Dear Label_Name,

Greetings! I hope you are well.

I am writing on behalf of an international publishing house, Science and Education Publishing, USA (http://www.sciepub.com).

Science and Education Publishing (SciEP) is a multidisciplinary open access publisher of Journals covering the fields of Science, Technology and Medicine. All SciEP publications are subject to high-quality peer review, editorial and production processes and are freely available online.

Welcome to the April, 2013 edition of SciEP newsletter, providing monthly summaries of articles on science & education related topics of interest to scientist and professionals. The mission of our journals is to provide an open access forum for publishing new findings on issues pertinent to scientific and academic field. We also invite you to submit original research papers, review articles, short reports, or case studies are considered for publication in our Multidisciplinary Journals.

American Journal of Public Health Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajphr-1-1-3

The Implementation of a Tele-Homecare System with Service Oriented Architecture and HL7 Message Transmission Standard
Ching-Sung Wang

American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
DOI: 10.12691/ajmbr-1-1-2

The Influence of Ethanol on Pyruvate Kinases Activity in Vivo, in Vitro, in Silico
Lelevich Sergey Vladimirovich, Khrustalev Vladislav Victorovich, Barkovsky Eugene Victorovich, Shedogubova Tatyana Aleksandrovna

American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
DOI: 10.12691/ajmsm-1-1-1

Clinical and Histological Features in Wegener Granulomatosis
Li Cavoli Gioacchino, Passantino Rita, Bono Luisa, Tortorici Calogera, Ferrantelli Angelo, Giammarresi Carlo, Rotolo Ugo

American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
DOI: 10.12691/ajidm-1-1-2

The Curse of Lymphatic Filariasis: Would the Continual Use of Diethylcarbamazine Eliminate this Scourge in Papua New Guinea?
Anne Lanham, Lillian Mwanri

We have released issues of some journals on February 2013.
American Journal of Public Health Research
American Journal of Medical Sciences and Medicine
American Journal of Medical and Biological Research
American Journal of Pharmacological Sciences
American Journal of Clinical Medicine Research
American Journal of Nursing Research
American Journal of Cancer Prevention
American Journal of Medicine Studies
American Journal of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology
American Journal of Cardiovascular Disease Research
American Journal of Biomedical Research
American Journal of Mechanical Engineering
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Journal of Preventive Medicine
American Journal of Food and Nutrition
American Journal of Hypertension Research
American Journal of Sports Science and Medicine
Journal of Cancer Research and Treatment
American Journal of Zoological Research
Journal of Biomedical Engineering and Technology
American Journal of Microbiological Research
Biomedical Science and Engineering

We are pleased to announce that submissions are now being accepted for peer review for all the journals across all our subject areas in SciEP.

Please submit your manuscript via our online submission system:
http://www.sciepub.com/author/signin

To unsubscribe from our mailing list, please click on the following link: unsubscribe

I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind regards,

David Rain
Email:join@sciepub.com
Science and Education Publishing (http://www.sciepub.com)

US Drone Policy: Contested Global and Local Narratives

Akber Ali

School of Film Studies, Shanghai University, P.R.Chia/ Karakoram International University, Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan

Abstract: In the post 9/11, the United States has launched a controversial Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) or commonly known as drone strikes as a counterterrorism strategy in a number of regions of Asia and Africa to hit the terrorists and their hideouts. There exist contested global and local narratives pertinent to the US drone policy. The United States has defended the US drone strikes as an effective counter terror policy with minimum collateral damage and not violating the international law ;the human rights organizations and independent actors including the targeted countries on the other hand, have challenged the US claims and narratives vis-à-vis the drone strikes on various dimensions including legally, effectual and moral. This study attempts to explore how these narratives vary from each other and what are the reasons for these divergent interpretations of the usage of the drone technology.

Keywords: US Drones, independent narratives, local narratives

Citation: Akber Ali, US Drone Policy: Contested Global and Local Narratives. World Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3 (2). 44-49. January 2017. doi:10.12691/wjssh-3-2-3

1. Introduction

In the post 9/11, the United States has launched controversial unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) commonly known as drones, as a counterterrorism strategy in a number of states/geographic regions including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya to eliminate and destroy terrorists and their hideouts. These drone attacks have become a key feature of the US foreign policy as a counter terror measure during the Obama Administration [2] against the suspected terrorists in the aforementioned countries These drones led by the Central Intelligence Agency (CA) of the United States have drawn severe criticism and contested claims not only from the targeted countries but also from various independent actors vis-à-vis their legality, morality and effectiveness [24].

