WHAT THE PAPERS SAY: Cheap drones a follow up to the Big Mac?

The Week, May 14
A recent survey suggests that 75% of Pakistanis dislike the USA and it's mainly because of drones.

NAWAZ SHARIF, the winner of the Pakistani general election, and his rival for power, the ex-cricketer Imran Khan, may be squabbling over the results but they are absolutely agreed on one thing – the use of armed drones by the USA in Pakistan is both an infringement of their national sovereignty and counter-productive in the 'war on terror'.

In Pakistan, opposition to armed drones has become mainstream despite the initial reluctance of powerful political and military vested interests to criticise America.

The Americans use armed drones – usually carrying 'Hellfire' missiles – in Afghanistan/Pakistan in three main ways: to provide close air support to ground troops attacking or coming under attack; for aerial patrolling, loitering in likely hot-spots looking for suspicious activity (militants preparing an ambush, say, on an American convoy); and for targeted assassination, the killing of militant leaders based on intelligence. This takes place mainly in Waziristan, a wild and mountainous Pakistani province bordering Afghanistan, parts of which are controlled by the Taliban.

Only a human rights fundamentalist could object to the first two – normal military practice. When in direct support of ground troops, drones generally work well. A drone operator back at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada has a straightforward task – with experienced and well-trained GIs supplementing his surveillance – and the locals tend to stay out of the way if they can.
The ghastly accidents that have caused so much resentment, including mistakenly targeting wedding parties, tend to happen when using the third technique – targeted assassinations.
They often take place in remote areas and the drone operator has to make the call on his own without any context or help from the ground. It's much easier to get it tragically wrong – not helped by the fact that many tribesmen routinely carry weapons. A recent survey suggests that nearly 75 per cent of Pakistanis dislike the USA and it's mainly because of drones.
Identification of militant leaders through intelligence work is meant to be fairly reliable. Drones, with their powerful radar and photographic equipment, are said by their supporters to have a good record at identifying the bad guys.

But even where a senior militant leader has been correctly identified and then targeted for assassination there is always a risk of innocents being caught up in the explosions.
The figures are disputed, needless to say, but the law departments of Stanford and New York universities concluded in a report published last year that only two per cent of the victims were actually high-ranking al-Qaeda or Taliban operatives. Most of the dead were either low-level fighters or unconnected civilians. The White House conveniently categorizes any dead adult male as a 'militant' – which seems unlikely.

We know from various accounts that one of the reasons President Obama was reluctant to use drones or conventional aircraft to attack Osama bin Laden's compound in Abbottabad in 2011 was the risk that women and children living in the compound might be killed. It's a shame these considerations are not used for assassinations further down the list. At least 100 children have died in Pakistan as a result of drone attacks.

A two per cent hit rate is not impressive. Is it worth it? Counter-terrorist warfare has at its heart one simple idea – reducing support for the terrorists, not bolstering it.

Even if the drone war is doing the right thing abroad, it leads to moral corruption at home. The militants to be killed are held on a list kept at the White House and prepared by the US intelligence community. President Obama and his advisers select the targets from a 'matrix' – like filling in lottery numbers. This cannot be either right or healthy – more Cosa Nostra than US Constitution.
For now it's a matter of "Whatever happens, we have the unmanned drone and they don't". But for how long will that remain the case?

At one time automatic weapons were very expensive and difficult to design and maintain. They were found only in the most sophisticated armies. Then along came the Kalashnikov in 1946. Much the same process is under way with drones. Cheap and easy-to-operate drones are proliferating – they're even used by the Indian forestry service to monitor endangered rhinos – and it can't be long before our enemies adapt them to their own purposes.
American taste has proved hugely influential down the years: the Western, jazz, nylon stockings, Walt Disney and the Big Mac swept all before them. Here's hoping America's predilection for targeted assassination on a large scale by remote control proves less successful.