The Unmanned Menace

　　U.S. drone program fuels resentment in sensitive regions

　　A U.S. drone strike killed the chief of the Pakistani Taliban， Hakimullah Mehsud， on November 1. But what might be good news for Washington could surely undermine efforts by Islamabad to engage militants in peace talks. And it is undoubtedly a blow to Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif， who wrapped up a four-day visit to the United States on October 23， during which he asked Washington to end drone strikes. Although the death of Mehsud aroused strong protest in Pakistan， the United States continues to hold a tough stance on the matter. The drone campaign against terrorists in Pakistan is likely to top the agenda once again.

　　Continuous operations

　　During the George W. Bush administration， the United States began employing drone strikes against suspected terrorists. After Obama first took office in 2009， his administration has been making efforts to enhance this convenient antiterrorism tool.

　　Statistics from the Washington， D.C.-based think tank Brookings Institution shows that since 2004， the United States has used drones in 378 lethal strikes， among which 327 were operated by the Obama administration in the four and half years since he has been in the Oval Office.

　　For the United States， drones offer an easy method for combating terrorists.

　　First， the drones are efficient and can stay aloft for days on end without endangering the lives of service members. The United States has always put the lives of its citizens above all else， and highly honors the sacrifice of its service members in battle. Drones allow for a continued military presence over enemy territory without the risk of suffering casualties， effectively reducing domestic pressures regarding overseas military actions.

　　Currently， Predator and Reaper drones， the most frequently used， can stay aloft for more than 14 hours， four hours longer than the F-16 fighter. This allows the United States to maintain lasting pressure on terrorists. Meanwhile， drones feature rapid-strike capability. It can launch precision strikes against suspected targets in a secure area from thousands of miles away. The missiles carried by the drones can hit targets within seconds. When the U.S. intelligence system locks onto a target， therefore， a deadly strike is nearly guaranteed.

　　In recent years， many Al-Qaeda leaders have been killed in such strikes—the hit list includes Anwar al-Awlaki， leader of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula， Abu-Abdallah al-Libi， a top commander of Al-Qaeda front group The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS)， and the Pakistani Taliban’s first and second in command， Mehsud and Wali ur-Rehman.

　　What’s more， drone strikes can effectively deal with the guerrilla warfare strategy of terrorists at a moderately low cost. Previously， the U.S. counterterrorism operations in Iraq and Afghanistan had been costly. Statistics show that the average per-capita expenditure of U.S. overseas military personnel is about $1 million every year. By the end of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan， the total expenditure will have reached approximately $3.7 trillion. It will be a huge burden to the United States， which is currently suffering slow economic growth as well as high unemployment.

　　In the meantime， the war against terrorism is an asymmetrical form of warfare， wherein terrorists are mostly hidden out of sight. Despite the larger number of U.S. combatants， their antiterrorism operations often resembled killing mosquitoes with cannons. Moreover， terrorists in Pakistan， Yemen and other places often make the most of mountainous desert terrain to wage guerrilla warfare. The drones can conduct surveillance and precision strikes with the ability to easily take off and land.

　　In addition， drone strikes can facilitate U.S. military expansion and help improve intelligence collection. With increasing terrorism in the Middle East and Africa， the United States has built multiple drone bases in Djibouti， Ethiopia， Niger and Yemen in the name of counterterrorism. These bases can not only be used to conduct antiterrorism operations， but also serve as places for supply reserves， logistics support and intelligence gathering， which have strengthened its military presence in Africa.

　　Meanwhile， as most drone strikes take place in other countries， the United States needs both the intelligence support and airspace authorization of those countries， in addition to establishing ground bases and communications satellite facilities. The United States often provides aid and security assistance to gain their support. With these bases， facilities and local connections， the U.S. intelligence network has been significantly expanded.

　　Side effect

　　However， U.S. drone strikes—especially operations within Pakistan in recent years—have caused major controversies， producing a rift between Washington and Islamabad. According to international law， if Washington launches an overseas antiterrorism operation， it should certify that the suspect is engaging in or planning hostile acts against the United States， and that no other alternative solutions such as arrest are available. In addition， the U.S. military must get permission from the host country for the operation.

　　Undoubtedly， U.S. drone strikes conducted without prior approval from the Pakistani Government have violated international law. The UN has also stated that these U.S. operations have infringed upon Pakistan’s sovereignty. In the face of protests from Islamabad and pressure from the international community， the United States has stubbornly continued its drone attacks. No compromise or even apology has been extended to Pakistan， with the tough stance revealing the practice of power politics and U.S. unilateralism. These attempts to put antiterrorism operations above the sovereignty of a country demonstrate again its hegemonic orientation.

　　In effect， unilateral drone strikes are in some respects counterproductive for its antiterrorism operations. On the one hand， missiles used in drone strikes in Pakistan and North African countries have killed a large number of civilians， deepening resentment. Statistics show that more than 400 Pakistani civilians have died in drone attacks， resulting in the rise of anti-U.S. sentiments and an increasing number of civilians joining terrorist groups. The terrorist threat to the United States is still on the rise.

　　In addition， drone attacks have underscored the arrogance of the United States， in effect erasing positive sentiment gained through its civilian aid such as medical care services and education projects in these regions. Islamabad once issued orders to cut off the transportation line of NATO in its northern mountainous area， severely affecting the logistics of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan.

　　On the other hand， drone attacks， especially those operated by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)， amount to being above the law as they are always conducted without supervision of the congress and judicial organs. The CIA refuses to disclose any information about its drone operations， including questions such as where， who and why they are targeting. The American people and even officials often gripe at CIA deals. Loud voices against the drone strikes within the United States are gradually hobbling its drone operations and development.

　　Ongoing disputes

　　The United States still lists terrorism as its main threat， with drone strike being one of its major countermeasures. Washington is expected to continue its drone program indefinitely， or at least until terrorist threats become controllable and relevant countries have the capability to fight against terrorism independently. However， the current situation of antiterrorism worldwide is still grim. An arc of instability has gradually taken shape from South Asia to the Middle East and Africa. Yemen， Somalia and Syria have become new hotbeds of international terrorism. All these elements have made the threat of terrorism even more diversified and scattered.

　　In the meantime， countries harboring terrorists are generally weak in security and slow in economic development， leaving them unable to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. This also poses a major challenge to the national security of the United States.

　　Although Pakistan is an important ally of the United States in the fight against terrorism， Washington still doubts its sincerity and ability to combat terrorist forces. With the Sharif administration now once again pushing peace talks with the Pakistani Taliban， the United States has low expectations for Pakistan’s readiness to conduct direct attacks on terrorism. The complex situation seemingly leaves the United States with little recourse to suspend its drone operations， making it likely that disputes over its antiterrorism tactics would continue.

关注读览天下微信， 100万篇深度好文， 等你来看……