Many of us have played war video games at some point in our lives, using controllers to manipulate characters into blowing up our virtual enemies, perhaps accidentally taking out a few pedestrians in the fusillade. What if the characters you killed in the digital world were real people, living thousands of miles away?
Last Thursday's botched unmanned drone attack in Pakistan, reported to have claimed more civilian lives than any targeted killing operation since 2006, sparked domestic protests and received uncharacteristic verbal condemnation from Pakistani officials, whose traditional policy has been one of quiet acquiescence. Pakistan Army Chief Ashfaq Parvez Kayani called the operation "intolerable" and "in complete violation of human rights" according to BBC news. Nevertheless, United States sources interviewed by ABC news say that the CIA will continue its drone policy in the region a tactic that CIA Director Leon Panetta has called "the only game in town" in the fight against Al Qaeda.
The situation in Pakistan indicates a troubling trend in American foreign policy that sends a dangerous message to our enemies. CIA operations in Pakistan devalue Pakistani lives and conflict with our own interests. Further, rhetoric surrounding this issue reveals a systematic attempt to deceive the American people.
In March 2009, Obama introduced his new "Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan" with the words, "I'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the American people." Yet the president failed to mention the use of drones during his speech, despite his subsequent approval of an unprecedented increase in drone strikes in his first nine months in office, Obama authorized more of these attacks in Pakistan than had George W. Bush during the final three years of his presidency.
Whereas drone strikes in Afghanistan are publicly recognized and carried out by the U.S. military, operations in Pakistan and other countries with which the United States is not openly at war are technically illegal. Drone activities in these countries are overseen by the CIA and private contractors, free from public scrutiny. The United States performed 118 drone strikes in Pakistan in 2010 alone, implying that the country's tribal areas experienced attacks at an average rate of once every three days.
Regardless of the legality of these attacks, our escalating reliance on drone assassinations in counterterrorism efforts poses dangerous implications for the future of modern warfare. A report published by the United Nations in May 2010 noted that the conditions under which operators remotely control the drones could breed a "playstation mentality" toward killing. Operators unfamiliar with the realities of armed combat are placed in an environment that dehumanizes the victims of attacks and diminishes the significance of civilian deaths. An October 2009 article published in The New Yorker noted that civilians running for cover are referenced by a new slang term, "squirters."
This picture contrasts sharply with the reality in Pakistan's tribal areas, where the constant threat of drone strikes engenders significant resentment toward the United States. U.S. studies estimate the civilian to militant casualty ratio resulting from the attack could be as high as 10:1. Pakistani analysts claim that the ratio is closer to 50:1. David Kilcullen, an expert on counter-insurgency warfare, notes, "Every one of these dead non-combatants represents an alienated family, a new revenge feud and more recruits for a militant movement that has grown exponentially even as drone strikes have increased."
At the 2009 Pacific council on International Policy, Panetta stated a successful campaign against Al Qaeda and its allies will hinge on the United States' capacity to capture the "hearts and minds" of citizens living in the Muslim world. It is clear that in Pakistan our counterterrorism policy is having the opposite effect.
Internationally, President Obama's foreign policy is regarded in a more favorable light than that of George W. Bush, according to a 2010 Pew global attitudes survey. Nevertheless, the report shows that support for the president in the Muslim world is slipping. If the United States truly hopes to win its "war on terror," it cannot rely on video-game tactics that further alienate those whose "hearts and minds" we ostensibly hope to win over.
