For my English Composition II class, I had to write an essay proposing a solution to a problem. I chose the subject of drone strikes in Pakistan. I just finished it, and wanted to post it.
End Pakistan Drone strikes
After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States embarked on the war on terrorism, invading Afghanistan, and shredding the bill of rights. Troop presence in Afghanistan caused the enemy to seek refuge in the mountainous region of the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. This gave way for indiscriminate, extra-judicial killings, as the United States began, and expanded a program of air strikes from unmanned aerial predator drones. The United States should end the drone strikes in Pakistan, as they cause the death of innocent people, are unconstitutional extra-judicial killings, and they create more terrorism and hatred, rather than less.
Drone strikes in Pakistan kill and injure innocent men, women, and children. Since the drone war began in Pakistan under president Bush in 2004, an estimated two to three thousand people have been killed.1 The number of civilians varies from report to report, but according to Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik, up to eighty percent of the deaths from U.S. drone strikes have been civilians.2 Furthermore, a study at Stanford and New York University, titled
Living Under Drones, estimates only two percent of drone strike casualties in Pakistan are top militants, and the strikes have caused an increase in recruitment in violent, non-state armed groups.3 The most tragic thing about the drone strikes in Pakistan is the fact that poor, innocent children are killed, and the United States government continues to carry out the attacks. From 2004 to November 2012, 176 children had been killed in drone strikes in Pakistan.4
Drone strikes are unconstitutional extra-judicial killings. A secret panel of senior government officials maintains a secret list of individuals that can be targeted for drone strikes. No laws establish the authority, or rules for using the secret list, and American citizens can be placed on it as well. Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen, was placed on the kill list, and killed in a drone strike.5 The panel reviews the data, makes decisions on who should be killed, and president Obama can approve, or disapprove it. Respected lawyer, journalist, and author, Glenn Greenwald, calls the secret kill list “the most radical power a government can seize,” and goes on to explain how the Obama administration redefined a militant as any male of fighting age that is found to be in the strike zone of a drone missile.6 Arbitrarily placing people on a list of suspects to be killed in a drone strike is not due process. The constitution is supposed to guarantee due process for all Americans, and all people in the custody of the United States, but the federal government is violating the constitution in their drone attacks.
The drone war creates more terrorism. Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American who was convicted for attempting to detonate a car bomb in Times Square, on May 1st, 2010, said he would, “plead guilty 100 times because unless the United States pulls out of Afghanistan and Iraq, until they stop drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen, and stop attacking Mulsim lands, we will attack the United States and be out to get them”.7 Najibullah Zazi, an Afghan-American, was involved in a plot to carry out suicide bombings in the New York subway system. He wanted to join the Taliban to fight against the United States.8 He said of his motivations, “I would sacrifice myself to bring attention to what the United States military was doing to civilians in Afghanistan by sacrificing my soul for the sake of saving other living souls.”9 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a Chechen-American involved in the Boston Marathon bombing, cited U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq as motivations for the Boston attacks, when he left a note on the side of the boat he was hiding in when captured.10 Robert Grenier, who headed the CIA's counter-terrorism center from 2004 to 2006, and was previously a CIA station chief in Pakistan said of the Pakistan drone program, “We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan.”11
The United States federal government should end the drone strike program in Pakistan. Innocent men, women, and children have been killed in drone strikes by the hundreds. Such indiscriminate killing is unconstitutional, and extra-judicial, and creates more hatred and terrorism against the United States, and its people. Multiple terrorists who have conducted or tried to conduct terrorist attacks against the United States have cited the U.S. military presence and activity in the middle east as their motivations, and it makes perfect sense; if another country's government were conducted drone attacks against the United States, against the will of the U.S. citizenry, there would be mass hostility against the attacking government, and some people might try to plan their own attacks against it. Ending the drone strikes in Pakistan will save innocent lives, help reestablish the rule of law, and reduce terrorism.