Reportedly during the 2010 alone, more than 100 drone strikes were conducted in Pakistan alone and are estimated to kill one third to ninety five percent civilians ([16], p.3). Contested narratives are there whether the drones are legal in the realm of international law and violate the national sovereignty of the targeted countries and who are actually being killed by these US drones. This study aims to dwell on how different nations, global actors and regions across the national settings have responded and reacted to the US drones. It proceeds first by explicating the US official policy stance in defense of the drone strikes in the post 9/11 as a counterterrorism strategy of War on Terror (WOT). Further it will also discuss how the independent actors and targeted nations have interpreted and labeled the US drone strikes vis-à-vis their legal and moral dimensions. Finally the study will also attempt to explain the local narratives and reactions to the US drones in the targeted countries.

2. United States and its Drone Policy

In the post 9/11, the US has launched the lethal drone strikes in a number of geographic regions of Asia and Africa as a counter terror strategy to target the Al-Qaeda elements and their hideouts who the US thinks are dangerous for the security and interests of it. These UAVs commonly known as drones have generated a contentious global debate over the legal and moral aspects of drone strikes. First authorized by George W. Bush-the former US president, the drone program was further enhanced and expanded during the Obama Administration as national security policy against the militants. During the Presidency of George W.Bush, 50 drone strikes were authorized that killed 296 terrorists and 195 civilians in Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan [39]. An unprecedented increase in drone strikes was witnessed during the Obama Administration that authorized 506 drone strikes that have killed 3, 040 terrorists and 391 civilians [39]. The United States defends its drone policy as an effective strategy against the terrorists who pose threat to the US security interests and terms that the drones are not a violation of the international humanitarian or US domestic law ([5], p.177). Further, the US considers the drones are the best strategy against the militants instead of using the costly ground war in the selected regions where the drones are used. The US legal position vis-à-vis drones markedly differ from the international human rights groups which will be explained in the subsequent section.

This increasing reliance of the American military on the drone technology as a counter terror strategy has produced two major competing narratives vis-à-vis the legal, moral and effectual dimension of the drone strikes and has dawn much global criticism. In the US, the policy makers have defended that the drone strikes are legal under the international law, strategically valuable and have limited collateral damage [26]. Former President Obama while speaking at the National Defense University stated the US policy on drones as follows:

America’s actions are legal…Under the domestic, and international law, the United States is at war with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war –a war waged proportionally, in last resort, and in self-defense [19].

In a similar vein the US Department of Defense has also claimed that the drone strikes in Pakistan have killed leading figures of Al Qaeda and Taliban, despite the fact that the drones have also killed and wounded many civilians living in the region of Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) [8]. Defending the US drone strikes, the former director of Central Intelligence Agency ( CIA) Leaon Panetta had said that "Very frankly, it's the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership" [6]. The US officials have time and again asserted that the drone strikes are so ‘exceptionally surgical and precise’ that they hit their appropriate targets with high precision without collateral damage. Global attitude surveys have shown that the majority of the public opinion in the US is in consonant with the US policy officials pertinent to the drone usage. Studies conducted in the United States about the US drone policy has revealed that majority (58%) of the public surveyed in the US supported the US drones in Pakistan and elsewhere [23].

