Following Pervez Hoodbhoy's recent article in support of US drone attacks on Paistani Taliban militants, London-based writer Naeem Malik argues that drones are part of the problem, not the solution.

As U.S. plans its withdrawal from Afghanistan, we need to ask the question whether drones would replace the withdrawn U.S. troops. Are those supporting drones risking a perpetual war for the region?

Originally published by Viewpoint

I read the Viewpoint issue 27 with US drone attacks on Pakistan as the theme. The articles and particularly the editorial missed the essence of the drone attacks and the danger these drone attacks and U.S. occupation pose to peace in the region and the world.

We need to have a comprehensive understanding of the drones and their use in today’s warfare. Pakistan is not the only country in which drones are used. Israel has used drones against Palestinians. The USA has used them in Yemen.Turkey is buying drone technology from Israel. Drones in some ways are no different to other forms of warfare. It is reported that the Saudis may also get the same technology from the Israelis. Ultimately in all attacks on civilian areas, people get killed. Everybody killed is innocent. Every death is illegal. This is not to say that those killed were not militant, Arabs or foreigners. It is to assert that the maxim innocent until proven guilty applies to everybody equally.

Unless a properly constituted legal process declares these individuals guilty of a crime, no state has a right to execute them summarily. It is not sufficient in any law to declare somebody a terrorist and shoot him or her down from the safety of an office in Arizona. The principal difference between remote controlled warfare and the conventional one is that whereas a fighter plane pilot faces the possibility of being killed, injured or taken prisoner no matter how remote. The operator directing a drone from the safety of a control room thousands of miles away faces no such risk. This, therefore, makes a drone much more dangerous for world peace.

Both U.S. and Israel use this technology for that very reason. Israel employs young women to control drone attacks thus avoiding political embarrassment of putting young women in dangerous situations. One of the reasons why the U.S. was ultimately forced to withdraw from Vietnam is the number of casualties it experienced in Vietnam.

The drones ultimately allows the USA and its allies to attack others at very little cost to themselves in human terms. As U.S. plans its withdrawal from Afghanistan, we need to ask the question whether drones would replace the withdrawn U.S. troops. Are those supporting drones risking a perpetual war for the region? Mary Dudziak, quoted in the New Yorker of the 26^th October 2009, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, argue that the Predator strategy has a larger political cost. As she puts it, “Drones are a technological step that further isolates the American people from military action, undermining political checks on ... endless war.”

Secondly, we need to ask some pertinent questions. Is the U.S. occupation the driving force for the violence that is so prevalent on either side of the Durand line? Or is U.S. responding to some other threat in the region? If a country is occupied what form of resistance can be expected from those that are occupied? Why only the Western powers have the right to defend themselves against any perceived threat with whatever they can muster including nuclear weapons? Whereas those occupied cannot respond except in ways their occupiers deem legal and appropriate?

Thirdly, Pakistan’s ruling elite, both civilian and military, supports the occupation of Afghanistan. Indeed, the U.S. cannot maintain the occupation of Afghanistan without Pakistan’s logistic support. Is that the reason behind the violence we see in Pakistan today?

Fourthly, we also need to understand the role Pakistan military plays in the occupation of Afghanistan and its relation with the USA. The Pakistan military serves U.S. interests in the region. The Pakistan Army has its special interests but it serves those interests by ensuring that it meets the U.S. needs in the region. Pakistani army has a long relationship with the USA, almost since Pakistan’s birth. Pakistani army is not the only army that uses ideological organizations to assist in meeting their military objectives. The US military intelligence is a master at this. Just see how they are using perfectly legitimate aspirations of Kurd nationalism to further their occupation of Iraq and destabilization of Iran. The US military trained all our generals including Zia and Musharraf, in this art. Public disagreements on tactics and deployment are mere shadow boxing and at most a reflection of interdepartmental rivalries.

Those who think they need to put pressure on Pakistan Army to deal with militancy are deluding themselves. The USA is capable of convincing Pakistan Army to fulfill US’ wishes. All those who are putting pressure on Pakistan Army are only preparing the public opinion for military action within Pakistan’s borders. The Pakistan Army served U.S. interests in Jordan under the leadership of arch Muslim fundamentalist Brigadier Zia against his Muslim brothers. It would be incorrect to imagine that the current army, secularized during Musharraf’s regime, is likely to behave any differently. Even when outwardly the relations between Pakistan Army and the USA were at its worst last month following US forces’ incursion into Pakistan, the Pakistan Army maintained one of the supply lines to the occupation troops in Afghanistan. This is hardly the behavior of a reluctant partner. The Pakistan Army waited for the anger to die down and re-opened the closed route after a few days.

These key misunderstandings on part of the left in Pakistan about the war that is raging in our region is very dangerous for the left and is possibly what makes the left ineffective and sidelined in the struggle against occupation. The left’s issue should not be how to differentiate itself from others who are opposing the occupation but how not to be collaborationists. Ultimately, the occupation needs to end before the process of healing can begin in the region. The occupation has created a civil war situation in most of the countries of the region, particularly in Pakistan. The best way to avert some of worst excesses of such a civil war is to oppose the occupation forthright. Ordinary person reading the last edition of the Viewpoint will take the view that the left sees something good in US involvement in the region. I do not see any benefit from U.S. presence in the region and in fact see U.S. presence as the cause of all what we face today.

The writer lives and works in UK and has been involved in campaigns against human rights violations and for democracy and against colonial and neo-colonial occupations of Asia, Africa and Latin America