US Drone Strikes: Victims Legitimacy?

“Drones kill innocent people and aggravate hatred”
Former American President _{Jimmy Carter}¹

Introduction
On 1^st of July 2016 US President Obama signed the executive order “United States policy on pre- and post-strike measures to address civilian casualties in US operations involving the use of force.” The initiative formalized and discussed the American policy towards dead and injured citizens during surgical strikes on foreign territories.²

At the same time the US National Intelligence Director issued the report about the number of such casualties all around the world except Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq from 2009 till 2015.³ It is remarkable that these statistics (64-116 persons) differ from the statistics by local and independent foreign rights watch organizations.⁴

The above mentioned official documents formed the legal ground to continue using force outside the US and legalize the casualties.

Summary of U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active Hostilities between January 20, 2009 and December 31, 2015
Total Number of Strikes Against Terrorist Targets Outside Areas of Active Hostilities	473
Combatant Deaths	2372-2581
Non-Combatant Deaths	64-116

The signed executive order (Obama law) is another effort to legalize forceful interference and extrajudicial executions. In any moral and legal debate there is no doubt that this act is against the norms of international law. Ridiculously, the biggest champion of human rights and so-called protector of international law, the United States of America is taking a different path to liberal commitments. Does this defiance of international law really create concerns for those who hold parallel responsibilities to preserve respect and dignity of humanity? Does anybody really care about this new phenomenon of US international commitments? This new drone policy is another effort to make excuses for victimizing innocent people, the irony is that this policy allows killing of innocents not during an open war but in peaceful time. Outrageously, this has been done in view of America’s national interests and national security threats. It is said but true that today Washington’s political priorities are no more planned in-context to protect international society rather it makes them prone to insecurity.

The policy is not about the type of weapons, for example UAVs but it is about the possibility to use the full specter of combat weapons including strategic ones within the US concept of “Prompt Global Strike”.

US Drone Strikes and Dilemma of Terrorism in Pakistan
Today, it is an understood norm of foreign policy that all national security objectives require huge funding including sizeable amount of financial allocation to mold public opinion both within the country and specifically for the nation being targetted. The US drone campaign in countries like Syria, Iraq and particularly in Pakistan is not an exception to that. Electronic and print media, civil society, intelligentsia, NGOs, INGOs, politicians, policy makers, bureaucracy, diplomats, etc., all means of public influence have been used and heavily financed to justify utilization of drones in Pakistan. As an independent observer of drone strikes that happened as an extended military strategy to counter terrorism, I am convinced about relying on unmanned vehicle technology to target terrorists’ hideouts but that does not mean authorization for killing innocent civilians.

The report of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a total lie and a summary of tampered facts. Pakistan has suffered beyond the literal meaning of the word ‘suffering’, its people have their beloved to uphold the peace and stability of the world while themselves living in trauma and fear of brutal terrorist attacks every day. Is that how the US administration appreciates and respects a nation whose physical, financial, political, military and emotional support against the war on terror has remained perpetual? 

The Presidential Executive Order and the DNI report is in no way a reflection of US political, financial, and diplomatic commitment towards the victims of drone strikes. The victims are in the thousands who directly or indirectly became victims of the US drone campaign in Pakistan.

U.S. drone strike statistics estimate, according to the New America Foundation
Total Drone Strikes	Militant Killed	Civilian Killed	Un-known Killed	Total Killed
404	1850-3079	255-315	176-278	2281-3672

Yearly estimate
		Casualties
Year	Attacks	Militants	Civilians	Other	Total
2004	1	3	2	2	7
2005	3	5	6	4	15
2006	2	1	93	0	94
2007	4	51	0	12	63
2008	36	223	28	47	298
2009	54	387	70	92	549
2010	122	788	16	45	849
2011	73	420	62	35	517
2012	48	268	5	33	306
2013	26	145	4	4	153
2014	22	145	0	0	145
2015	10	57	0	0	57
2016	3	8	0	0	8

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (BIJ) also estimates the following cumulative statistics about U.S. drone strikes⁶:

• Total strikes: 423

• Total killed: 2,497 – 3,999

• Civilians killed: 423 – 965

• Children killed: 172 – 207

• Injured: 1,161 – 1,744

• Strikes under the Bush Administration: 51

• Strikes under the Obama Administration: 372

• 84 of the 2,379 dead have been identified as members of al-Qaeda.

