Death & Discourse

The recent strikes in North Waziristan have prompted some to conclude that the "time for talk is over", and this could indeed be the case if a long standing peace deal with Hafiz Gul Bahadur in NWA is revoked. However, the PMLN government’s penchant for saying one thing and doing nothing means that the confused lull will prevail for a while longer.

What struck me the most is the attention the strikes received and the questions raised, again, over the identity of those killed. Perhaps it is because of government ownership and high profile nature of talks, but strikes in NWA seem to come under the spotlight ever since Nawaz Sharif took power. This has given yours truly renewed hope that some truth about our war on terror might be on its way to a screen/newspaper near you, and that blatant lying about the dead may end in the distant future.

The partisan nature of our media and media men is such that for the truth to ever come out; their interests/agendas must be aligned with it. With 4 separate agendas coming to the fore this time around, we have a tiny window of opportunity.

The first group comprises of earnest supporters of democracy who can be seen cheering on the army to bomb without political approval.  They are pretty much set in their ways, and will not bring about desirable effects. Expect newfound patriotism and alignment with Pak army lover for life crowd.

The second are the mostly right-wing guys. Always uneasy with the ops, it has however been difficult to choose between the mullah and the military. If the NS government falls out with the army, they could spin into action and start pointing out transgressions of the army.

Third - the drone-mongers. An unhealthy obsession with robots killing people, to ultimately save mankind (Hello Hollywood), means they will continue to preach the lesser evil. Pointing out heavy collateral from strikes is imperative.

Finally we have the “can’t deal with being out of power” ANP, PPP types. Hard-core fans of military operations, they are looking to somehow use casualties from bombings as a stick to beat anti-ops people with.

The media, its incompetence and its agendas are one of the most important factors in this war, and certainly the most powerful in shaping public perception. It’s for that reason that the bullshit about 50,000 people killed by TTP persists in our discourse. It persists regardless of what the interior ministry says, regardless of what independent research says, and regardless of how many people you irritate by pointing it out.

To what extent do the intellectulas in media mutilate the facts? Dawn, a newspaper that has emerged as consensus “sane voice” these days owing to media infighting, should serve as a reliable enough barometer.

On the pages of Dawn one among many seasoned, former PPP and current, columnist, professed in February of this year that 40 K innocents had been killed by our enemies in the tribal badlands. By March, that number had climbed to 50 thousand innocents killed. And in April it had come to the attention of said author and paper that at least 55 thousand fatalities had been incurred.

The paper and the author have a strictly anti-talks approach on the matter, and if 15 thousand killed extra over two months reinforces their argument, why not? You could see their desperation, and the number of dead, growing as the talks moved forward.

Fact is, media people couldn’t care less how many lives have been lost, or how. Meanwhile, “reporting” is an alien concept. What happens here is they reach a conclusion among their little cliques, and then invent facts & arrange events to help everyone else reach the same conclusion. After-party sees them tell each other how objective and balanced they are.

This is why the new agendas emerging are an exciting prospect. If they can go to such lengths with their own faeces, imagine what these “news” organizations could do with facts.

The most dangerous lot is the right-wing, pro gov one. Granted they will only go into overdrive if PMLN takes on the army, but the potential is enormous. They are the only group, because conservative and Nawaz, that will touch the heavy “collateral damage” accumulated in the last decade, and the façade of the 50 thousand killed.

The drone-mongers, ANP-PPP dudes are only going to do little teasers. Their “liberal” orientation dictates that collateral damage happens and lying for a good cause is not really lying, so 50 K stays. The best outcome they can achieve is pique the interest of people in collateral damage with their jibes.

Hopefully then some idiots with “journalist” in their bios can look into it. Well, stranger things have happened.

Say for arguments sake that enough idiots start looking into the whole thing. By the law of averages, one of them could reach the logical conclusion that if suicide bombings, the most lethal weapon in our enemy’s arsenal, have claimed 6 thousand lives, it is unlikely that IEDs and hit and runs etc. would have killed another 44 thousand. From there it could follow that perhaps the numbers put out by organizations like PIPS are more credible than the numbers pulled out of their own assess by senior columnists?

