Medea Benjamin
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 27 September 2012
We want to show Pakistanis that there are Americans calling for an end to the CIA’s killer drone strikes, and insisting that our government apologize and compensate the families of innocent victims.

Americans Take Anti-Drone Stance Directly to Pakistan

Article image

“You’re not really going to Pakistan, are you?” “You’ve seen the State Department travel warning?” “Don’t they hate us over there?”

There are questions our friends and relatives are asking as we embark on a delegation to Pakistan to protest the drone attacks that have killed so many innocent Pakistanis over the past 8 years.

But the Pakistanis have been asking us very different questions. “Why do the American people support these barbaric and cowardly drone attacks?” “How would you like it if foreigners flew death machines into your airspace, murdering innocent men, women and children?” “Don’t you know that these attacks are counterproductive, driving locals into the hands of extremist groups out of a desire for revenge?”

When it comes to drones, Americans and Pakistanis see the world through different lenses. Americans are looking through the eyes of remote-control pilots safely ensconced in bases in the United States, while Pakistanis are at the receiving end of the bull’s eye. Polls show to the two peoples as polar opposites: 83% of Americans support the use of drones against “terrorist suspects overseas”; in Pakistan, among those who say they know something about drones, virtually all—97%—oppose them.

Many Pakistanis who raged against the “Innocence of Muslims” film were venting long-held resentments towards the United States stemming from drone attacks (along with other policies such as the US mishandling of the war in Afghanistan, the disastrous US invasion of Iraq, and the US pro-Israel bias in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict).

A newly released study Living Under Drones, written by human rights researchers from Stanford and New York Universities, details hundreds of Pakistani civilian casualties and the devastating effects of drone strikes on the local population. “In the United States, the dominant narrative about the use of drones in Pakistan is of a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the US safer by enabling ‘targeted killings’ of terrorists, with minimal downsides or collateral impacts. This narrative is false,” the study asserts.

Instead, the study concludes that the CIA drone program in Pakistan has not made America any safer and instead has turned the Pakistani public against the United States. Indeed, 80% of Pakistanis have a negative opinion of the United States and three-in-four Pakistanis consider the United States their enemy.

Imran Khan, Pakistan’s famous cricket player turned politician—and the country’s most popular figure, has been championing the cause of drone victims, describing the U.S. use of lethal drones as "immoral and insane" and "a clear violation of international laws and fundamental human rights.”

On October 7, Khan will be leading a peace march to Waziristan, a poor, dangerous, isolated tribal area of Pakistan where drones have killed so many people. "The people of Waziristan stand isolated, infrastructure has been destroyed, people have been displaced, their children haven't gone to schools in years and economic activities stand paralyzed," Khan explained.

He expects some 50,000 Pakistanis to join the march to this area where entry by non-residents is normally prohibited. "We believe that continued reliance on military strategy will push the people of the region towards the terrorists. We want to give them hope and show the world that the way to win this war is to isolate the terrorists and win hearts and minds of the people,” said Khan.

Human rights lawyer Shahzad Akbar, who is fighting for compensation for the families of drone victims, said "People in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas think that no one cares about their sufferings. This visit and march will be a chance to show them that we care.”

Among those marching will be the U.S. delegation organized by the peace group CODEPINK. The delegates, ranging in age from 23 to 85, are paying their own way and putting themselves at risk out of conviction that Americans must do more to stop the killing. Many of the delegates have already been actively involved in educating, protesting and mobilizing Americans against drone attacks. They have been vigiling—and getting arrested—outside air force bases, at the headquarters of drone manufacturers, at drone lobbyist events, in Congress and outside the White House.

In addition to the October 7 march, delegates will be having one-on-one meetings in Islamabad with people who have been injured by drones and people who have lost loved ones in drone attacks, as well as government officials, women's group, human rights organizations and think tanks. The group has also raised funds to help victims with their medical needs, since the U.S. government pays no compensation to people it has mistakenly harmed. One of the people they will be helping is Sadaullah, a 16-year-old who lost an eye and two legs in a drone attack.

The group is already receiving an outpouring of support from Pakistanis via twitter, Facebook, email and radio shows. "I didn't know that there were Americans willing to speak out against your government's policies. Your gesture has helped change my opinion of Americans," said one Facebook comment.