A formerly classified Pakistani government report obtained in July 2013 by the BIJ shows details of 75 drone strikes that occurred between 2006-09. According to the 12-page report, in this period 176 of the 746 reported dead were civilians.⁷

According to the Long War Journal,⁸ the Bureau of Investigative Journalism,⁹ and the New America Foundation,¹⁰ 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 had some of the highest civilian casualty ratios of any years. This ratio is only due to direct drone strikes but if we analyze data of terrorist attacks by militant organizations against which the US drones were operating they are devastatingly surprising.

For US political and military administrations, the repercussions in the aftermath of drone strikes never remained a national security priority. In fact, the Americans were familiar with the militants’ capabilities to retaliate, which have implications only for Pakistan, not for the USA. They (the US) were droning them (the militants) and the militants were taking revenge from the Pakistani society who was fighting and facilitating the global war against terrorism. So, why should the US bother about such a multiplicity of civilian causalities in Pakistan? Why would a nation that was directly affected by the US military campaign in Afghanistan, along with its extended drone strikes, become priority? After all in their (the US) constitutional obligation only the lives of Americans matter, the rest of the world is just a meadow for their political gambling.

The US drone strikes started in the month of June 2004 and since then are unfolding new episodes of trauma, pain, suffering, and devastation for affected families in particular and the nation as a whole. There have been almost 404 different occasions when the US violated Pakistan’s sovereignty through its drone strikes. In addition, there are also a few other violation such as the US Special Forces operation in Abbottabad (the OBL operation), the Salala incident, Raymond Davis, etc. Keeping in view the US military actions it seems clear that the US war on terror is different than the global war on terror; at least in the context to Pakistan this assumption appears to be very true. Let us examine how Pakistan is directly affected by the post 9/11 war on terror. The below mentioned chronological order of terrorist attacks, as an aftermath of US war on terror will give us an idea of how Pakistan has suffered. The plea here is that the factor of revenge that militant organizations carried against the USA was in fact taken from Pakistan.

Fatalities in Terrorist Violence in Pakistan 2003-2016¹¹

Years	Civilians	Security Force Personnel	Terrorists/Insurgents	Total
2003	140	24	25	189
2004	435	184	244	863
2005	430	81	137	648
2006	608	325	538	1471
2007	1522	597	1479	3598
2008	2155	654	3906	6715
2009	2324	991	8389	11704
2010	1796	469	5170	7435
2011	2738	765	2800	6303
2012	3007	732	2472	6211
2013	3001	676	1702	5379
2014	1781	533	3182	5496
2015	940	339	2403	3682
2016	608	290	872	1770
Total	21485	6660	33319	61464

The US Presidential executive order signed on 1^st of July, 2016 only highlights its policy on pre- and post-strike measures to address civilian casualties in US operations involving the use of force but fails to identify the devastation by militant organizations in the aftermath of US use of drone strikes.¹² In the case of Pakistan more than 60,000 civilians, including law enforcement officials, have had to give their lives. Has any though been given to their contributions and life insurance commitments? The American policy towards dead and injured citizens during surgical strikes on foreign territories is even not ideally fulfilled. How can the policy gaps like compensating for the lives of indirect sacrifices will be compensated?

On the other hand the Director of National Intelligence (NDI) report also lacks the credibility to identify the actual number of casualties all around the world, particularly in the case of Pakistan.¹³ As the above mentioned data is clearly suggesting the other way around from the NDI statistics (Non-combatant deaths: 64-116 persons) and differs a lot from statistics given by the local and independent foreign rights watch organizations.¹⁴

Pakistan’s Response
The Pakistani government and the military reacted calmly with traditional comments of condemnation which also contained some negative expressions regarding American UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) battle drones on Pakistani territory. In fact, no particular counter measures were undertaken to oppose the new hostile US policy.