And what about collateral damage? Is there any collateral damage at all? Is that picture photoshopped? I bet everyone who’s dead because of our bombardment deserves it. Twitter has become a court where credibility is judged by witty one-liners rather than by facts & patterns.

There’s this report at the Costs of War website that talks about Pakistani civilians killed by Pakistani military operations. The figures it quotes for civilians we have killed are pretty impressive, which it has sourced from PIPS.

Interestingly, the PIPS annual security reports, available for download at its website, do not label these deaths as civilian deaths. They are defined just as deaths in “operational attacks”.

Operational attacks are further defined as “Pre-emptive attacks launched by military and paramilitary troops to purge an area of militants.” Hmm, what could that mean...

A report by CIVIC titled “Civilian Harm & Conflict in Northwest Pakistan” came out in 2010 and it sheds some light onto the purging pre-emptive assaults we have used.

Artillery fire and mortars used by our military, according to those interviewed by CIVIC, “were the most common causes of harm suffered by civilians during military operations”.

The report cites some chilling interviews, from a boy who saw scattered organs of his mother, a man whose grand-daughter was blown to pieces and one who lost 5 members of his family in a single strike.

Military jets and gunships are not very forgiving either. One resident cited in the report recalls, “They were shelling just in the bazaar... it was indiscriminate fire, not discriminating between people and militants...the shrapnel struck me in the leg and the head.”

Another incident cited goes like this “On April 10, 2010, Pakistani jet fighters bombed targets in Sra Vela, a village in Khyber Agency, believing they were hitting a meeting attended by a high-level militant commander.

Instead, they hit the home of a pro-government family with three brothers serving with government forces. A second bomb hit crowds of neighbors as they tried to help those injured in the first strike. At least 60 civilians were killed and 30 injured.”

This, totally guessing, has to create resentment against us. The kid who lost his mother had this to say,

“If my mother was killed by the Taliban, one can expect it from them because they are crooks. But one can’t expect it from a trained army…they are to protect us not to kill us like rats.”

These pre-emptive, purging attacks claimed a staggering 14,148 lives from 2008 to 2012. The PIPS reports break them down as:

3,182 deaths in 2008

6,329 deaths in 2009

2,631 deaths in 2010

1046 deaths in 2011

960 deaths in 2012

It should be noted that these numbers do not include any terrorists engaged and killed by security forces. These are only the people we have bombed to death. The terrorist fatalities in confrontations with security forces, initiated either way, are separate and much lower than fatalities in these purging attacks.

A total of 6198 deaths were reported when terrorists have been engaged by security forces in the same period, according to PIPS, with the breakdown as follows:

655 deaths in 2008

1,163 deaths in 2009

2,007 deaths in 2010

1668 deaths in 2011

705 deaths in 2012

Another hushed up aspect of the war are the rights violations. While Balochistan has made enforced disappearances famous, the practice was probably first used by the Musharraf government against those suspected of supporting the jihadist cause. More importantly it has not stopped since Musharraf’s departure.

Amnesty International’s 2012 report titled Hands of Cruelty speaks of many violations committed by both the Taliban and the army. Ours include deaths in custody, torture and enforced disappearances. The report noted that 2000 cases pertaining to missing persons are registered in the Peshawar High Court, but the actual number could be much higher.

Tough break.

Now we do not hear about all this in the media because it does not fit with the picture they want to paint. The “liberal” voices, usually no fans of the military and usually big fans of human rights, are especially keen to look away because “the Taliban deserve it”. Additionally, and more importantly, highlighting killings, torture and other abuses taking place in military operations weakens their case for use of force, and could raise sympathy for the TTP.

The greater good coming into play again here.

Problem? By rigorously lying about how much damage the enemy has done, and resolutely ignoring any that we are doing, a fabricated identity of the war has been created.

That the national discourse about the war is carried out in the same fictional environment does the rest of us a great disservice. The thousands that have lost loved ones in the theatre of war, and the millions that have been forced to flee it, end up with a very different perception of the war than we do.

