 |
| Chinese Wing Loong UCAV (File Photo) |
By Duan Xiaolin
Although convenient in fighting terrorism, the U.S. and others need to consider the broader implications of drone warfare.
During his four-day visit to Washington in late October, Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif emphasized “the need for an end” to America’s drone strikes. U.S. President Barack Obama did not respond directly, but both sides agreed to develop bilateral relations and step up anti-terrorism cooperation. Given Washington’s approval of $1.6 billion in military and development aid to Pakistan, tensions appear to be under control for now. Still, continued drone strikes appear very likely to trigger more ructions between the two countries, as tactical counterterrorism needs trump more strategic interests. Indeed, drone warfare generally has the potential to heighten regional risks and even threaten global peace and stability.
Unlike the “boots on the ground” strategy employed by predecessor George W. Bush in his War on Terror, Obama has relied heavily on the use of drones to eliminate high-value targets (HVTs). Members of the Obama administration have apparently described drone warfare as “efficient, and even morally necessary, given the state of the U.S. economy and the war-weariness of the American people.” Other factors may also contribute to this policy option: Americans’ zero- tolerance for terrorism (especially real or rhetorical threats to homeland security), strong domestic anti-war sentiment, and low tolerance for suffering. The use of drones began with the Bush administration, but has been stepped up considerably during Obama’s presidency. Today, the U.S. has acknowledged drone use in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, and has allegedly used them in Libya and Mali. Since 2009, the CIA has launched 239 strikes into Pakistan, and the U.S. Navy launched 145 strikes in NATO’s Libya operations.
Read the full 2 page story at The Diplomat