An interesting article from the AP, showing a different side of drone activities in the volatile border region of Pakistan, led by the US. These reports seem to show the difficulties of drone attacks on suspected terrorist leaders and network hideouts. Given the situation in Pakistani villages it is even harder to measure the level of credibility ANY report might have. Local extremists and the shadowy government have a great interest of using civilian casualties to emphasize their anti-american messages. On the other side american authorities, military advisors and intelligence analysts fear to cooperate which might jeopardize covert operations in the area (and the rest of the world). Of course there are A LOT of possibilities between those two sides, opinions that are influenced by pacifism or simply the fact, that those “attacks” do not matter in Europe.
Personally I would like to state that the idea of speaking out was brave and the effort by the journalists incredible. I guess many who like to criticise US operations such as drone strikes or covert raids, are not aware of the facts: they copy information from “hip websites” while declaring everything else propaganda. Those people have, usually, never experienced terrorism first hand, nor do they know how life is like in the region.
Without judging the incidents leading to civilian deaths , I believe that a political view, especially in times like this, is necessary.
I hope analysts will understand that a careful status quo (with diplomatically balanced drone strikes and special operations against suspects in return for information and protection of the Pakistani government) is worth far more than a war. A war that might very well turn out to be nuclear or at least devastating to the region and the people living there.
Pls comment on this short insight, write me a message and tell me how you liked this post, thank you.