Studies have also shown that the narratives of the US drones in the public sphere markedly differed across the national and political settings. Studies conducted on drones and counterterrorism strategies have revealed varied findings across the media and social-political spectrums the world over. In their studies Sheets, Rowling and Jones [26] have found that the narratives in the media spheres about the US drones across the media settings were markedly different in the western and Arabic media. They revealed that the US media framed the drone policy to be legal, strategically valuable, and technologically sophisticated while downplaying the collateral damage the droned caused. The British press and the Arab press were reported to be more critical about the US drone policy and challenged the US claims of the legality of the drone strikes. Bachman [2] studying the drone coverage in The New York Times and Washington Post has concluded that both the newspapers failed to correctly report about the civilian casualties due to the drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan and deemphasized the civilian impacts of the drones and did not mention any international legal aspects while reporting the US drone strikes. The study also reported that the independent international reports by rights groups on drones reported a substantial number of civilian killings in the drone attacks, while the reports in the News York Times and Washington Post on the same drone strikes underreported the civilian killings and claimed affirmatively that all the legitimate targets were killed despite the fact that it remains difficult to immediately and independently ascertain who was killed given the inaccessibility of the targeted regions to the independent sources. Notwithstanding, the US narratives pertinent to the US drone strikes have been challenged by a number of international independent actors and rights groups.

3. US Drones Policy and Independent Narratives

A number of international independent actors have challenged the US policy narratives vis-à-vis the drones and have termed the drone strikes against the international humanitarian law and violation of the sovereignty of the targeted states. The United Nations officials, officials in the targeted countries and legal experts consider the US drone attacks as a violation of international law and human rights (Singer, 2009 as cited in [26], p.2). The Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, including the academia and Non-Governmental Organizations and Civil Society Organizations have raised concerns over the lethal drones and have challenged the US legal and moral claims on the use of the drone attacks as an effective counterterrorism strategy [5]. The critics from international groups and Non-Governmental Organizations have contested the US policy on drones and have claimed that the drones are not only a violation of the international law, but also create more terrorists and extremism in the targeted counties. In their joint report by the Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, the drones strikes in Pakistan and Yemen have been termed as the violations of international rights law and have declared that the CIA through its secret drone program may have “committed war crimes and should stand trial” [28]. Kreps and Wallace ([17], p.177) note that the NGOs and International Organizations have criticized the use of the drones and claimed that the drone attacks create more terrorists then they kill and violate the legal commitments. Other studies have also raised concerns over the ethical consideration of drone attacks. Enemark ([11], p.235) while explicating the ethical uncertainties surrounding the US drone strikes in Pakistan has argued that the US government narratives on drones for their transparency and morality are vague thus need a greater official transparency explaining how the US drones are beneficial and precisely target the wanted targets with no collateral damage.

Disputing with the claims of the Obama Administration that the US drones precisely target the militants and terrorists with no civilian killings, the Human Rights Watch (HRW) has challenged these claims and has instead revealed that that drones have killed civilians too including the women and children in Yemen and elsewhere in a clear violation of international humanitarian law. The HRW has documented that one such drone attacks killed 14 alleged militants but also 42 civilians including children and women in Yemen. Other such drone strikes have killed 12 civilian including a mother and three children coming home from market [15]. In Pakistan according to the investigation done by the Amnesty International nine drone attacks occurred between May 2012 to July 2013 that have killed more than 30 civilian [37].

Independent international organizations have also rejected the latest US reports on the civilian killings in the US drone attacks. The Obama Administration in its latest report has claimed that between 2009 to Dec 31, 2015; the US launched 473 strikes which have killed between 64 to 116 civilians and 2, 372 and 2, 581 terrorist “combatants” [29]. These statistics have been challenged by independent sources and have documented that the civilian killing is much higher than the US claims. In contrast to the US report, the civilian killings during the drone attacks has been put by independent sources between 380 to 381-six times higher than the US claims [31]. The global public opinion about the drone strikes varies from that of the US public opinion as aforementioned. The study conducted on the global public opinions on drones has shown drastically differed opinions on the US drone strikes. In an another study by Pew conducted in 2014, the major NATO allies such as Germany (67%), France (72%), Turkey ( 83%) , Spain (86%) and the UK (59%) opposed the US drone attacks [22].

Numerous studies by independent organizations have noted the psychological effects of the drones on the local residents. The reports have narrated that in addition to the killings of the civilians, the US drone strikes have traumatized the local residents causing numerous psychological problems (see the report on ‘Living under Drones’ by Stanford Law School & NYU School of Law, 2012).³ In its report on the US drone strikes in Pakistan the Amnesty International has reported that the drones have traumatized the local residents and has claimed that the drone program has killed or injured many men, women and children in Pakistan and is a serious human rights issue [1]. Some other important actors like the European Union thus for have not came forth with a clear policy on US drone attacks and have been largely passive in its response neither reacted publically towards the US drone policy. The EU still does not have an official policy stance on armed US drones ([10,18], p.247). Perhaps the ambivalent approach that still prevails in the EU towards the US drone strikes is due to the fact that the EU is committed to put the human rights and the international law as cornerstone of its foreign policy.

