shows the dubious position of Pakistan on drones. Pakistan’s Prime Minister in a recent TV interview stated: 'It’s a wrong impression that Pakistan is supporting drone attacks, we have never allowed US to throw drones on us’. Does the PM statement somehow alternatively means that we have told them not to throw drones on us? Did we ever respond their infringement? Obama’s statement has somehow unveiled double standards of Pakistani government that kept on silently nodding on US drone attacks. Pakistani government that seems verbally assertive for making new provinces, why don’t make FATA a separate province and try to practise the writ of government and some laws so the others may not find any reason to say that 'Pakistan’s lawless tribal zone was the target’. US is targeting lawless zone but by violating international and domestic law, a fact internationally highlighted as well, recently The Sydney Morning Herald published a column of Justin Randle, that criticised United States spy agency CIA’s drone attacks inside Pakistan as illegal and outside the law. Likewise New York Times reporter, David Rohde who was kidnapped for seven months in Pakistan, avowed drones as a "terrifying presence". Obama stated 'drones had not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’. The statement strongly contradicts the reality. The lethal drones outfitted with Hellfire missiles mainly operates in north-west Pakistan. According to their own New America Foundation, an unbiased think tank in Washington, has figured out that these drone smacks have immensely shoot up under Obama’s administration, over past eight years the drone strikes in Pakistan have massacred at least 1,715 people, and injured 2,680. Another report published last year by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism demonstrated the figures killed by US drone strikes in Pakistan from 2004-mid 2011, it showed, between 392 and 781 killings were civilians and 175 were children (estimates a 32 per cent civilian death rate), while the CIA made claims that approximately 45 civilian were killed only. However the agency claimed 'we never make mistakes’.People of Pakhtun tribal belt have also spoken about the constant fear of death due to ongoing drone presence. Some months back, a 16-year-old Tariq Aziz with his 12-year-old cousin, Waheed Khan, were blown up by drones while they were travelling in car. Tariq was accumulating photographic evidence of the damage of drones’ strikes for the UK legal charity Reprieve. Was Tariq a militant or threat to Americans? Did he make a mistake to choose this work to do? Was he killed for some self-interest? When CIA relies on the reports of ground operatives and informants, chances of unreliable reports and innocent fatalities grows double. Study tells about many of such informants seeking their own interests by naming their opponents. Hence this strategy is not reliable, as said by a former director of US National Intelligence, Dennis Blair: "Drone strikes are no longer the most effective strategy for eliminating al-Qaeda’s ability to attack us."Defence Secretary once stated that al-Qaeda is no more stronger in Afghan-Pak tribal areas; its operational wing has been shifted to African countries, so whom they are killing here other than civilians? On one side, the US is seeking dialogues with the Taliban and on the other seeking their deaths by drone attacks. For US, calling civilian deaths as collateral damage is not justified and on our side calling it 'cowards’ war’ is not justified too, US drones cannot be a coward action; the US Military is impudently fighting its wars as designed. Cowardice lies nearer home, we need to charge our own establishment with cowardice and treason for foreign invasion and death of Pakistan’s citizens. Nonetheless, our weakness is frequently turning them more audacious and piercing us persistently.