Ending the drone war in Pakistan seems feasible, but vested interests might make it impossible. The Congressional Unmanned Systems Caucus is responsible for advocating drone policies, and is comprised of forty eight Congressional Representatives, and two leaders, Buck McKeon (CA co-chair), and Henry Cuellar (TX co-chair).12 Buck McKeon also chairs the House Armed Services Committee, which is responsible for funding and oversight of the Department Of Defense, the United States armed forces, and portions of the Department Of Energy.13 The Unmanned Systems Caucus includes eight members who also sit on the House Committee on Appropriations, which is in charge of setting specific monetary expenditures by the U.S. government.14 With members in other very influential caucuses, The Unmanned Systems Caucus can have influence in areas outside of the specifics of drones, such as budgeting for drones. An investigative report by the Center For Responsive Politics, and Hearst newspapers revealed that Unmanned Systems Caucus members received nearly $8 million dollars collectively in drone related campaign contributions.15 General Atomics, a defense contractor that supplies and maintains the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol's ten predator drones, is among the top three all time campaign contributors to Unmanned Systems Caucus members Brian Bilbray, Ken Calvert, Jerry Lewis, and co-chair, Buck McKeon.16 Since 2005, the federal government has awarded at least $12 billion dollars in drone related contracts, largely due to the lobbying and influence of defense contractors, and Congressional Representatives who represent their interests in The Unmanned Systems Caucus.17 Additionally, the Central Intelligence Agency is influential in drone policy. Director David Petraeus recently requested a one third increase in CIA drone fleet to maintain operations in Yemen and Pakistan, and to expand to regions in North Africa, if necessary.18 Such powerful and wealthy interests may make ending the drone strikes in Pakistan impossible, and will probably be influential in expanding the drone war even more.
The consequences for ending the drone strikes in Pakistan would be positive for some, especially for Pakistani citizens who live in fear of drone strikes. It would be beneficial to the relationship between Pakistan and the United States, as strikes are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty. It would also be beneficial to the vast majority of Americans, as continuing the drone strikes creates more terrorists seeking revenge. However, consequences would be negative for the vested interests that have great influence in drone related policies and appropriations, and sadly, their concerns are given more consideration by the U.S. government than the lives of innocent Pakistani men, women, and children, so the drone strikes will go on.
Former CIA director, and former Secretary Of Defense, Leon Panetta, defended the use of drones in Pakistan on June 6th 2012, at a conference at the Defense Ministry in New Delhi, India, saying, “We have made clear to the Pakistanis that the United States of America is going to defend ourselves against those who attack us … This is not just about protecting the United States. It’s also about protecting Pakistan. And we have made it very clear that we are going to continue to defend ourselves.”19 Mr. Panetta is ignoring the fact that terrorists have been carrying out, or attempting to carry out terrorist attacks against the United States, because of the U.S. military's occupations and activities in the middle east. He is also ignoring the fact that drone strikes in Pakistan violate Pakistan's sovereignty. Continuing drone attacks in Pakistan makes Americans less safe, not more. Panetta goes on to say, “Just as India views the relationship with Pakistan as complicated, so do we. And it is.” The relationship between Pakistan and the United States would improve if the drone strikes were ceased. Recently, Pakistani chief justice Dost Muhammad Khan ruled that U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are a war crime, a blatant violation of human rights, and he ordered the Pakistani government to forcefully convey to the United States that it must end the drone strikes in Pakistan.20 Leon Panetta also said of the United States, “The ability to return heroes to their loved ones is something that America deeply, deeply appreciates.” Where is the concern for innocent Pakistanis that have been killed in American drone strikes? Where is the display of empathy? It is entirely absent, and Leon Panetta ignores the truth of the consequences of the drone program, which is unfortunately all too common among members of the U.S. government.
In Conclusion, it is clear the United States government should end the drone strike program in Pakistan. Many innocent people have had their artificially cut short because of the drone strikes. The program strains relations between the United States and Pakistan, and creates more terrorism, rather than less. It is a failed program for all but the vested interests who keep it going, such as General Atomic, and the Unmanned Systems Caucus members. Their profits come at the expense of innocent lives, but such is the state of war, as war is the health of the state, and the death of the innocent.
Works Cited
1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
2.
http://rt.com/news/pakistan-civilian...ms-drones-695/
3.
http://www.livingunderdrones.org/report/
4.
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com...n-and-somalia/
5.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79475C20111005
6.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/3...cret_kill_list
7.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/21/opinion/terrorism-gerges
8.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02...lea/index.html
9.
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/23/n...rror.html?_r=0
10.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/natio...nnocent/65741/
11.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...acks-too-broad
12.
http://unmannedsystemscaucus.mckeon....mbership.shtml
13.
http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/about
14.
http://appropriations.house.gov/about/members/
15.
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/201...push-to-e.html
16.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/05...ds-washington/
17.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2012/jul/05...ds-washington/
18.
http://www.policymic.com/articles/16...ould-have-none
19.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/w...-pakistan.html
20.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-leg...-crime/5334665