4. US Drone Policy and Local Narratives

The local narratives in the targeted countries drastically vary from the US narratives pertinent to the US drone attacks. Studies have concluded that the US drone attacks in Pakistan are highly unpopular despite the fact that the drones in the FATA¹ region of Pakistan where the US since 2004 has launched the CIA controlled drone strikes and has killed some of the highly wanted elements of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Large public protests have been witnessed in Pakistan lately against the drone strikes in the major cities of Pakistan. Pakistan is the worst hit country by the US drones and still remains a complex issue. In Pakistan, the first US drone strike occurred in June 2004 in which the Taliban commander Naek Mohammad was killed in the South Waziristan region of FATA along with several others including two boys of ages 10 and 16 [19]. Since then the US appears to have been pursuing an ‘undeclared’ but ‘not so secret’ drone policy to launch the aerial strikes inside Pakistan [11] in the FATA region with sanctuaries of the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements and which the US considers as greatest threat to the US domestic security [38].

In June 2013, the National Assembly of Pakistan passes a unanimous resolution against the US drone strikes in Pakistan calling them as violation of UN Charter and International law and humanitarian norms [9]. Notwithstanding the political rhetoric and public posturing against the US drones in Pakistan, the strikes could not stop by the successive governments and likely to continue in future. Across the political spectrum in Pakistan, US drone strikes have been condemned claiming that the attacks are fueling extremism and terrorism in Pakistan. Former Army Chief, General Raheel Sharif had termed the drones as regrettable as they are a “threat to the sovereignty and security of the country” [14]. In a similar vein, the former President Asif Zadari during his meeting to the David H. Petraue-the head of the US Central Command complained about the drone strikes in Pakistan and said, “Continuing drone attacks on our territory, which result in loss of precious lives and property, are counterproductive and difficult to explain by a democratically elected government. It is creating a credibility gap” [20].

US drone strikes still remains a controversial issue in the political and security landscape of Pakistan. Questions still remain to be answered whether or not US drone strikes in Pakistani territory are conducted with the consent of the latter or it is unilateral action of the former. The US implies that the drones are conducted with the willingness of Pakistani officials ([11], p.222). For instance, Williams ([38], p.874,)notes while quoting numerous news reports in the international media, that the Predators (drones) are not operated from Afghanistan but from Pakistani soil, and it is an open secret that the Americans were given permission to carry out an assassination in the tribal areas of Pakistan, and the Pakistani political and security officials would officially protests against these drone attacks. Both the military regime of Musharaf and the elected government of President Zardari respectively, studies have noted that the despite the public posturing against the drones, both the Zardari and Mushraf governments were covertly supporting US drone strikes in Pakistan (see [38], p. 882). Notwithstanding, both the political and security officials of Pakistan have denied this US version of the secret agreement between the US and Pakistan for conducting the drone strikes in the ungovernable FATA region bordering Afghanistan and assert instead that the drone strikes is a unilateral US action. However, a report revealed that Pakistani officials have secretly endorsed the US drone program in Pakistan’s tribal region and routinely received classified briefings despite publically denouncing the CIA drone strikes inside Pakistan [7,36].

Successive political administrations in Pakistan have accused each other for allowing the US drones attacks in Pakistan that violates the national sovereignty. During the 2013 elections, the US drone strikes were the top elections campaign slogan of various political parties claiming that they would shoot down the American drones once they get elected while maligning the other political parties for their failure and silent support to the done strikes. Addressing a peace activists rally in 2012, Imran Khan, Chief of the PTI (Pakistan Tehreek Insaf)² promised that ‘he will order the Pakistani air force to ‘shoot down’ the drones if he takes power in the general elections of 2013 [34]. Other political parties and their chiefs have made similar claims. In a similar vein the then Pakistani Air force Chief Rao Suleman had stated that Pakistan is capable of shooting down the US drones but its consequences would be unaffordable for Pakistan [32].

Polls have shown that 67% of the respondents in Pakistan consider the drone attacks “kill too many innocent people” and media framing in the Pakistani press is also in consonant with the poll results depicting the US drones highly negatively and terming them as violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty ([12,22], p.579). Other studies contrary to this Pew Polls have revealed that the many Pakistani Pashtun tribesmen living in the restive FATA region have supported the US drone strikes as an effective tool against the Taliban who have terrorized the Pashtun society (e.g., [38]). A study to assess the local perceptions perhaps for the first time in the FATA region-the most affected region from drone strikes, Shah [25] in an in-depth interview from diverse segments of population has revealed that 79 % of the residents of the affected region have endorsed the drone strikes telling the drones strikes accurately target the militants than the land based military operations and that contradicts the thesis that posits the link between drones and their radicalization effects on the locals. The blowback thesis that drones are causing backlash in Pakistan- killing of more civilians by the terrorists as a revenge for drone attacks and causing anti-Americanism in Pakistan is no more substantiated by the studies conducted in the FATA region where the drones are fired. In survey conducted in the FATA region by a local Pakistan based NGO in 2009 came with another interesting finding. According this study, contrary to the popular assumptions, the responses from the local residents were extraordinary in which the local population of the area overwhelmingly opposed the militants and their presence and were reported to be more inclined to supported the US drone attacks. According to the NGO’s findings, only 45% said the drones brought fear and terror in the common people, 52% said the drones attacks targets were accurate, 58% were of the view that the drones did not cause anti-Americanism in the area, 60% said the drone attacks have damaged the militant organizations and their infrastructure in the FATA region and that the US drone strikes is not a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty rather the sovereignty is being violated by the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the FATA region ([33,38], p. 883). Why the findings from the targeted region of FATA are in sharp contrast from that of the rest of Pakistan? This is interesting question that needs to be explored. However, hypothetically speaking certain factors may explain the divergence in the public opinion pertinent to the drone issue.

Firstly, most of the reports and surveys carried out in Pakistan vis-à-vis the drones opposing them are urban-centric mainly conducted out of the region of FATA that has not been impacted by these drone attacks and thus unlikely to reflect the local opinions of FATA where the actual drone strikes are launched. Thus the urban centric public opinions of Pakistani public out of the fantasy of the anti-American sentiments do not support the US strikes and that goes contrary to the opinions of the local population of the FATA region. In addition to the urban public opinion opposing the US drones, the media in Pakistan is equally opposing the US drones out of it predominant anti-American bias (see [38], p.880) and its urban based organizational structure with almost no representation of the rural population of Pakistan. Given, the inaccessibility of media to the FATA region, the analysts sitting in the TV rooms oppose these drone attacks without knowing the local sentiments of the FATA region. For instance, in 2009 a FATA based political parties and civil society organizations issued the famous ‘Peshawar Declaration’ stating among other provisions said that the drones have never killed civilians and that a component of Pakistani media, analyst including the retired generals and journalists and pro-Taliban political parties have a baseless propaganda against the US drone attacks (see [38], p. 884).

Secondly, the presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda elements in the region of FATA is not with the assenting of the local population. Given the porous region of Pakistan- Afghanistan border, the FATA region provided a safe haven to the terrorists and their presence there has brought much wrath to the local population wherein the Taliban had control over the lives of the locals from closing the girls schools to cinemas to executing the adulterers and local spies who were suspected to be spying for the US and an enforcement of a strict understanding of the Islamic Sharia (Islamic Jurisprudence). The drones in the eyes of the local populous seemed to be the only effective strategy to kill the Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives in the region of FATA prior to the Pakistani military operation in 2014. Many of the top Taliban and Al Qaeda operatives were killed in the US drones from Baitullah Mehsud to Naek Muhammad who had sent numerous suicide bombers in Pakistan cities killing hundreds of innocent civilians in suicide attacks. Finally, most of the polls opposing the drone strikes seemed to be a bit outdated. After the terrorist attack on a children school in Abbottabad, Pakistan in December, 2014 killing more than 140, the whole country was shocked. Since then the state narrative vis-à-vis the terrorism has changed and the dichotomy of ‘good Taliban’ versus ‘bad Taliban’ seems to be no more relevant in Pakistan today. The military offensive launched in the FATA region in 2014 as a consequence of the grotesque attack on the children school has arguably changed the public perception about the drone attacks and the overall terrorism in Pakistan; however news studies would be worthy to understand whether or not the Pakistani perceptions regarding the drones has changed after the Pakistani military’s on offensive in the FATA region.

