Continued from Saturday;
"Though drones were hovering daily over
North Waziristan, those at this meeting said they felt 'secure and insulated'
from the threat of drones, because in their assessment at the time, 'drones
target terrorists or those working against the government.' ...the maliks had
even taken care to alert the local military post of the planned jirga ten days
beforehand.
"At approximately 10:45 am, as the two
groups were engaged in discussion, a missile fired from a U.S. drone hovering above struck
one of the circles of seated men. Ahmed Jan, who was sitting in one of two
circles of roughly 20 men each, told our researchers that he remembered hearing
the hissing sound the missiles made just seconds before they slammed into the
centre of his group. The force of the impact threw Jan's body a significant
distance, knocking him unconscious, and killing everyone else sitting in his
circle. Several additional missiles were fired, at least one of which hit the
second circle. In all, the missiles killed a total of at least 42 people. One
of the survivors from the other circle, Mohammad Nazir Khan, told us that many
of the dead appeared to have been killed by flying pieces of shattered rocks.
"Another witness, Idris Farid, recalled
that 'everything was devastated. There were pieces – body pieces – lying
around. There was lots of flesh and blood.'...'None of the elders who had
attended had survived.''' All their family members "could do was 'to
collect pieces of flesh and put them in a coffin.'"
Other incidents described involve drones firing
at cars and taxis, killing people so often for reasons unknown to local people
that any travel is considered dangerous.
People in North Waziristan, a tribal area where
most people work in subsistence agriculture or trading, have come to avoid all
public gatherings, such as mosques and even funerals, which seem to be a
particular target. People are afraid to sit together outside; even children
cannot play together and few people venture out at night. Many parents no
longer let their children attend school for fear of drone strikes.
A humanitarian aid worker in Waziristan
told the investigators, "Do you remember 9/11? Do you remember what it
felt like right after? I was in New
York on 9/11. I remember people crying in the
streets. People were afraid about what might happen next. People didn't know if
there would be another attack. There was tension in the air. This is what it is
like. It is a continuous tension, a feeling of continuous uneasiness. We are
scared. You wake up with a start to every noise."
Not only are people terrorized by what seems
like random killings, they cannot forget the danger for a second because of the
constant presence of drones, sometimes three or four visible at once. They
circle in the sky, buzzing, all day, except when it rains. No one knows when
they will fire, nor at whom.
One reason for the relatively low number of
casualties in relation to deaths seems to be that the Hellfire missiles these
drones shoot are thermobaric, far more destructive than ordinary explosives.
The pressure wave produced by the blast alone may blow people apart in a circle
as much as 20 metres in every direction, but the spray of burning aluminium and
metal fragments can kill at an even greater distance. Often there is little
left of the victims.
The nature of these missiles alone discredits
the U.S.
government's claim that these are "surgical" strikes. But the whole
way targeting works also needs to be more widely understood. There are
supposedly two types, "personality" and "signature".
"Personality" targets are when the U.S.
puts particular individuals on a death list based on all sorts of
"intelligence", including paid local informers who may have their own
agenda. This was the main focus of drone strikes in Pakistan under the Bush
administration.
Since Barack Obama took office, there has been a
radical increase in the number of drone strikes (45-52 under Bush in 2001-09,
292 in just three and a half years under Obama). He has taken personal charge
of approving who is on the kill list and all decisions to go ahead whenever the
CIA does not have "a 'near certainty' that there will be zero civilian
deaths."
At the same time, under Obama's leadership there
has been what Living Under Drones calls "a reported expansion in
the use of 'signature' strikes," which it also calls "profiling"
and "guilt by association." Under the "pattern of life
analysis", groups of men whose identities are not known but who meet
certain "defining characteristics" can be killed on sight. These
"signature characteristics" are secret, but seem to involve being
"in an area of known terrorist activity", being in the vicinity of
someone considered a "top Al-Qaeda operative" (which, as the strike
on the jirga at Datta Khel demonstrates, can include the many, many
thousands of people who might find themselves, at one time or another, at a
gathering, a market or a street where someone linked to the many armed Islamist
groups might also be found), or even, according to knowing jokes repeated in
the report, "three guys doing jumping jacks" or "young men with
stubble."
