As CIA-operated drones strikes inside Pakistan territory continue, in fact of late have intensified, the public opinion here and elsewhere in the world has begun casting President Obama in the role of an 'executioner'. As to how he personally selects targets and orders attacks the New York Times has revealed existence of a cabal in the White House that shares presidential determination but cannot ask questions.
President Obama is believed to be maintaining a 'killer list' and orders 'target killing'. If that goes awry and innocent non-combatants get killed, generally is often the case, he is not greatly concerned. CIA informers on the ground 'identify' the targets which means all 'military-age adults', wherever they are. How many of these adults are terrorists it is neither President Obama's nor CIA's headache. Drones as is said to be his weapon of choice, for they leave behind only 'light footprint' as against other options like ground or air attacks. Targeting people irrespective of their status, age and sex is not only grossly immoral and unethical it is also a glaring violation of international law and the Geneva conventions which clearly define the status and nature of combatant.
Though the CIA-operated drone strike started by George Bush it's during President Obama's term that these increased manifold. As to how many people have been killed there is no firm statistics but the general belief is that these could be between 1715 and 2700. Of course, all the victims were not the terrorists; if they were there would be no resistance to foreign invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. Too many of them were non-combatant civilians including women and children. And these strikes are the 'light footprint', as David Rhode, the NYT correspondent who was held hostage by militants in tribal area experienced as the drone-fired missile hit nearby. There was a huge explosion and the splinters fell all around including his place of incarceration.
So much for the 'light footprint' prognosis; as to why President Obama has chosen this tool of war and why the drone strikes of late have intensified? On the face of it, there are two reasons: One, he is trying to prove wrong his political nemesis, presidential candidate Romney, who paints him as soft and ineffective over the terrorists - an unsavoury epithet if an average American is believed to be a macho at heart. Two, President Obama is using it against Pakistan as pressure-building instrument. That in the last fortnight or so, especially in the wake of Chicago debacle and since sentencing of Dr Shakeel Afridi's by a tribal jirga, the drone attacks have increased, the pressure-assertion perception gets vindicated. But isn't it hugely ironic that continuing use of drones has not only tarnished President Obama's image but it has fuelled resistance to foreign presence in the region and seriously undermined the Pak-US anti-terrorism alliance.
Despite the fact that Pakistani public opinion is divided on many other aspects of this alliance, even on the issue of 'apology' and Nato supply routes reopening there is complete, unshaken national unanimity that drone attacks are clear infringement of our independence and sovereignty. If the White House is still insulated what the Pakistanis say about the drone strikes it should hear to its ambassador in Islamabad. Finding it impossible to defend the logic of his president's decision to persist with drone attacks and such other one-sided actions and moves he has decided to relinquish his post and go home. If at all Washington is still interested to mending fences with Pakistan, which essentially means its people, the drone strikes must stop without any further loss of time. There is no alternative to this.