Drones-Obama’s Toxic Legacy in Pakistan

U.S.-Pakistan relations are far worse now than when President Obama took office. The President’s toxic legacy in Pakistan can be summed up in one word—drones. While Washington’s attention is currently focused elsewhere, the relentless nature of drone strikes in Pakistan has left an indelible mark on bilateral ties and the Pakistani people. It has not only complicated areas of mutual interest such as counterterrorism, but successfully widened trust deficits in a relationship that couldn’t be more complex and consequential.

Although both countries have a stake in ensuring regional peace in South Asia, the subject of drones has polarized opinions and contributed significantly towards tensions. The issue of drone strikes—alongside other notable incidents such as the Osama Bin Laden raid near Pakistan’s military academy and the Salala checkpost attack—buttresses the argument made by many Pakistani commentators that U.S. policy is transactional, unlike China’s approach to Pakistan.

The Obama administration’s drone policy can be divided into two phases. The first phase was when Pakistan witnessed a transition to democracy and the leftist Pakistan Peoples Party came to power after the 2008 elections. The second phase spanned the time period when the center-right Pakistan Muslim League-N came to power, a party that had been more vociferous in its anti-drone articulation as compared to its predecessors.  The first phase saw a souring of ties between the countries but the drone campaign continued, while the constant “do more” refrain from the United States annoyed and isolated Pakistani policymakers as well as sections of the public. In addition, key events such as the Raymond Davis incident contributed in intensifying anti-American sentiment among the Pakistani public, which was initially centered on the drone campaign only. The debate over the legality of drone strikes and the subsequent polarization over how to deal with the restive tribal belt in Pakistan raged on. And this necessitated striking a balance between the United States pushing for peace and stability in the region and Pakistan being able to uphold its sovereignty.

If examined, many of the claims of the Pakistani public are legitimate. As per the Bureau of Investigative Journalism’s statistics, there have been seven times more drone strikes under the Obama administration as compared to Bush. Out of 2,379 deaths from 2004 to 2015, only 84 or 4 percent have been identified as Al Qaeda members or intended targets. Amnesty International has raised concerns  that U.S. drone killings are “outside the bounds of human rights and the law.” It is undoubtedly true that the restive tribal belt in Western Pakistan hosts an array of rogue actors which threaten strategic stability, such as the East Turkistan Islamic Movement, Al Qaeda, which has exacerbated counterterrorism problems in Afghanistan, and the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, which orchestrated the Peshawar school attack. But the fact that drone strikes have disproportionately targeted civilians and have eroded the tribal fabric of society has continued to foment discord against the Obama administration and compounded counterterrorism efforts.

2013 onwards, however, Pakistan became embroiled in an internal war against militants, in the aftermath of the Jinnah International Airport attack and the Army Public School, Peshawar massacre, which prompted the Pakistani military establishment to get ruthless against all terrorist groups. This period also saw appeals made by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to end drone strikes, while the Obama administration repeatedly asked Pakistan to do more to crackdown on the Haqqani network, and terror outfits such as the Jaish-e-Mohammed, which is suspected of being involved in the Pathankot attack.

Yet, gross violations of Pakistan’s sovereignty and the cost paid by the average Pakistani as a blowback of strikes have continued unabated. The entire U.S.-led war on terror and successive Pakistani governments’ alleged support for US drone strikes helped terrorist outfits considerably, as they viewed such dynamics to be contrary to their worldview and provided justification to employ violence against Pakistani civilians.  Hence, looking back, the average Pakistani may contrast U.S. drone policy with China’s confidence in Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts, viewing the United States as a symbol of hegemony and imperialism.

An area which could work for both countries would be to transfer drone technology to the Pakistani establishment to conduct strikes on its own territory and defeat militancy, which is also a stated U.S. goal. Yet that largely depends on whether trust deficits could be allayed in the near future, and whether the upcoming administration in Washington after the 2016 elections would be receptive to Pakistan’s repeated calls for respecting its sovereignty.

If drone strikes continue the way they did under the Obama administration, then brazen violations of international law would continue to be cited by Pakistani scholars and citizens.  The Peshawar High Court has already ruled that such attacks constitute war crimes. This is a damning indictment for the United States and should push them to do more to address this issue, the most divisive in their relationship with Pakistan.


