Do Targeted Killings Work?

Drone strikes are far from perfect -- but they're also far better than nothing.

BY DANIEL BYMAN | JULY 14, 2009

Killing terrorist leaders is difficult, is often ineffective, and can easily backfire. Yet it is one of the United States' few options for managing the threat posed by al Qaeda from its base in tribal Pakistan. By some accounts, U.S. drone activity in Pakistan has killed dozens of lower-ranking and at least 10 mid- and high-ranking leaders from al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Critics correctly find many problems with this program, most of all the number of civilian casualties the strikes have incurred. Sourcing on civilian deaths is weak and the numbers are often exaggerated, but more than 600 civilians are likely to have died from the attacks. That number suggests that for every militant killed, 10 or so civilians also died.

To reduce casualties, superb intelligence is necessary. Operators must know not only where the terrorists are, but also who is with them and who might be within the blast radius. This level of surveillance may often be lacking, and terrorists' deliberate use of children and other civilians as shields make civilian deaths even more likely.

Beyond the humanitarian tragedy incurred, civilian deaths create dangerous political problems. Pakistan's new democratic government is already unpopular for its corruption, favoritism, and poor governance. U.S. strikes that take a civilian toll are a further blow to its legitimacy -- and to U.S. efforts to build goodwill there. As counterterrorism expert David Kilcullen put it, "When we intervene in people's countries to chase small cells of bad guys, we end up alienating the whole country and turning them against us."

And even when they work, killings are a poor second to arrests. Dead men tell no tales and thus are no help in anticipating the next attack or informing us about broader terrorist activities. So in any country with a functioning government, it is better to work with that government to seize the terrorist than to kill him outright. Arresting al Qaeda personnel in remote parts of Pakistan, however, is almost impossible today; the Pakistani government does not control many of the areas where al Qaeda is based, and a raid to seize terrorists there would probably end in the militants escaping and U.S. and allied casualties in the attempt.

TARIQ MAHMOOD/AFP/Getty Images

 

Daniel Byman is director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University and senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. He is author of the forthcoming book, A High Price: The Triumphs and Failures of Israeli Counterterrorism.

Facebook|Twitter|Digg

JH

1:46 AM ET

July 15, 2009

Those who harbour terrorists are terrorists too

I keep on reading this in different articles that the drone attacks in tribal Pakistan have killed only 13 or so Al-Qaida members and more than 600 civilians, this article says about 60 (1:10) militants have been killed along with 600 civilians so far, but how could u say that all those 600 were innocent civilians.
Providing safe passage and hiding places to these terrorists is terrorism too. Why is then there a dominant opinion that the hideouts always contain a few high value Al-Qaida terrorists surrounded by innocent civilians who in my opinion are facilitators.
Is it possible that a high value Al-Qaida terrorist will move around with out sufficient men cover?
In most cases families of those who harbor these terrorists get killed, but then it is a choice that the terrorist made. In most cases people take such risks for money. There is no doubt that civilian casualties emanate out of such operations but statistics should be right and more logical. 10% and 50 or 60% are miles apart.
When these terrorist have made our lives insecure and frightful, then they should themselves live with the terror of drones. Those who suffered at the hands of these terrorist have a certain liking for the drones.