If Pakistan lodges a specific protest with the United States or some other international agency with jurisdiction over drone strikes I do not believe that the U. S. could legally justify future attacks. Intentionally entering into Pakistan’s airspace for the specific purpose of killing someone would clearly be illegal on many grounds. I do not believe that the U.S. could offer enough facts to justify the intrusion into Pakistan’s airspace much less the killing. The fact that U.S. drones operate in a lawless area along the Afghanistan border does not, in my opinion, make the drone attacks any more legal. Regardless of the legal technicalities I do not think that Pakistan would risk the political repercussions of legally objecting to the drone strikes just to protect the Taliban.

It is difficult to understand President Obama’s rational for curtailing the drone program. In a worldwide televised speech the President stated that he had directed that new guidelines be drawn up to guide America’s usage of drones. The President indicated that changes were necessary because the war on terror, as it was fought in the past, has essentially ended. In the future, according to President Obama, the responsibility for the drone operations will lay solely with the Department of Defense. The CIA will no longer conduct its own drown operation. Furthermore the use of drones against specific targets and individuals will only be authorized if there is an imminent and continuous threat to Americans and that the threat cannot be effectively neutralized by other means. Additionally their use will not be authorized if civilians might be harmed.

The President seemed to suggest that America should adopt a capture and bring to justice policy instead of relying on drones to eliminate the target. I do not believe that America has the resources or ability to literally carry out the President’s new policy. I do not believe that the President’s speech made any tactical sense though it might have satisfied certain urgent political considerations. 

Obama’s radical shift in drone usage policy was the principal topic on the Sunday morning talk shows. Supporters of the Administration’s curtailed drone program seem hard pressed to explain how it would enhance Americans’ security. Critics of the plan argued that the President left the nation without any effective means for dealing with terrorism at its roots.

Many of the talk shows hosts and panelists questioned the removal of the CIA from the drone mix. After 9/11 the CIA was rightly criticized for not having enough human assets on ground in the “breeding ponds”  for international terrorism. Terror attacks were considered, planned and financed without America being aware that it might be subject to imminent  attack. Over the intervening years the American spy agency has worked hard to develop assets in these areas. The CIA has built a sophisticated and efficient network of intelligence assets that has allowed it to conduct many successful drone attacks against high-value targets. The raid undertaken against Osama bin Laden was the result of CIA intelligence gathering. Clearly the Department of Defense does not have the CIA’s intelligence networks or ability to set up similar ones. The experts believe that the Obama administration wants the White House to more directly control drone strikes via the Department of Defense. Most commentators say that the decision to shift drone operation to the Defense Department was a purely political one.

On the talk shows and in the press the supporters of the administration’s curtailed drone problem seemed unable to explain how the so called “new war on terrorism” would be prosecuted with so many restrictions. Potential drone targets now understand that they are safe as long as they can blend in with civilians. If terrorists stop broadcasting via the Internet their intentions to attack America and or taking credit for attacks, they will probably escape drone targeting by not posing an immediate and continuous threat to Americans. No one seems to know where the U.S. goes from here in the fight against terrorism. Will this new policy improve relations with our “partner on the war on terrorism,” Pakistan?

Pakistan’s road to democracy has been anything but smooth. Most political scientists and experts in Pakistani affairs say that the country’s competing political forces and radicalism prevent true democracy for taking hold. The country has operated under Marshal Law for 40 of its 66 years since its independence. Yet, Pakistan’s civilian government recently completed its five year mandate.  Consequently the government was required to hold elections. Almost everyone predicted that the elections would be plagued by violence and voting irregularities. This was not the case. The Pakistani Taliban selectively targeted certain candidates for bombing and disruption tactics.

One of the central issues in the elections was Pakistan’s partnership with the U.S. and America’s use of drones in the Federal Administered Tribal Areas (Tribal Area). This is an area that is outside of the central government’s reach and control. The Taliban and other Islamic militant groups openly use the area for training recruits and staging attacks inside and outside of the borders of Pakistan. One would think that the Pakistani government would welcome U.S. help in eliminating the subversion threat lurking and growing in the Tribal Areas. The militants seem determined to destabilizing democracy and install some form of Sharia Law in Pakistan.