There are also contested claims over the killings of civilians in the drone attacks with no independently verified number of civilian killings as most of the geographic locations hit by the drone strikes are security risk and are inaccessible for the independent researchers. For instance the FATA region of Pakistan is a porous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan which has been hit worst by the US drones and remains inaccessible for the NGOs and independent researchers due to the security risks. The local people in the FATA region of Pakistan are scared to speak out either [1]. From 2004-2016, there have been 424 drone attacks in Pakistan with an unprecedented increase under the Obama Administration’s second term during which alone 373 drone strikes were fired [3,12,27] and reportedly between 2499-4001 lives have been lost in these drone strikes [30].

The civilian fatality from drone attacks in the targeted regions from 2004 to 2010 is reported to be 32% of the total killings of 1200 individuals [4]. However, the White House in its latest report on the drone strikes has put the civilian killings since 2009 between 64 and 116 [35]. Contested reports and narratives have been reported in various media outlets the world over about the exact number of killings and the collateral damage in the drone strikes in Pakistan and other regions where drones are launched. In a report on drone strikes in Pakistan, the Amnesty International has reported that the US has launched some 330 and 374 drone strikes in Pakistan between 2004 to September 2013, wherein between 400 to 900 civilians have been killed in these attacks and 600 people seriously injured ([1], p.7). However, as the AI itself has noted that most of the sources who provided the statistics pertinent to US drones and the killing as a result were NGOs and Pakistani official sources that is hard to be verified independently.

5. Concluding Remarks

Contested claims are there over the use of US drone strikes as a counterterrorism strategy among the US, the targeted states and the international independent actors. While the US officials view the usage of drone technology against the so-called terrorist elements as an effective policy response to counter the threats to the US security and its national interests around the globe; the independent actors- including the NGOs and the rights organizations have challenged the US narratives terming them as violation of international humanitarian law. The targeted countries where the US operates its CIA led drone program have also raised their concerns over the drone strikes as a violation of their national sovereignty and have demanded that the US drones be either stopped or should be operated with the consent of the national governments. The US however has not paid any heed to these national and international concerns and has kept the use of drones against the terrorists’ elements as an important part of its foreign policy. Global opinions pertinent to the US drone strikes vary markedly. While the US public opinion overwhelmingly supported the use of drone technology as an effective strategy to hit the elements who pose threats to the US and its people; the non-American public opinions have overwhelmingly opposed the use of the drone strikes. Nevertheless, the opinions within the targeted countries are also divided over the drone strikes wherein some segments of the population support the US drone strikes as an effective mechanism to get rid of the terrorists elements and their hideouts; others voice with the same national boundaries have opposed the use of US drones in their geographic territories.

In the case of Pakistan, the public opinion contrary to the popular assumptions is divided over the use of the drone warfare [13]. Despite the twisted polls showing the overwhelming majority opposing the US drones in Pakistan, studies have shown that the public does not predominantly oppose the US drones particularly the populations of the targeted region of FATA has markedly differed opinions than that of the rest of Pakistan. One of the possible explanations for the divergence in the public opinion is the geographic location and the political status of the FATA region bordering Afghanistan where the drones are fired in the overall governance structure of Pakistan. FATA which has become the theater of the US drones is yet to be included in the mainstreaming of Pakistan and about which the public in the rest of Pakistan has very little knowledge. Thus the blowback argument about drones in Pakistan seems to be a myth more than a reality.

Notes

1. FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) is restive region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan and is considered a hub of the terrorism. The region is anomalous and autonomous in the Pakistani polity and is not part of the mainstreaming Pakistan neither has the enforcement of the Pakistani governance system. The colonial-era legal dispensations know as FCR (Frontiers Crimes Regulations) is still the governing rule in the region.