Theirs is based on what has happened on the ground; the number of dead, the number of missing, the loss of property is all real to them, not made up to suit one narrative or the other. And they don’t have the luxury of looking away when it isn’t pretty anymore.

War is dirty business, and perhaps we have no choice other than to do what we have been doing. But disregarding half of what's happening will bring us no closer to understanding how to deal with it, and is likely to keep us clogged in this circle of violence.

Mainstreaming Hate

While discourse about the Taliban problem in Pakistan’s print media has never been awe-inspiring, at least in the good sense, you have to admit it has reached astounding new lows these past few months. Arguments have been disposed of as unnecessary or trivial, giving way to jibes and accusations. A good article today is not one that tries to reason, understand or explain,  it is one that labels the other side as, say, ignorant, cowardly, pathetic, utterly arrogant and/or shameful. All qualities possessed in abundance by one Kamran Shafi. In his writing, obviously.

This kind of writing is then celebrated by like-minded commentators with great enthusiasm, hailed as the final nail in the other side’s coffin, until next week. So while Mickey uncle has had his day in the sun as the man who finally exterminated Imran Khan, he must give way now to Cyril, who has new, more polished goodies to sell.

It is telling that a more reasoned, argumentative and evidence based piece by Babar Sattar failed to capture the imagination of this rowdy crowd in the way that the other two have. If you want to be a hero Mr Sattar, start fighting the villain.

Which is what Cyril does with aplomb, week after week.

Once upon a time Pakistan was a beautiful and serene locale, where extremism was in its place, justice reigned supreme. Enter Taliban Khan. He said our beautiful paradise actually required a few tweaks, just a little less corruption, a little more honesty, if you will. One thing led to another, and he mainstreamed extremism !! *Gasps*

It was that handsome mug that doomed us, those plaintive eyes misled us; that soft, colloquial Urdu weaved its magic, those open hands hugged us in a suffocating embrace — an irresistible package hawking irresistible simplicities, irresistibly drawing us into a quicksand of irresistible hate whose grip is, believe it or not, irresistible.

Yes, it was this man and this man alone, who caused inconceivable damage to the fabric of our society. An invasion next door had nothing to do with it. The influx of more refugees did squat. Drone attacks by a foreign power on our soil were of no concern. That we were paid by the US to fight our war of terror bothered no one. Thousands died in those operations? Meh. Millions of IDPs languishing around the country? Shit happens.

All that equates to nada. It’s all on Imran.

Simplification, Cyril says, is Taliban Khan’s greatest gift. Hmm.

Let’s recap how Imran Khan has managed to mainstream extremism in this great country of ours. He says we should talk to solve militancy, and use force as a last resort. He says drone attacks are a bad thing. He says innocent people die in military operations.

If that isn’t mainstreaming extremism, I don’t know what the fuck is.

What’s more striking is that he’s been saying all that since before the Pakistani version of the Taliban came into being, and he’s been called Taliban Khan since before the TTP as well. More strikingly, he said before we were in this shit storm, that if we continue down this path we will get into a shit storm.

Yet instead of the much maligned, short sighted idiot doing the “I told you so” dance, the far sighted, articulate and reasonable among us are … forget it.

It is incredible the amount of hate this man attracts from the Liberatti (coinage: @summeryael ). You would think it was him who helped establish the original Taliban emirate across the border. That was Hazrata Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Shaheed, before the plight of common Pakistani citizens such as Pervez Musharraf and Condoleezza Rice forced her to renounce the Taliban and come home to fight the menace.

Nor was it him who wanted to become Ameer-ul-Momineen, emulating the one-eyed wonder that is Mullah Omar. That would be democratic hero-stooge of Zia-ul-Haq; Nawaz Sharif. Before the “wants to take on the Taliban but hands are tied by Imran Khan’s rhetoric” and Saudi interests thing.

He is so evil he will impose the barbaric Shariah on us, take away the rights of women, lynch people and everyone will have long thick beards. You know, what Shaheed BB did to Afghanistan, or what Mian Sahab wanted to do here.

He wants to talk with the barbarians, he might give them FATA. Like ANP already did with Swat.

It is insane. Everything that he has never said he will do, but it is beyond doubt that he will do, has already been done by ANP and PPP. Why don’t they get that hate? They didn’t mean it you see, they just, you know, did it. He on the other hand, doesn’t say it, the cunning bastard, but he really means it. Trust us, we know.

Propaganda is a vile thing, and it works. The constant lying and more lying eventually takes its toll, and without the media means to contradict it, it is dangerously polarizing.

The recent expulsion of a PTI delegation from a Shia protest camp in Lahore is a prime example. Imran is the only leader to have gone to the Hazara in Quetta after the terrible tragedies last year. He is the only one who openly condemned the LeJ. And he is getting thrown out because the media will constantly paint him as a villain.

Meanwhile the PMLN pay Malik Ishaq the stipend and LeJ continue to operate out of Raisaini’s territory in Mastung. PPP ministers have LeJ guards, and a PPP local leader owned the bomb factory probably used in the tanker blast against Hazaras.

But facts mean less than nothing when Mickey or Cyril can take a dump and print it in a national newspaper, every week.

The only hate Imran has mainstreamed is the hate of this bunch against Imran Khan. 

Hypocrisy & Loyalty

Imran Khan said before the elections that he would shoot down US drones if given power. That didn’t happen, so he’s resorted to clogging traffic. The blocking of NATO supplies by PTI doesn’t seem to have had much effect on the transatlantic military alliance, but it has caused a lot of concern among a certain section of the Pakistani media.

Since public opinion, shockingly, is still against America’s killing campaign, the discomforted media members cannot directly ask that NATO not be caused inconvenience. Therefore, they have resorted to indirect methods. These include criticizing the effectiveness of the blockage & the choice of route as well as calling it illegal and hypocritical.

The hypocritical bit is most interesting. The argument goes that as KPK government runs many development programmes with US aid money, the PTI have no right to question the democracy bringers. An addition to “calling out the hypocrisy” literature was made in a column by a London based lawyer. She argues that since Chaudhry Nisar’s children are US citizens, it is wrong for him to question their policy. Imran Khan, we are also reminded, chose to marry a UK citizen and have children with her when he clearly knew he would be halting NATO supplies almost two decades later.

The actions of Nisar & Imran have apparently caused US & UK to refuse visas to Pakistani citizens, the exact number for which you will have to ask said columnist. In my personal experience of trying to get out of Pakistan once Gillani said “Why don’t they leave then?” it was the No-Passport policy by the PPP government that caused most concern. Bilawal & Co btw had passports and lived abroad.

She also believes that burning visas and not visiting the US or UK will be far more effective in stopping drone attacks than blocking the supplies to bases that house drones. Yes, not going on holiday stops drones; stopping supplies to drone bases does not stop drones. The logic clearly is flawless.

The application form for a visa to the US or the UK does not ask one to declare full support for their extra-judicial killing campaigns. The aid for the development programmes also doesn’t stipulate a support for drone attacks. Citizens in the two countries do not, repeat do not, pledge never to condemn drone strikes that not only often kill innocents, but also provide more fuel for terrorism.

Yet this thinking, in our more “liberal” section of media, persists. If you raise money in the US, you cannot criticize their policies; if you live in the UK, you cannot protest their transgressions.

The fact that this logic implies you have to give up your citizenship or rights or whatever just to disagree with a government’s policy of murder is not the point. The point is what this tells us about people moulding the public discourse every day in Pakistan.

Space in our newspapers is being given to people who live in another country & believe that if you so much as travel to another country, you shouldn’t criticize them. Space is being given to people who work for NGOs and believe development money means you have to support immoral policies of the donor. On our TV set are news channels that draw revenues from say the US, and their employees tell you off if you question the US war after raising money from volunteers in that country.

These people, by their own admission, link money, travel and citizenship with loyalty and support for immoral and illegal policies. How can they be, and how come they are being, afforded space in public discourse when they clearly, THEMSELVES, believe they have a conflict of interest, scratch that, believe they have a compulsion to support their “benefactors”!?

Drones & the Taliban

Nek Mohammed:

Probably the first militant leader of note in FATA, Nek Mohammed was 27 when he was killed in the very first US drone strike in Pakistan, in June 2004. He fought against the Army when they launched an operation in South Waziristan to drive out the foreigners based there, and caused considerable losses.

He was then handed a peace deal, called the Shakai Agreement, which didn’t last. So the Pakistan Army requested the US to take him out. After the strike the Army claimed that it was them who killed him, but not many believed them. His grave reportedly became a shrine and his killing only provided more motivation & impetus for militancy in the tribal areas.

Shakai Agreement - 2004:

The deal between Nek Mohammed and the military entailed registering of foreigners in the area and a halt of cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. The military in turn would pay for the damage it caused to property of tribal people and pay for repaying their debts to Al-Qaeda.

More importantly, many have argued, the military afforded Nek Mohammed stature. Gen Safdar Hussain went to a madrassa in Shakai to ratify the deal; the militants’ turf. He also bypassed the tribal elders and Political Agent, making them look weak.

Nek Mohammed called himself a “soldier of Pakistan” at the occasion. Later he refused to stop supporting the fight in Afghanistan. That led to his killing and another op. But near the end of the same year the agreement was revived, with his successors. The new agreement didn’t require the militants to register foreigners, only to stop cross-border attacks.

The part about registering foreigners turned out to be the biggest issue for failure of the original agreement. The government claimed that registering foreigners meant handing over the foreign fighters to the military. Nek Mohammed had given shelter to notorious Uzbek militant Tahir Yuldashev, and basically fought the army to protect him. He didn’t see how registering meant surrendering the Uzbeks.

Baitullah Mehsud:

Baitullah Mehsud was the first leader or Amir of the TTP, killed in a drone strike in 2009. He gained notoriety in 2005, highlighted by the Sararogha deal. It’s been reported that he was appointed Mullah Omar’s governor for the Mehsud tribe, in the presence of other local Taliban leaders, back in the day. 

Although Nek Mohammed is said to have targeted pro-government tribal elders or maliks, Baitullah excelled in this. He had a special taskforce whose sole reason was to eliminate anyone suspected of siding with the US or the Pakistani government.

Sararogha Agreement:

The second famous, or infamous, peace deal was the Sararogha deal in early 2005. This was also in South Waziristan. After Nek Muhammed’s death, Baitullah and Abdullah Mehsud rose as prominent militant leaders. Abdullah was a former Guantanamo detainee and had been involved in kidnapping some Chinese engineers. The military didn’t want to talk to him.

So they talked to Baitullah. The deal struck with him wasn’t similar to the one with Nek Mohammed. Baitullah wouldn’t attack Pakistani forces, they wouldn’t target him. He would not provide sanctuary or aid to foreign fighters.

Notice that there was nothing on surrendering or registering foreign fighters. The group was also not required to stop cross-border attacks. Also, unlike the Shakai deal, it was the Assistant Political Agent & Assistant Political Officer that signed the agreement with Baitullah, in presence of tribal elders.

Like the last agreement, the government had to pay tribal people for damages caused during the fighting that preceded it.

Baitullah made a point of milking this. At the ceremony he is reported to have said that he only started fighting after the military started the operation, and that caused loss of property and other hardships for the local people.

He also claimed that he did not want to fight Pakistan, as it didn’t help the cause of the Afghan Taliban, “We understand fighting against Pakistani security forces did not help the Taliban at all,”

The deal broke down soon. It’s not clear what incident triggered that. Abdullah Mehsud had significant influence. His men weren’t bound to not carry out anti-state activities. When Baitullah renounced the deal in July, he claimed army had broken the deal first.

TTP:

In 2007 Baitullah became Amir of the newly formed Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan. The organization pledged allegiance to Mullah Omar. When a TTP spokesman or “senior militant commander” talked to a national newspaper about the formation of the TTP, he said militants from South Waziristan, North Waziristan, Aurakzai, Kurram, Khyber, Mohmand and Bajaur and some districts of NWFP like Swat, Buner, Dir, Malakand, Bannu, Lakki Marwat, Tank, Peshawar, Dera Ismail Khan and Kohat had decided to “speed up their joint "Jihad" against the US and Nato forces in neighbouring Afghanistan.”

