New Wave of Drone Strikes Has Al-Qaeda Crying
President Obama sure does blow up a lot of stuff for being a dove, and al-Qaeda is crying about it. On January 23, the group’s chief of media in Pakistan, Ustadh Ahmad Farooq, released a tape on the Internet that complained about the CIA’s relentless campaign of drone strikes in Pakistan.
“There were many areas where we once had freedom, but now they have been lost. We are the ones that are losing people, we are the ones facing shortages of resources. Our land is shrinking and drones are flying in the sky,” Farooq said.
If an American commander said that, everyone would scream that we are losing. Yet, here we have al-Qaeda, a group not known for its humility, publicly panicking. This isn’t the first time this has happened. In July 2009, Abu Yahya al-Libi, a senior al-Qaeda commander in Pakistan that some have dubbed “the next Osama,” released a book on the Internet that expressed similar exasperation. He warned that the number of Western spies in and around the organization had become “like swarms of locusts,” resulting in the arrests of operatives and enabling the U.S. to pound away with drone strikes.
“How many heroic leaders have been kidnapped at their hands? How many major mujahidin were surprised to be imprisoned or traced? Even the military and financial supply roads of the mujahidin, which are far from the enemy’s surveillance, were found by the spies,” al-Libi wrote.
His paranoid words are sure to stoke further anxiety and distrust among terrorists who look to al-Libi for encouragement and confidence.
“They have among them old hunchbacked men who cannot even walk, strong young men, weak women inside their house, young girls, and even children who did not reach puberty yet. The spy might be a doctor, nurse, engineer, student, preacher, scholar, runner, or a taxi driver. The spy can be anyone,” he writes. He flatly states that these spies have “penetrate[d] the ranks of the Muslims generally, and the mujahidin specifically.”
Prior to al-Libi’s lament, a member of the Pakistani Taliban judged credible by New York Times told the newspaper in May 2009 that “[t]he drones are effective.” He admitted that they had successfully knocked out top al-Qaeda and Taliban leaders and claimed they had killed 29 friends.
When it comes to Afghanistan and Pakistan, President Obama has been much more of a hawk than his predecessor. Obama launched more strikes during his first year in office than during the entire eight years of the Bush administration. He dramatically increased the number of drone strikes in Pakistan by 300% — to an average of three per week. The number of strikes then doubled in 2010 to 115.
Plus, contrary to the claims of anti-war activists and the anti-American propaganda apparatus, these strikes are humane. A U.S. government review in May 2010 concluded that in the previous two years, less than 30 civilians were killed — and these “civilians” included people like Mullah Omar’s second wife, who was with a group that was targeted. It stated that at least 500 terrorists, including 14 high-level and two dozen high- or mid-level leaders, were killed. Reuters put the number above 850.
The drone strikes have been able to wreak havoc upon the enemy in strongholds where the Pakistani military has been unable or unwilling to launch an offensive. About 90 percent of the strikes happen in North Waziristan, the home of the Haqqani network, European terrorist recruits, and most of those who fled the offensives in Swat Valley and South Waziristan. It has been reported that the drone strikes have forced many terrorists to flee from the tribal area to nearby areas like Kurram and Orakzai.
The New America Foundation says that over 1,000 terrorists have been killed — and that, according to its database, the overall casualty rate since the beginning of the drone campaign has dropped steadily from 25 percent to a low of six percent in 2010. The Foundation credits this to improvements in the U.S.-Pakistan relationship, noting that there have been over 100 joint CIA and ISI operations in the past year and a half.
The success of these strikes begs two questions: why aren’t they being used even more often, and why aren’t they being defended? On January 23, over 2,000 Pakistani tribesmen held an anti-American protest after two strikes in North Waziristan killed seven people. There has been nothing said to the Pakistani people about the necessity or the humanity of these strikes. This isn’t a failure of communication; it’s a complete absence thereof.