“We want to show Pakistanis that there are Americans calling for an end to the CIA’s killer drone strikes, and insisting that our government apologize and compensate the families of innocent victims,” said former diplomat and retired Army Colonel Ann Wright. “We travel as ‘citizen diplomats, apologizing, providing support, and calling for peaceful solutions that we would like our government to adapt.”



Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
Author pic
ABOUT Medea Benjamin

Medea Benjamin is an American political activist, best known for co-founding Code Pink and, along with her husband, activist and author Kevin Danaherfair trade advocacy group Global Exchange. Benjamin also was a Green Party candidate in 2000 for the United States Senate.

Top Stories

9 comments on "Americans Take Anti-Drone Stance Directly to Pakistan"

Arminius Aurelius

October 04, 2012 3:42pm

My country tis of thee , sweet land of liberty .........liberty and justice for all ........absolute and total hypocracy . Since 1950 we have attacked [ direct or indirectly ] over 30 poor 3rd world countries [ who were no threat to us. ] Some of them were : Korea , Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos , Nicaragua , Chile, Cuba* , Grenada, Guatamala , Haiti 2 X, Iran, Iraq 2 X , Zaire , Somalia , Yugoslavia , Philippines, Lebanon , Afghanistan, South Africa, Palestine , Panama , Dominican Republic , Libya 2 X , Dominican Republic, etc. If you are objective and doubt what I am saying , I suggest you read a book written by William Blum, " Killing Hope . " The book is a real SHOCKER . It was written in 2004 but updated in 2012 .

Arminius Aurelius

October 04, 2012 3:44pm

An eye for an eye , a tooth for a tooth . I am looking forward to the day when the so called " enemy Terrorists " gain access to the ability to target who they consider to be the enemy . Sooner or later , it will happen and when it does , if I were them I would send a few drones into the laps of Hillary and the C.I.A. and to any politicians who support Terrorism . How do you define a Terrorist ? I would say any powerful country that attacks well over 30 poor 3 rd world barely armed countries [ since 1950 ] with their Weapons of Mass Destruction and in the process murders millions of innocent men , women and children . # 2. Any country that approves of torturing " suspected " terrorists. The Nazis were accused of torturing people , therefore they were EVIL . But when we torture people , we do it to save the world ...............# 3 . Any country that sprays Agent Orange [ highly Toxic poison ] on food crops so that people will starve as was done in Vietnam . # 4. Any country that uses Toxic depleted Uranium in their bombs and bullets , a cancer causing agent that poisons the ground and atmosphere for many decades . But this same country allows the growth of Poppys which is converted into Heroin . Afghanistan produces about 85 % of all Heroin that is shipped to Europe and the U.S. The military is instructed by the politicians to look the other way . [ $ $ $ $ $ $ ] [ The Taliban outlawed Poppys and Heroin ] # 5. Who is this country that has troops stationed in over 135 countries around the world ? # 6. This very same country that promotes liberty , freedom and democracy financially and militarily supports assorted dictators around the world as long as they are our lapdogs and do our bidding.
Of course this hypocritical country is the U.S.S.A. What is our agenda ?
Read George Orwells book 1984 to get a full understanding as to where we are headed .............The " New World Order. " When a country wants to prosecute and punish whistle blowers who expose the ugly truth about how innocents are murdered in cold blood and torture that is approved of by the higher ups in Washington , those who NEVER served in the military , that is a national disgrace and embarrassment . Is it any wonder what happened in Libya ? If Russia and or China would attack us , destroy our country and murder our wives , children , brothers , sisters and friends , would we also not want to retaliate . Of course we would be labeled " Terrorists " when in truth we would be " Freedom Fighters. "
" What Evil lurks in the hearts of men , the Shadow knows." [ 1950 radio show ]

Rich Nau

September 27, 2012 4:45pm

If you are opposed to the drone strikes in Pakistan, and since Pakistan is the home base of the attacks in Afghanistan, I can conclude that you believe in one of the following:
Response to 9/11 - stern complaint to Afghanistan, but no military response;
No nation building after the defeat of the Afghan government;
Hot pursuit into Pakistan to deny fighters sanctuary;
Maned bombing of sites in Pakistan to deny fighters sanctuary;
Let the killing go unchecked in Afghanistan.
The real problem is that Pakistan has been our ally and the source of the trouble at the same time and we have been unable to resolve that dual role.

dwdallam

September 27, 2012 1:54pm

What I'd like to see in an article like this are some facts. The subject is the use of drones. So, what are the statistics of drone use compared to conventional means related to civilian deaths?