Obviously, there are some contradictions between US and Pakistan. Islamabad has to get involved decisively if it is to prevent Washington’s brutal anti-terrorism methodology based intrusions into sovereignty of other countries and conducting of illegal and inhuman operations causing vast number of innocent casualties. Pakistan should openly criticize the above mentioned documents and underline that it will be unacceptable for American troops to act in so-called self defence, without necessary endorsement from the government of that particular country. Otherwise such actions must be considered as an act of aggression against sovereignty of the nation concerned.

The methodology in the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) report civilian victim’s calculation is also under question, firstly because of its reliability and transparency which leads to lack of credibility and verification. These reports contain insufficient details regarding each country, there is no list containing names, dates and places of their deaths.¹⁵

What we can see is only the world famous super reliable American phrase: “according to credible intelligence sources…” This phrase has discredited itself a long time ago due to numerous reasons which convinced the international community that US intelligence data regarding external conflicts has nothing to do with reality. Consider the recent CIA claim about US Presidential elections that Moscow rigged the elections and provided an opportunity for Donald Trump¹⁶.…. what a disgrace and dishonor to the American people who elected Donald Trump as their future US President.

There many be millions who buy such fictitious distractions but not Pakistan. Pakistani courts have to deal with hundreds of unresolved criminal cases initiated by locals who lost their relatives and damages to property as a direct result of US drone strikes on the sovereign Pakistani territory.

Regarding the official statements by the While House about Washington’s close cooperation with corresponding non-governmental organizations to collect information about casualties and cases relating to property damage – in fact no such activity is taking place in Pakistan. None of the humanitarian organizations specializing on UAV strikes in the region have received any clear instructions from Washington regarding such cooperation. This is just another proof of the low credibility of the DNI report.

Islamabad should not accept the US report on UAV victims abroad and instead prepare its own report containing evidence based on facts and sufferings of the Pakistani people. Additionally Islamabad should also pursue the absolute necessity of endorsement of any drone strike on its own territory and absolute transparency before, during and after the strikes.

Word byword analysis of the above mentioned American laws and documents clearly identifies Washington’s “double standard policy” regarding human rights watch organizations. On the one hand Washington trusts the figures of civilian victims in Syria collected by non-commercial structures financed by the West – for example London based Syrian Human Rights Watch Center. On the other hand, Washington ignores the proven fact on hundreds of Pakistani killed during UAV strikes. To rub salt in wounds, the White House states that the Pakistani data is unreliable and a propaganda of terrorists! Pakistan has never hesitated acting against terrorists and as part of the global war on terror it is the only nation to have contributed the most. In return the Pakistani nation has suffered the most from US drone strikes. It was not Pakistan who brought the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, it is the United States of America. Even if CIA, Pentagon, and Washington were confident that terrorists in these countries deserved drone strikes, it should have targetted them instead of destroying the homes of innocent civilians and taking their lives. The US drone strikes in fact have provided terrorists with an opportunity to recruit more and more civilians, especially those whose families were killed in the strikes.

If we want to move forward, we have to oppose double standards and insist on taking into account only data provided by local and internationally recognized institutions under UN law. In this regard we can appeal to the reports regarding extrajudicial executions issued by B. Emerson and K. Heinz – special representatives of Human rights council in 2015.¹⁷

On the one hand the Executive Order takes some blame for the casualties among civilians but on the other hand it totally rejects any possibility of punishing the responsible persons judicially or paying back as compensations to relatives according to the court decisions. The Americans are always ready to apologize for their mistakes, at times they do voluntarily pay compensation but the amount is again decided by Washington, not by the court. Even this limited expression of compensation is not fair because the decision-making authority lies with the violator not with victim.

Immediate Options for Pakistan: Conclusion
While conventional warfare has an established body of legal precedence, the legality of drone strikes by the United States in Pakistan and elsewhere remains ambiguous.¹⁸ The legal and political issues surrounding the use of drones in Pakistan needs serious attention by the policy making institutions. The use of drones could help USA achieve its political and national security interests but for Pakistan the social fabrication over US drone strikes has developed ideological and security fault lines that need to be catered through serious decision making. As the investigation of this article concludes that in all domains the use of drones has brought no benefits to the ongoing war on terror but vulnerabilities for Pakistan. Hence, the US practice is against the norms of international treaty law and customary international law and Pakistan must break its silence. Furthermore, due to unaccountability of drone strikes in Pakistan, the United States is in non-compliance with international humanitarian law. Pakistan must therefore immediately follow these policy steps:

i. Pakistan should try and finalize all cases in the format of court hearings and urge the US government to pay compensations to all victims in a fair manner.
ii. Create a special federal law prohibiting any foreign forces from conducting any operations on Pakistani land without Islamabad’s judicial permission.