The Obama administration may be dissuaded from expanding the drone campaign because of a concern over causing anti-Americanism, but as The Long War Journal shows, favorability ratings for the U.S. and opposition to the strikes among Pakistanis have stayed relatively the same between 2007 and August 2009, when the massive increases began. The anti-Americanism of the Pakistanis has not correlated with the intensity of the campaign. At the same time, the favorability of al-Qaeda and the Taliban has sharply decreased because of their brutality.
The drone strikes are an unqualified success. The Obama administration began considering using them more in Yemen following the cargo plane bomb plot. Why stop there? Al-Shabaab in Somalia has been frighteningly successful in recruiting Americans and could, for the first time in al-Qaeda’s history, give the terrorist group its own country. The enemy continues to enjoy safe harbor in parts of Pakistan outside of North Waziristan, such as Balochistan and the Northwest Frontier Province. And the U.S. military has identified 150 terrorist training camps in Pakistan to be targeted in a retaliatory campaign after an attack, not a preventative campaign before an attack. What makes these places less suitable targets than North Waziristan?
Let me put it this way: if something is making al-Qaeda publicly wail, then we should do it more.
Makes you wonder why we really need to “win” in Afghanistan. Why do we really need to defeat the Taliban in ALL of Afghanistan. In fact, why do we need to defeat the Taliban at all? If we are able to maintain several key bases in Afghanistan in some of the areas that are friendlier to us, why do we care what happens in the rest of the country? If the Taliban knows we are staying and are right next to them in these bases, do you really think they will allow anybody on their territory to attack us again? It would be like having the Guantanamo base in Cuba. Castro may hate us, but he still can’t get rid of us and it’s a useful base to launch any attacks against him if he gets out of line. The Cuban Missile Crisis also proved how valuable Guantanamo could be.
Why not do the same thing in Afghanistan? Stay in the friendlier parts of that horrible land and let the rest of the people fend for themselves. If they want the Taliban back, let them. We will still have major bases from wich to launch attacks against al Qaeda in Pakistan or al Qaeda in Afghanistan if it becomes necessary. And the Taliban will not want to start fighting all over again if they know they can have most of Afghanistan back if they simply behave. We are never going to “win” a total victory in Afghanistan, but we CAN win enough of a victory to have made the whole effort in that country worthwhile.
We need good intelligence to know when and where to strike. If we’re too far away, that intelligence is difficult to get. In Pakistan, elements of the Pakistani army appear to be giving us the needed information.
This is the exact strategy I’ve favored about 3 years.
No country has ever defeated Afghanistan in any normal sense. The people are too primative, too warlike, and the terrain is too difficult. It would take millions of troups. But the country is strategic for the next few years at least, so just occupy some hardended bases. That will hold down the terrorist training camps and provide a base of operations if periodic escalations are required.
The Cuddly statistmarxists will never allow another military victory anyway, so your suggestion is the best we can hope for, and also a solution that offers a good balance between maintaining influence while limiting casualties.
Sounds like a plan.
Nation-building or any other effort to help Muslims anywhere is appeasement, and it is seen as a sign of weakness. Muslim nations respect only those whom they fear. The more fear, the better.
Islamophobic Obama hates the Religion of Peace.
I doubt this statement
“Let me put it this way: if something is making al-Qaeda publicly wail, then we should do it more.”
And then there is taqiyya.
Heh, like Briar Rabbit.
It must be noted that the Predators and Reapers do not stand alone, there must be a significant humint element on the ground in order to guide them. Their sensors cannot identify individual humans from altitude. Having said that, the main advantage of the drones is they allow a significant amount of distance between the human intelligence sources and the actual strike, keeping the more valuable asset alive for another day.
Al-Shabaab in Somalia has been frighteningly successful in recruiting Americans and could, for the first time in al-Qaeda’s history, give the terrorist group its own country.
Shouldn’t Somalia be cited as the <b<second country to be dominated al-Qaeda? After all, al-Qaeda, with its Taliban brothers, dominated Afghanistan for several years until the Coalition threw them out of power following 9/11.