2. PTI- Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf is the third largest political party in Pakistan led by the former cricketer Imran Khan

3. International human rights and conflict resolution clinic (Stanford law school) and global justice clinic (NYU school of law), living under drones: death, injury, and trauma to civilians from us drone practices in Pakistan (September, 2012).

References

[1]   | Amnesty International. (October 2013). “Will I be Next?” US drone strikes in Pakistan. From: https://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/asa330132013en.pdf. On Feb 6, 2017.
[2]   | Bachman, J. (2015). The New York Times and Washington Post: Misleading the public about US drone strikes. Journalism Studies, 1-25.
[3]   | BBC. (July 22, 2010). Mapping US drone and Islamic militant attacks in Pakistan. From: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10648909, On Feb 6, 2017.
[4]   | Bergen, P., & Tiedemann, K. (April 23, 2010). The Year of the Drone. Available at: http://vcnv.org/files/NAF_YearOfTheDrone.pdf, on Feb 17, 2017.
[5]   | Brunstetter, D.R., Bacardi, A.J. (2015). Clashing over drones: the legal and normative gap between the United States and the human rights community. The International Journal of Human Rights, 19 (2), 176-198.
[6]   | CNN.Com. (May 18, 2009). U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan called ‘very effective’. Retrieved from: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/18/cia.pakistan.airstrikes/, on Jan 23, 2017.
[7]   | CNN. Com. (Oct 25, 2013). Report: US, Pakistan had secret agreement on dozens of drone strikes. From: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/24/politics/u-s-drones-pakistan-report/ On Feb 6, 2017.
[8]   | Davies, N.J.S. (2009). The Caroline Case and American Drone Strikes in Pakistan. Peace Review: A Journal of Social Justice, 21, 429-436.
[9]   | Dawn. (Dec 10, 2013). NA unanimously passes resolution against US drone strikes. Available at: http://www.dawn.com/news/1061704, On Feb 13, 2017.
[10]   | Dworkin, A. (2013). Drones and Targeted Killing: Defining a European Position. Available at: https://www.files.ethz.ch/isn/173544/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf, Feb 10, 2017.
[11]   | Enemark, C. (2011). Drones over Pakistan: Secrecy, Ethics, and Counterinsurgency. Asian Security, 7 (3), 218-237.
[12]   | Fair, C. & Hamza, A. (2016). From elite consumption to popular opinion: framing of the US drone program in Pakistani newspapers. Small Wars & Insurgencies, 27 (4), 578-607.
[13]   | Fair, C.C., Kaltenthaler, K. & Miller, W. (2015). Pakistani Political Communication and Public Opinion on US Drone Attacks. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 38 (6), 852-872.
[14]   | Haider, M. (June 1, 2016). US drone strikes regrettable, must stop: COAS. Available at: http://www.dawn.com/news/1262054, On Feb 5, 2017.
[15]   | Human Rights Watch (March 24, 2014). The Truth about the United States Drone Program. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/03/24/truth-about-united-states-drone-program, Retrieved on: Feb 10, 2107.
[16]   | Jones, T.M., Sheets, P., & Rowling, C.M. (2011). Differential News Framing of Unnamed Aerial Drones: Efficient and Effective or Illegal and Inhumane? APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1900579.
[17]   | Kreps, S.E., & Wallace, G.P.R. (2016). International law, military effectiveness, and public support for drone strikes. Journal of Peace Research, 53 (6), 830-844.
[18]   | Martin, B.O. (2015). The European Union and armed drones: framing the debate. Global Affairs, 1 (3), 247- 250.
[19]   | New York Times. (May 23, 2013). Obama’s speech on drone policy. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us/politics/transcript-of-obamas-speech-on-drone-policy.html, Feb 14, 2017.
[20]   | New York Times. (Nov 3, 2008). Petraues in Pakistan Hears Complaints About Missile Strikes. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/world/asia/04pstan.html.
[21]   | Pew Research Centre. (June 29, 2012). Little Support in Pakistan for American Drone Strikes Targeting Extremist Leaders. http://www.pewresearch.org/daily-number/little-support-in-pakistan-for-american-drone-strikes-targeting-extremist-leaders/, Jan20, 2017.