There is another element in this picture
indicating that civilian deaths are not just accidental "collateral
damage" but the deliberate result of U.S. policy: what American
authorities cynically call "double tapping", the practice of
following up on one missile strike with another one or more, minutes or even
hours later, with the clear intent of killing relatives and neighbours
frantically searching through the rubble for survivors and loved ones,
"looking for the children in the beds", and trained rescue workers.
The report says, "According to a health
professional familiar with North Waziristan ,
one
humanitarian organization had a 'policy to not
go immediately [to a reported drone
strike] because of follow up strikes. There is a
six hour mandatory delay.' According
to the same source, therefore, it is 'only the
locals, the poor, [who] will pick up the
bodies of loved ones.'"
The authors emphasize that "attacks on
first responders may constitute war crimes." But their report also
provides factual ammunition for the argument that not only this particularly
repulsive aspect but the U.S. 's
whole drone war in Pakistan
in general (along with the use of drones in Yemen
and Somalia )
is a war crime.
First of all, many careful readers of the report
will conclude that killing non-combatants is not just an accidental result of
policy but an American policy in itself. Secondly, even if certain known
individuals are in some way tied to armed groups, the fact that their names can
remain on a "kill list" for a long time means that targeting them
runs counter to the international law that apologists for the U.S. government
cite to justify these killings. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter considers the
use of force in or against another country to be justifiable self-defence only
when it is a response to an ongoing armed attack or an imminent threat, which
is described as "instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means, and
no moment of deliberation."
There is no moral justification for the U.S. drone war in Pakistan , and no apparent legal
justification for it either. (The Obama government claims that it has a written
legal opinion authorizing its actions, but its contents are secret!) The U.S. is not legally at war with Pakistan . This
is why the drone war is being waged by the CIA and not the regular armed
forces, and why the American government has to treat it as secret, even though
everyone in Pakistan knows,
as does everyone in the U.S.
and elsewhere who wants to know.
In fact, the U.S. is still mainly allied with
the Pakistani government (and especially the Pakistani military), despite
serious contradictions. For the first three years of the drone war in Pakistan ,
then President Pervez Musharraf publicly pretended that the strikes were
"either Pakistani military operations, car bombs, or accidental
explosions." Since then it has found itself caught between outraged public
opinion demanding an end to the strikes and an unyielding U.S.
government.
One of the most damning, though little noticed,
parts of this report is a timeline that correlates the intensity of U.S. drone
activity with friction between the two governments, especially around
Pakistan's arrest of CIA contractor Raymond Davis for gunning down two men in
the street. At first the U.S.
halted the drones "to avoid angering a population already riveted by Davis ' arrest"; then, when negotiations between the
Musharraf and Obama governments stalled, it launched 11 strikes in succession
until the Pakistani government finally released Davis . Relying on the U.S. Congressional
Research Service, the report cites this as one of three incidents in which
"[m]essaging to Pakistan
appears to continue to be part of the [drone] programme's intent."
In other words, at least part of the reason why
the U.S. is killing people in Pakistan has little to with even perceived
military necessity but is in fact aimed at pressuring Pakistani
"deciders", not because the Pakistani ruling classes and armed forces
care about the lives of ordinary Pakistanis or anyone else, but because when
the U.S. kills civilians in their country it makes their government look bad
and provokes popular anger.
If terrorism is defined as the deliberate
killing of civilians for political ends, this is an unmistakable
"signature" of a terrorist operation.
The "cost" and "downside" of
the drone strikes, the report warns, is that they "have facilitated
recruitment to violent non-state armed groups, and motivate attacks against
both U.S.
military and civilian targets." This is undoubtedly true. It is also
undeniably true, as the report says, that these armed Islamic fundamentalists are
doing great harm as they seek to impose their rule over the people.
This report should help us understand that what
the U.S. is doing in Pakistan
and around the world is actually helping propel the jihadi movement. At the
same time, however, although it exposes the harm caused by the U.S. with its
drone war, the report does not take into account the even greater harm done by
the American occupation of Afghanistan and decades-long domination of Pakistan,
including its support for Pakistan's military and ruling classes and the
Islamization of the country that was initially meant to make U.S. domination
palatable. For both of these reasons, we should be very clear that the U.S. is the
biggest terrorist of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment