So as we’re talking about the apparently radicalizing effect of Pakistani drone strikes on buffoonish, International M.A.L.E.-shopping Pakistani terrorists, it’s worth noting that the CIA just launched another, uh, drone strike in Pakistan, the sign of an intensifying air war that was already really intense:
This second robotic strike in three days is the latest sign that the American drone war in Pakistan has reached a new peak. There have been 34 reported attacks in Pakistan in the first 19 weeks on 2010. That’s almost as many as the 36 strikes carried out in all of
20092008 And these strikes are no longer against specific, named terrorists. Signs of militant activity are enough to bring in the drones.
That’s a really accelerated tempo, meaning that two explanations are possible. Either the strikes have grown — how to put this? — less discriminate. Or the number of Pakistani, uh, people engaged in “militant activity” has increased significantly during the past 19 weeks. I suppose, to be charitable, a third explanation is that we’ve recently achieved a degree of visibility not previously obtained that lets us see deeper into the Pakistani “militant activity” network. But I’ll leave it for you to determine what’s most likely. [Update: it was like 50-odd strikes in 2009 in Pakistan; Noah has corrected his original graf.]
The case for the drone strikes is pretty straightforward, if not particularly compelling: we can’t invade Pakistan; the militants are there; what direct military pressure can we otherwise apply? John Rizzo, the former CIA general counsel and Marcy-target, made a version of that argument in a recent speech:
Given questions about casualties among women, children and civilians in the Predator attacks, Rizzo said, “it would seem to me that a cleaner and more effective and, in a perverse way perhaps a more humane way, was to train, for lack of a better term, hit squads . . . to find a high-value detainee and put a bullet in his head.”
You might also try a political/economic strategy, but that’s just me. And it still leaves you with the unpalatable immediate-term choice between blowback-laden Death from Above and Nothing Direct. (And by “Nothing Direct” I mean “the Pakistani military as well.) Still, there’s also got to be something between drastically accelerated drone strikes every time a new attack/attempt appears (FOB Chapman, Abdulmutallab, Shahzad) and Nothing Direct. No easy answers, just hard choices.



2 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Well, I’d like to note that one reason that the Times Square bombing was such a miserable failure is that AQ’s training and support network isn’t in very good shape, what with their middle management getting splattered all over the mountains of Waziristan and all. The more we force the central command to keep its head down and deep, deep in caves, the more they have to rely on attacks that are inspired by rather than coordinated and directed by al Qaeda.
Who said this was AQ?