Letters: Drones and the indefensible

Philip Hammond deals almost wholly with drones operated by British forces, whose use may perhaps be somewhat restrained (In defence of drones, 18 December). However, the worldwide outcry is against US drones, which have an altogether different track record. I give below a few instances where a large number of innocent people were killed by US drone strikes in Pakistani tribal areas: 13 January 2006 – Five women, five children and six men killed in Damadola, Bajaur tribal region; 30 October 2006 – 80 children killed in drone strike on a seminary in Chingai village; 23 June 2009 – 60 people killed in a drone strike on a funeral; 17 March 2011 – 41 innocent civilians killed in drone strikes on a tribal jirga called to settle a chromite mine dispute.

There have been countless other fatalities and serious injuries associated with nearly all drone strikes. One can easily judge how many new converts to militancy would have resulted from among people whose relatives got killed, as well as from among those who saw all this devastation. All the Taliban leaders killed through drone strikes got easily replaced by new and more brutal ones. Also, seeking safety from drone strikes, many Taliban leaders have now moved from tribal areas to cities, thus increasing law and order problems and increasing US-haters among a Pakistani population which was US-friendly a few decades back.

As for al-Qaida, many have moved to new war theatres around the world. America and its allies came to the region to eliminate al-Qaida’s leadership and to punish the Taliban for supporting/protecting it, but now al-Qaida has spread to, and is deeply entrenched in, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Somalia and other countries. Does that help? Also, the drop in fighting in Afghanistan could be more due to the fact that the Taliban and al-Qaida may not like to waste their energy and resources fighting a force the bulk of which will depart in about a year’s time anyway.

So what have the US and its allies achieved other than causing death and destruction? People may be fascinated by the sophistication and efficiency of drones but, looked at from a wider angle, the system is counterproductive as it just spreads the disease.Obviously, one can’t hope to cure the disease just by treating the symptoms.
SRH Hashmi
Karachi, Pakistan

• It is somehow fitting that the newspaper that courageously printed the Snowden revelations is also the newspaper printing the minister of defence in praise of Britain’s drones: these are the two sides of the Orwellian coin, both reflected in a great newspaper. Since the minister claims to be writing “in defence of drones”, it may be suitable to recall George Orwell’s 1947 Politics and the English Language:

“In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for …read more