Editors’ note: Last week, President Obama kicked off his final year as president with the annual State of the Union Address. The speech seemed an auspicious time to ask questions about the President’s legacy, and for the current group of SAV Visiting Fellows to reflect on the consequence of American policies in South Asia during this period. In this four-part series titled “Obama’s Legacy in South Asia,” Hamzah Rifaat will explore the Obama administration’s drone policy in Pakistan’s tribal areas—Did they stop terror, or did they fan the flames of extremism? Or maybe both? Aditi Malhotra‘s article will examine U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and their impact on regional stability. Amina Afzal will be writing from Pakistan on whether the Obama administration tilted towards India, especially in the nuclear realm. And finally, Tridivesh Singh will look at whether President Obama was able to dehyphenate U.S. policy towards India and Pakistan, and what the rebalance has meant for South Asia.

Hopefully these articles will contribute to a vigorous debate in India, Pakistan, and Washington, D.C.


Image: SS MIRZA-AFP, Getty

Posted in , Drones, Foreign Policy, Human Rights, Internal Security, Militancy, Military, Pakistan, Terrorism, US, Visiting Fellows

Hamzah Rifaat

Hamzah Rifaat

Hamzah Rifaat is a gold medalist with a Master of Philosophy degree in the discipline of peace and conflict studies from the National Defense University in Islamabad. He holds a diploma in World Affairs and Professional Diplomacy from the Bandaranaike Diplomatic Training Institute in Colombo, Sri Lanka. He was a freelance writer and blogger for the Friday Times and received a CRDF scholarship to the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, where he studied nonproliferation and terrorism studies at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies. He was also a Graduate Editorial Assistant for Women's International Perspective, a global source for women's perspectives, based in Monterey. He has also represented Pakistan as a member of the CTBTO Youth Initiative 2016. His writings encompass political and internal security issues in Pakistan and he regularly contributes for The Diplomat Magazine. Hamzah is a former SAV Visiting Fellow (January 2016).

Read more

Continue Reading

3 thoughts on “Drones-Obama’s Toxic Legacy in Pakistan

  1. Great article, Hamzah. Really takes us through frustrations in Pakistan. However, many in DC would argue that the drone strikes have destroyed AQ Central, which was both anti-American and anti-Pakistan. How do you square that with opposition to the drone strikes and the blow back they cause?

  2. Hamzah,
    President Obama is strongly committed to go after leaders of groups that espouse violence that have global reach.
    He is also strongly disinclined to send US troops in quagmires.
    The result is drone strikes. Which are now declining.
    Do you think that President George W. Bush was better for Pakistan than President Obama?

  3. Thank you Michael and Shane for your comments.

    While AQ and rogue elements such as the ETIM and the TTP pose a massive threat to regional stability and the US’s counter terrorism efforts; the legacy will remain toxic which is borne by factual evidence where ‘ collateral’ damage in the form of the deaths of tribesmen, have had a bearing on public perception particularly in the restive tribal belt.

    The general public views drones as a symbol of US imperialism which will continue to be the case if Pakistan’s state sovereignty is violated ( despite tacit understanding amongst governments) and the disproportionate amount of tribesmen are also targeted. The result is a security quagmire which compounds counter terrorism efforts where the very same rogue elements which Pakistan and the US are targeting are provided with a fresh recruitment base in the form of disgruntled members of the tribal population.

    While its true that the efficacy of drone strikes can not be questioned in terms of destroying AQ central etc is concerned, events such as the Raymond Davis case and the Salala Check post attack buttresses the critics of the US policies and foments Anti-American sentiment.

    George Bush’s Administration dealt with the military regime of Pervez Musharraf, where airbases in Balochistan as well as CSF funds continued unabated which suited the Pakistan army’s objectives of countering militancy as compared to the Zia years where militancy was used as a weapon to thwart Soviet incursions into Afghanistan. Yet President Obama had to deal with civilian governments and Pakistan witnessed its first democratic transition where citizens have become aware of their ethnic lineages. Hence, drone attacks which target civilians are viewed in more toxic terms as compared to before due to strategic convergence of interests.

    The dynamics were a lot more different when Bush and Mush were in power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *