The recent U.S. drone strike that killed al-Qaida's No. 2 leader in Pakistan was by any measure a step forward in the war on terrorism.The attack also fueled the debate over the morality and effectiveness of remote-control warfare.
Pakistan registered its disapproval; and the ACLU renewed its argument that drone attacks create more enemies than they kill. What's missing from those arguments is a viable alternative.
Strikes from combat aircraft? No. Just last week, a NATO air attack in Afghanistan killed 18 civilians at a wedding. Drones are more precise. Commando operations? Vastly more difficult, more dangerous and less likely to succeed. Doing nothing? Not an option, given al-Qaida's continuing plots to attack the U.S.
That leaves drones, which have been a remarkably effective way to hunt down terrorist leaders and keep others cowering.
»Civilian casualties. Strikes aimed at terrorists but also kill non-combatants are enormously damaging to the United States. They turn local populations against the U.S. and pressure governments to stop cooperating with U.S. forces.
Accurate counts of civilian casualties are virtually impossible to get, but the U.S. appears to be making progress toward reducing what's euphemistically called collateral damage. The New America Foundation estimates that civilian deaths have fallen from half of all drone deaths in 2008 to fewer than 10 percent last year, a total of somewhere between 16 and 36 people.
No comments:
Post a Comment