If a piloted aircraft could be on location as long as a drone, could the conventional method of piloted aircraft result in less collateral damage?

If not, then the subject is really something else, perhaps a Title like: Envoy Protests Botched War or something like that.

Until you can convinced me with stats and facts that using drones causes more civilian deaths than conventional means, I'm skeptical.

William Shirley

September 28, 2012 3:31am

I don't think the article was trying to say that fewer civilian deaths and injuries result from drone attacks. Indeed, for a terrorist attack to be effective we need to kill women and children as well as men. As the #1 terrorist nation in the world we need to be stirring up little wars all over the globe to justify the elimination of our Constitutionally protected rights and the constantly rising cost of making and using WMDs. Nukes tend to drift their radiation in almost random directions, but the "depleted" uranium in our shell casings scatters low level of radiation throughout the area, causing cancers, birth defects and other long lasting injuries. We also use the drones as part of "Dick" Cheney's dream of a child army with 12 year old kids in bunkers playing "War" on the rest of the world with real bombs and missiles. That way no bodies have to be sneaked into the country for late night quiet burials. We just lose multi-million dollar weapons but no Americans. Only the victims get pissed off but what could a handful of enraged Muslims do to the greatest nation in the world? We are invincible!

muskokajpm

September 27, 2012 1:06pm

The last time a population was threatened by un-piloted missiles was perhaps in the UK; London specifically. These buzz-bombs were sent over by Hitler's Germany and they were the concept of Werner von Braun, who later was to lend his expertise to the US space program. The difference between these weapons of indiscriminate destruction was that you could hear them coming and, when suddenly they fell silent you knew that you had better take cover as they were going to come down and explode in your vicinity. As I understand the drones, they are silent, they strike form a high altitude, and they hit their intended target.I find the concept that they are able to distinguish between terrorist and civilian victims (as in the smart bombs over Baghdad) hard to comprehend; is this because I am anti-American, or is it because the concept is, in itself, implausible. Well, for the record, I am not anti-American. Take it from there.

William Shirley

September 28, 2012 3:36am

The use by the Germans of "drone" attacks on a civilian population were deemed War Crimes by the World Court. We don't recognize the WC because if we did we'd have to send our ex-Presidents to the Hague for War Crimes trials due to our propensity for killing women and children, torture and concentration camps. You cannot expect the world to put up with our drunken brawls across the world with our depleted uranium dust wafting across the regions and our corporations demanding tribute from third world countries...or should I say "Other" third world countries as we are in that category by virtue of our huge debt load, ongoing wars and the elimination of civil rights from our Constitution, including the inviolate Habeas Corpus. Sooner or later three or four of the guests will have to knock us down, sit on us and force us to go home to sober up.

clefman

September 27, 2012 11:14am

As long as "The Company" is permitted to play a "Nintendo War" against our perceived enemies, mistakes will mount up. Although the temptation to wage a "death from the skies" surgical strike is intensely appealing to the boys-with-toys, the technology is not foolproof and we have no end of fools who are ready to prove it. Remote controllers have problems with line-of-sight control. These drones are run from sites in the American West. We need to put curbs on this practice. Remember, they are already talking about mounting drone surveillance here in the U.S......and we don't speak Urdu...do you?

William Bednarz

September 27, 2012 10:20am

. . . the study concludes that the CIA drone program in Pakistan has not made America any safer and instead has turned the Pakistani public against the United States.
Dick Cheney and george bush get their wish for long term bases - WE MAY NEVER BE ABLE TO LEAVE THEM IN PEACE
FOREIGN AID FOREVER.........should I throw in something about republicans ?? NOT NECESSARY....?.?.?.?