[22]   | Pew Global Attitudes Project. (July 14 2014). US drone strikes increasingly opposed. http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/chapter-1-the-american-brand/#u-s-drone-strikes-increasingly-opposed, on Feb 5, 2017.
[23]   | Pew Research Centre. (May 28, 2015). Public continues to Back U.S. drone attacks. http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/28/public-continues-to-back-u-s-drone-attacks/, On Feb 2, 2017.
[24]   | Rowling, C.M., Sheets, P. & Jones, T.M. (2013). Frame Contestation in the News: National Identify, Cultural Resonance, and the US Drone Policy. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2231-2253.
[25]   | Shah, A. (May 22, 2016). Why drone blowback in Pakistan is a myth. Dawn, Available at: http://www.dawn.com/news/1259933, On Feb, 11, 2017.
[26]   | Sheets, P., Rowling, C., & Jones, T.M. (2015). The view from above (and below): A comparison of American, British, and Arab news coverage of US drones. Media, War & Conflict, 8 (3), 289-311.
[27]   | Terrorism Watch. (May 2016). US drone strikes in Pakistan see 631pc increase under Obama. Retrieved from: http://www.terrorismwatch.org/2016/05/us-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-see-631pc.html, On Feb 5, 2017.
[28]   | The Guardian. (Oct 22, 2013). US drone strikes could be classed as war crimes, says Amnesty International. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/22/amnesty-us-officials-war-crimes-drones, on Fe 15, 2017.
[29]   | The Guardian. (July 1, 2016). Obama claims US drone strikes have killed up t 116 civilians. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-drones-strikes-civilian-deaths, Feb 12, 2017.
[30]   | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (2016). Get the data: Drone wars. https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/category/projects/drones/drones-graphs/, on Feb 4, 2017.
[31]   | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. (Jan 17, 2017). Get the data: Drone wars. Retrieved from: https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2017/01/17/obamas-covert-drone-war-numbers-ten-times-strikes-bush/, on Feb 20, 2017.
[32]   | The Nation. (May 03, 2011). Bin Laden dies again. Available at: http://nation.com.pk/editorials/03-May-2011/Bin-Laden-dies-again, On Feb 11, 2017.
[33]   | The News, ( March 5, 2009). Drone attacks- a survey. Retrieved from: https://www.thenews.com.pk/archive/print/164433-drone-attacks----a-survey, accessed on , March 27, 2017.
[34]   | The Telegraph. (Oct 5 2012). Imran Khan: I will order air force to shoot down drones. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/9589541/Imran-Khan-I-will-order-air-force-to-shoot-down-drones.html, Feb 6, 2017.
[35]   | The USA Today. (July 1, 2016). White House: At least 64 116 civilians killed in drone strikes since 2009. Retrieved from: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/01/obama-drone-strike-report-executive-order/86584806/, Feb 20, 2017.

[36]  
The Washington Post. (October 24 2013). Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones. On Feb 7, 2017 at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-pakistani-leaders-secretly-backed-cia-drone-campaign-secret-documents-show/2013/10/23/15e6b0d8-3beb-11e3-b6a9-da62c264f40e_story.html?utm_term=.a83e0bb9874e.

[37]  
Whitlock (Oct 22, 2013). Drone Strikes killing more civilians than US admits, human rights groups say. The Guardian. Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/drone-strikes-killing-more-civilians-than-us-admits-human-rights-groups-say/2013/10/21/a99cbe78-3a81-11e3-b7ba-503fb5822c3e_story.html?utm_term=.c3a52f82861b, on Feb 15, 2017.

[38]   | Williams, B.G. (2010). The CIA’s Covert Predator Drone War in Pakistan, 2004-2010: The History of an Assassination Campaign. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 33 (10), 871-892.
[39]   | Zenko, M. (Jan 12, 2016). Obama’s embrace of drone strikes will be a lasting legacy. The New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2016/01/12/reflecting-on-obamas-presidency/obamas-embrace-of-drone-strikes-will-be-a-lasting-legacy, on Feb 5, 2017.