No, the Taliban harbored Al-Qaeda. If Al-Shabaab takes over Somalia, it’ll be the first time Al-Qaeda actually governs a country itself.
What are they bellyaching about? I thought their aim was to die for Allah. Maybe it isn’t, since they use children for shields and sneak out of places dressed as women. Maybe they’re just cowards and bull**** artists.
No, their aim is to have their followers die for Allah. Their aim is power and control of the population.
A politician is a politician.
Actually, their stated goal is to force America to spread itself out everywhere and bleed itself to death, literally and financially.
It is actually being fairly successful at this, unfortunately.
This is the one thing Obama has done right, and I have to give him credit for it. The left have been fairly silent about it, fortunately, but it’s gotta be only because they’re scared shitless about being seen as “racist” under their convoluted definition of it. Maybe the only reason Obama keeps it up is hoping they’ll eventually hit Bin Laden and he can claim “Mission Accomplished” as a barb to Bush.
Snake, I think you nailed it. Obama desperately wants to be the one to make the announcement “Folks, we got him.”
He’d be over 60% approval by the end of that day’s news cycle.
And it would indeed be a barb to dat evil Mr. Booooosh.
I’d like to think that Barry, as Commander in Chief, was up to speed and very well aware of our Drone strike campaign against the Taliban but I’m not willing to give him that much credit. The strikes by the Drones is something that Bush has started and have continued, even increased but quite possibly without Barry being aware of what is going on. What with his parties at the WH and his constant campaigning about the country Barry has a lot on his plate and the safety and security of the United States doesn’t seem to have ever really been at the top of the list. I’m afraid that if Barry was ever fully briefed by the CIA about the Drones he’d call them off.
Then maybe a lesson was learned from the McChrystal episode by all of the above.
Nixon also sacrificed an active Officer to US media condemnation of strategy that had just begun to prove victorious. Truman did the same strictly from fear of being in MacArthur’s political shadow. When you’ve seen enough you don’t have to wait for reaction from media heads that have already taken a treasonous stand.
Giving credit where credit is due. This Obama’s one accomplishment.
I’m not sure why we don’t use them to combat piracy around Somalia. Find a mother ship, sink it. Problem solved. No innocent casualties.
The motherships are often hijacked themselves with crews held hostage on board.
You still will have innocent casualties.
The only rational conclusion about the drone strikes is that technology advances while the left remains unreal. President Obama is employing the same war tactic that President Nixon used, only with different tools. President Nixon bombed a sovereign nation, Cambodia, which had become the transport and stating area of people who were killing us, the North Vietnamese. The same human beings who screamed at tricky Dick’s horror, now praise President Obama for doing the exact same thing. The only difference was one bomber was manned, the other is a robot. People can argue about the improved intelligence, and how many innocents become unintentional collateral damage. Maybe Obama’s innocent youthful smile is the difference. Nixon had a scowl.
A few years ago, our aerial robots could not carry a brick; they were kites, only good for observation. Then some guy hung some munitions on one, blew up a car full of bad guys, and the gods smiled. The reason Bush did not use many is that the wings kept falling off, as the bombs got heavier. The reason for Obama’s great sagacity is more bracing.
The great question for the American people remains unanswered. Our enemies have learned that they must mingle among civilian populations to restrain our lethal attack. We can not act without fourteen lawyers, and an ethical professor’s approval, and they go to lunch on time. So our enemies kill us.
I feel for the peaceniks who voted for their man, but conclude they have either have no brains, or are liars. Once upon a time, I cared.
Interesting point about the Nixon comparisons.
The explanation, of course, is that leftists are totally amoral. The only reason they were against the bombing during Nam was that they could make political hay by doing so. As soon as the war was over, they cared nothing about the genocide that happened there.
We see it today in Wisconsin. They were enraged about “Tea Party” violence, which of course is non-existant, but the unions are 100 times as violent in their Wisconsin temper tantrum.
