The Drone Civilian Casualty Equation

The U.S. just carried out some of its heaviest attacks in Pakistan using drones, the unmanned buzzing vehicles that fly through the air in war zones but are commanded by military officials from computer labs in places like Nevada. Around 19 missiles were fired from drones along the Pakistan/Afghanistan border, killing an estimated 31 people.

Pardon the pun, but 2010 is turning out to be an explosive year for drones. The U.S. launched at least 12 different drone attacks in Pakistan in January, beefing up the use of drones since the December 30, 2009 suicide bombing of a CIA post in Khost, Afghanistan, which lies on the border with Pakistan.

And nobody seems to be arguing that the drones aren't effective. Since stepping up their use, the Obama administration has received plaudits for using drones to find and destroy members of the Al Qaeda network in northwest Pakistan. U.S. government officials contend that drones have been effective in weakening the Taliban and Al Qaeda by killing many of their senior leaders.

It's just that drones also tend to kill an awful lot of civilians, too. And that might not be in the best interest of the U.S., no matter how many members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are blown up.

As Daniel Byman wrote earlier this week, killing terrorist leaders might seem like sound national security policy on one level, but when it involves killing a bunch of civilians, too -- an almost certainty with the use of drones -- the picture gets much more complicated. In Pakistan alone, Byman estimates that for every militant killed, 10 civilians are also killed by drone attacks. And that's not going to win the U.S. too many friends in the region.

"Beyond the humanitarian tragedy incurred, civilian deaths create dangerous political problems," Byman writes. "U.S. strikes that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its legitimacy -- and to U.S. efforts to build goodwill there."

If you need proof, just turn to Koto village in northwest Pakistan. Today, a bomb attack went off in the region that killed at least seven people, including three U.S. citizens, one Pakistani Security Guard, and three children. The reason for the bombing? Retaliation for U.S. drone strikes in the region.

And that's not just an isolated incident of retaliation. As Gilbert Mercier writes, anti-American sentiment in Pakistan is running really high right now, in large part due to civilian casualties caused by U.S. military activity.

"There is a tremendous opposition from a majority of Pakistanis towards the US drone attacks, and it is growing," Mercier writes. "The drone attacks have often resulted in civilian deaths, provoked anger among Pakistanis and are boosting support for the Taliban."

Drones may be the present and future of war. But are they the future to securing peace in the region and stabilizing the Afghanistan/Pakistan border? Sure doesn't seem so.

Weapons like landmines and cluster bombs have been criticized the world over for killing disproportionate numbers of civilians. International treaties now exist condemning the weapons. Might drones eventually head in that direction, too?

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons