US use of drones is getting some unwanted attention on the world stage.
In January, the New York Times reported that only 9 percent of Pakistanis approved of U.S. drone strikes in their territory, with a majority of Pakistanis viewing the U.S. as a greater threat to their nation than India or the Pakistani Taliban. And little wonder. Pakistani authorities estimate that some 140 innocent civilians die for every Al Qaeda or Taliban militant killed in a drone strike. Even a much more conservative estimate, from the New America Foundation, found that since 2004, some 32% of those killed in Pakistan by drone strikes were civilians.
The New York Times yesterday reported:
A senior United Nations official is expected to call on the United States next week to stop Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes against people suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda, complicating the Obama administration’s growing reliance on that tactic in Pakistan.
Philip Alston, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said Thursday that he would deliver a report on June 3 to the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva declaring that the "life and death power" of drones should be entrusted to regular armed forces, not intelligence agencies. He contrasted how the military and the C.I.A. responded to allegations that strikes had killed civilians by mistake.
"With the Defense Department you’ve got maybe not perfect but quite abundant accountability as demonstrated by what happens when a bombing goes wrong in Afghanistan," he said in an interview. "The whole process that follows is very open. Whereas if the C.I.A. is doing it, by definition they are not going to answer questions, not provide any information, and not do any follow-up that we know about."
Alston’s call is not legally binding, and he will not make any claims of war crimes. But the Times points out that the same legal rationale used to exonerate those responsible for the drone strikes could just as easily exonerate the "detainees" now held by the U.S. at Guantanamo. But that’s about nuances of the law. What is more important is that innocent civilians are being killed by a clumsy weapon, in a nation with which we are not even at war… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Daily Kos>
If we are to be using drones at all, I agree that they should be under military, not CIA control. But I question using them at all, except in rare circumstances in which civilian casualties are not a risk. Neither casualty estimate is trustworthy. I’m sure Pakistani authorities have exaggerated and the CIA has intentionally underestimated. But I wonder if we are not responsible for recruiting more terrorists than we are killing through this strategy.
Of course this begs the larger question, and I like John Conyer’s answer.
As of 10:06 a.m., Sunday, May 30th, the United States will have spent $1 trillion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As we approach this milestone, Americans of all political stripes should take a moment to consider what war spending on this scale means, not just in dollars spent, but in terms of opportunities lost to strengthen, invest in, and improve our country. While each of us intrinsically knows that wars have consequences, we are rarely presented with such a stark example of how the choice to pursue war at the expense of priorities at home impacts each of us.
What could we have purchased with this $1 trillion? Today, we might be enjoying the fruits of a green economy, spurred by New Deal-like investments in wind and solar. Perhaps we would have created a single-payer health care system and used this $1 trillion to provide health security to every man, woman, and child in the United States for an entire year. Or, we might have made the smart investments in our domestic law enforcement capabilities and homeland security apparatus to provide true protection from Al Qaeda and others who would wish us harm. Sadly, we’ll never know, because our political leadership never explored alternative means of achieving peace, such as emphasizing rigorous regional diplomacy, and instead overextended our military forces abroad.
If sacrificing progress at home wasn’t bad enough, it is now clear that the injection of our troops into a 35 year civil war is actually fueling the insurgency in Afghanistan and further destabilizing the region. A GAO report released last month spoke to the deteriorating security situation in Afghanistan, noting:
"total attacks against coalition forces between September 2009 and March 2010 increased by about 83 percent in comparison to the same period last year, while attacks against civilians rose by about 72 percent."
As we gather to honor our brave men and women in uniform at at parades, picnics, and other events this weekend, Americans have much to consider. We can ignore the facts on the ground, hope for the best, and resign ourselves to the fact that our country is embroiled in two unaffordable wars that aren’t making us safer.
Or, we can stand up and speak out. We can let our family members, friends, and neighbors know about the human and fiscal costs of these wars. We can demand that the United States honor its commitment to leave Iraq by December 31, 2011, encourage Members of Congress to join the Out of Afghanistan Caucus, and organize against the $33 billion pending in Congress to fund the escalation, because $1 trillion is more than enough to spend on war… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <Huffington Post>
When we first deployed in Afghanistan, we had a clear purpose and good reason to do so. But instead of going after Osama and Al Qaeda, Bush and the GOP opted for conquest in a failed attempt to wrest control of the natural gas output of the Caucuses region from Russia by way of a pipeline intended to run through Afghanistan. To that end, Bush and the GOP installed a corrupt puppet, Hamid Karzai, an employee of Unocal, an Oil and Gas company since acquired by Chevron. Bush and the GOP have so mismanaged the war as to make it a quicksand trap that will only suck in lives and resources until we get out.