Bibliography
Ahmed Shah, Sikander. International Law and Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The Legal and Socio-political Aspects. Routledge Research in the Law of Armed Conflict.

Al-Rasheed, Madawi and Marat Shterin (eds.) Dying for Faith: Religiously Motivated Violence in the Contemporary World. London: I.B. Tauris, 2009.

Bongar, Bruce, et al. (eds.) Psychology of Terrorism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

Chamayou, Grégoire. A Theory of the Drone

David Cortright, Rachel Fairhurst, and Kristen Wall(edt.). Drones and the Future of Armed Conflict: Ethical, Legal, and Strategic Implications. University of Chicago Press.

Gusterson, Hugh. Drone: Remote Control Warfare. MIT Press.

Griset, Pamala L. and Sue Mahan. Terrorism in Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2003.

Peter L. Bergen and Daniel Rothenberg. Drone Wars: Transforming Conflict, Law, and Policy.
Cambridge University Press.

Scahill, Jeremy. Dirty Wars: The World Is A Battlefield

Scahill, Jeremy. The Assassination Complex: Inside the Government’s Secret Drone Warfare Program. Simon and Schuster.

Woods, Chris. Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars.

End Notes
¹ Chris Gentilviso, “Jimmy Carter: Drones Create More Terrorists,” The Huffington Post (March 25, 2014). Avaialable online at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/25/jimmy-carter-drones_n_5028275.html (Accessed on December 15, 2015)
² Executive Order—United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force—available online at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures (Accessed on December 2, 2016).
³ Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active Hostilities—available online at: https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/reports-and-publications/214-reports-publications-2016/1392-summary-of-information-regarding-u-s-counterterrorism-strikes-outside-areas-of-active-hostilities (Accessed on December 2, 2016)
⁴ Sarah Knuckey, “The Good and Bad in the US Government’s Civilian Casualties Announcement,” Just Security (July 02, 2016). Available online at: http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/02/good-and-bad-us-governments-civilian-casualties-announcement (Accessed on December 2, 2016).
⁵ “Drone Wars Pakistan: Analysis,” New America Foundation, available online at: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan-analysis.html#page1 (accessed on December 15, 2016)

⁶ For more details please visit Bureau of Investigative Journalism, available online at: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-pakistan/ (accessed on December 15, 2016).
⁷ Chris Woods, “Leaked Pakistani report confirms high civilian death toll in CIA drone strikes” Bureau of Investigative Journalism (July 22, 2013). Available online at: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/07/22/exclusive-leaked-pakistani-report-confirms-high-civilian-death-toll-in-cia-drone-strikes/ (Accessed on December 15, 2016)
⁸ Detailed analysis is available in the Long War Journal, at: http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes (Accessed on December 15, 2016)
⁹ Detailed analysis is available in Bureau of Investigative Journalism, at: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-pakistan/ (accessed on December 15, 2016).
¹⁰ Detailed analysis is available in New America Foundation, at: http://securitydata.newamerica.net/drones/pakistan-analysis.html#page1 (accessed on December 15, 2016)
¹¹ Detailed analysis is available in South Asia Terrorism Portal, at: http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/casualties.htm (Accessed on December 15, 2016)
¹² Executive Order—United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force—ibid.
¹³ Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active Hostilities—ibid.
¹⁴ South Asia Terrorism Portal, ibid.
¹⁵ Summary of Information Regarding U.S. Counterterrorism Strikes Outside Areas of Active Hostilities, Ibid.
¹⁶ Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima and Greg, “MillerSecret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House,” Washington Post (December 9, 2016). Available online at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html (Accessed on December 9, 2016).
¹⁷ For more details please see, United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. Available online at: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Executions/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx (Accessed on December 10, 2016).
¹⁸ Sikander Ahmed Shah, International Law and Drone Strikes in Pakistan: The Legal and Socio-political Aspects (Routledge Research in the Law of Armed Conflict), p-26.