Even so, the CIA and Air Force and their military contractors rave about the antiseptic quality and surgical impact of their robot warfare and plan to rule the skies within 40 years with faster, more lethal drones. Seasoned defense analysts, however, offer more sober assessments. The drone program has had limited effect in terms of weakening Al-Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, who are dispersing into cities. It is stimulating a growing militant insurgency and visceral anti-Americanism among emasculated Pakistani military. And it has infuriated the Pakistani public and turned the majority against the U.S.
Drones give the facade of being on top of the Afghan/Pakistan war; in reality, they are more a sign of weakness, desperation, and poverty of solutions than of superiority. History demonstrates that aerial warfare rarely if ever wins wars. To the contrary, it unifies the resolve of people against those terrorizing them with armed missiles and invites retaliation.
On December 30, 2009 a double agent linked with Al-Qaeda killed 7 CIA employees and wounded 6 others at a CIA base near the Afghan/Pakistan border which was collecting intelligence information and planning drone attacks. Of 44 countries with drone technology, two have used them to kill (U.S. and Israel) a bargain with the devil which invites other countries to do so in turn.
How about an alternative counterterrorism program, like books not bombs? The cost of a weaponized drone -- $40 million could pay 15,000 teachers for 10 years in the school programs for girls established by local and international NGOs in the Afghanistan and Pakistan region. (8)
Public Support and Legality
Where does public support for the wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan stand?
Seven of 10 Britons recently polled support withdrawal from the war. Canada has set a timetable to withdraw its forces. The majority of German and French citizens oppose the war. Two thirds of Pakistanis polled consider the U.S. a larger threat than the Taliban or India, Pakistan's arch nuclear rival. The majority of Afghans want security and justice in bringing criminals to trial, not more war.
American support has seesawed. Prior to December 2009, more than half of Americans polled opposed the war in Afghanistan. However, public opinion on the war shifted after Obama's December 3 speech at West Point, according to The Washington Post/ABC News Poll. Fifty eight percent of those polled support the increase of troops being sent; the majority polled (55%) oppose a deadline for withdrawal; most (71%) expect troops to remain for many years, and the majority of the 71% support a long war; most (56%) think that the U.S. must win the war in Afghanistan for the war on terrorism to be a success.
What accounts for this sudden shift in national opinion on the war in Afghanistan? At least 2 factors may have conspired to manufacture the consent of the majority of Americans: the persistently positive opinion pieces on the war in major U.S. newspapers and the central role of former top military officers as analysts for major television and cable networks.
A revealing assessment by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) of the op-ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post during the first 10 months of 2009 found that pro-war columns outnumbered anti-war columns by more than 10 to 1 in the Washington Post and 5 to 1 in The New York Times. The news coverage included "the narrow range of elite, inside-Washington opinion" and largely ignored a wider range of public opinion on the war. Those who get their war analysis from television and cable networks are treated to the opinions of retired generals who are presented as civilian specialists on military policy, without disclosure of their military past or of their current business ties to military contractors. The networks have made ex-military war profiteers into poseurs as neutral civilian experts. (9)
Are the war in Afghanistan and the drone attacks in Pakistan legal?
Both the US-led war in Afghanistan and the CIA drone attacks in Pakistan violate international and national law and policy. The UN Charter provides that member states must settle their international disputes by peaceful means and cannot use military force except in self-defense or when authorized by the Security Council. The requisites for self-defense, as defined in international law, must be "instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation." The United States did have other choice of means to redress harm after the 9/11 attack. The 9/11 attack was not an "armed" attack by the country of Afghanistan on the United States. It was a crime against humanity committed by individuals in an international terrorist network (fostered by the U.S. in the 1980s) who could be pursued, captured and tried in a court of justice.
The Security Council passed two resolutions after 9/11; neither authorized using military force in Afghanistan. Therefore, the resultant U.S.-led war on Afghanistan was not authorized by the Security Council nor did it meet the UN Charter's criteria of self-defense. Thus it violates the UN Charter and U.S. law of which the Charter is part under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.
The CIA drone attacks in Pakistan violate the Geneva Conventions and the UN Charter because they are targeted, political assassinations undertaken outside of any judicial framework. Further, the CIA drone program violates longstanding U.S. policy, namely, an executive order banning assassinations which was issued by President Gerald Ford and reaffirmed by all succeeding presidents except George W. Bush. (10)
*H. Patricia Hynes is a board member of the TraprockCenter Peace and Justice and a member of the Alliance for Peace which is coordinated by the TraprockCenter.
Sources