I would say it is just the typical hypocricy, except it’s not. It’s their strategy. Again, they are totally amoral.
Hats off to obama. he has not apologized for the drone strikes. nor has holder brought charges against the tech that pushes the button, “fire”.
I am glad obama has allowed the drone pressure to continue.
somali pirate strikes sounds good to me as well. good call walt c
This comment, from your article, should be the PJ Tatler quote of the day:
“There were many areas where we once had freedom, but now they have been lost … Our land is shrinking and drones are flying in the sky,” Farooq said.
Drone, baby, drone!
#1 Libertyship46: “Makes you wonder why we really need to ‘win’ in Afghanistan…..” Read the book, “Three Cups of Tea,” by Greg Mortensen about a different way of winning in Afghanistan. I believe there also is a second book, called “Another Cup of Tea.”
This is the one thing Obama has done right, and I have to give him credit for it.
I agree. So far Obama hasn’t been as bad on the GWOT as I feared he would be, although that might be because my expectations for him were pretty much rock bottom to begin with. Then again, most of what he’s done as far as I can see has been to continue practices that Bush put in place in the first place (hope and same, everybody!), so I’m not sure how much credit he gets for that. And count me as another one behind Walt C’s suggestion for drone-bombing Somali pirate ships. Simple problem, simple solution.
I agree that the campaign with Reapers and other drones has been successful insofar as we have obtained useful and valid after action reporting. I also go along with the suggestion above that the drones should be used throughout the theater provided that actionable intelligence on the targets is validated and coordinated with the hosts. I do fear the idea that clever officials of the governments could use our drone attacks to their own ends by feeding us their enemies as targets. This implies that we ourselves must validate the targets on the ground by observation and analysis.
It took some time for US naval command to learn how to use radar directed fire control to effectively use the new technology in battle with the IJN off Guadalcanal.
Willis A. Lee, an Olympic champion shooter, learned and adapted the new technology to achieve a victory at night against a superior Japanese naval force aboard the USS Washington. The Tokyo express never recovered.
Drones matched with ground intel and advanced weapons are defeating the Taliban. More so the ground pounders have more support to achieve their objectives. Right now US has more power than Obama knows what to do with.
Every military fighter knows that victory depends on the individual soldier. Fighting spirit. That is what the politicians need to provide. Obamans are still lacking in that. Give the US military support and reason to risk death and they will do it. All we get is equivocation and speeches amounting to nothing.
Obama doesn’t do anything without ulterior motives and a set of multiple priority’s.
Think Predator Drones flying over the landscape of America hunting down Patriots fighting tyranny and the despots who have instituted it.
Obama and his friends are not stupid. They know very well when it comes to a 2nd American Revolution they are going to need every advantage they can get not to loose.
In Third World countries, the military is loyal to the tyrant or dictator because they are paid and fed much better than the overall population, and are usually from the lowest strata of society. They will not hesitate to turn on their own people, because it is in their own self-interest to keep the tyrant in power. U.S. military personnel are an entirely different breed. It is extremely unlikely that they would follow the orders of a commander-in-chief who demands that they attack U.S. citizens. Instead, you would see a massive revolt among America’s fighting men. They would turn on the commander-in-chief instead.
The plural of priority is “priorities”, not “priority’s.” “Lose” the verb is not spelled “loose” the adjective which means “not tight.”
This piece demonstrates why I have always put drone strikes high on the list when I respond to people’s over-the-top condemnations of Obama. I especially love the remark earlier that there are so many drone strikes because Obama probably doesn’t know about them. Psssst! I’ve heard that he skips the daily briefings and plays games of pick-up basketball instead. Pass it on.
I understand that it is the job of partisans to take ANYTHING the other side’s President does or does not do and put the worst possible spin on it. Just take a look at the title of almost every article displayed at PJM and you can see that there is partisan work being done. How did this article ever slip in? Why has someone not demanded that it be removed? Truth is no defense when it comes to “praising Obama” is it?