They also pledged to fight the Pakistani forces in self-defence, termed elsewhere as “defensive Jihad”, and demanded an end to military operations in North Waziristan & Swat.

Hafiz Gul Bahadur was named second in command of the TTP in the initial meeting. He however developed differences with Baitullah over attacking the Pakistani state. It wasn’t until 2009 that, reportedly at the insistence of Mullah Omer, the two buried the hatchet.

Mullah Nazir:

Nazir was the third man who buried the hatchet that day. He too was opposed to Baitullah’s Pakistan centric approach. He reportedly/allegedly had a peace deal with the security forces dating back to 2007.

Based in South Waziristan, Nazir had a particular disdain for the Uzbeks. He killed scores of them even when they were allied with the TTP. That didn’t endear him to the TTP, despite being in at least a couple of alliances/agreements with them.

So when he was targeted in a suicide attack in late 2012, TTP were prime suspect. Although they denied involvement, Nazir ordered all Mehsud tribesmen, who are the most bountiful source of recruits for TTP, out of the area. Around a month later, he was killed in a drone strike.

Hakimullah Mehsud:

Hakimullah was the next leader of the TTP, and recently met his demise in a drone strike. He had been an important leader in the TTP before taking over command, and soon after he masterminded an attack on the CIA to avenge Baitullah. That attack has been termed the deadliest against the agency in years.

This prompted the CIA to go after him with more vigour than usual. Coupled with the fact that South Waziristan, TTP base up-till 2009, was stormed by the Pakistani Army soon after Baitullah’s killing, Hakimullah spent a lot of his time as Amir in hiding.

This did not, apparently, reduce his effectiveness. Even though they control a much smaller region when compared to the heyday under Baitullah, the TTP perhaps became more relevant. For instance, they targeted specific political parties and tried to influence elections.

The TTP also launched some of their most audacious, sophisticated attacks under Hakimullah’s command, especially against the military. Including Kamra, they attacked defence installations 16 times since 2009.

Coincidentally, they grew much closer to Afghanistan during this period. Then TTP-Swat head Mullah Fazlullah permanently moved to Afghanistan from where he has orchestrated many attacks into Pakistan, including the one on Malala Yosufzai. 

More recently, Hakimullah’s handpicked No. 2, Latif Mehsud, was caught inside Afghanistan travelling with Afghan Intel agents by US forces. He was described as a “valuable asset”. Incidentally, this Afghan asset bought a $120,000 home for Hakimullah, at the gate of which he was killed.

------------------------------------------------------------

The commonality between all of them, apart from death via drone or as I like to call it; DVD ™, is the allegiance to Mullah Omer & a declared support for fighting the US in Afghanistan. Sheltering foreign fighters is another, although Mullah Nazir is complicated. Even though he hated the Uzbeks, as with some other good Taliban, he still didn’t mind the Saudis. I read somewhere that his crackdown against the Uzbeks started when they assassinated two of his Saudi guests.

The differences between them are also striking. They went from “support fighting in Afghanistan” to “don’t want to fight Pakistan” to “defensive jihad” to “all-out war”. As the war has dragged on, their stances have become more and more extreme, and not just in terms of fighting Pakistan.

When Baitullah denied any hand in the murder of Benazir Bhutto, his spokesman said, "It is against tribal tradition and custom to attack a woman,". Contrast that with the current TTP head Mullah Radio and his unabashed pursuit of a schoolgirl.

Military action and drones, the former dating back to 2002 or 2003, and the later to 2004, have not only failed spectacularly to stem this slide, they have been the biggest catalyst. War apparently promotes that kinda thing. Go figure.

To focus on drones specifically, let’s weigh what they have achieved and what they have cost.

Impact:

All of the above are high profile insurgents who were killed in drone strikes. 

Drones are supposedly an accurate and not-putting-soldiers-in-harm’s-way method of killing militants. There have been 281 or 345 or 367 drone attacks in Pakistan, killing kids as young as 12 to veteran womens as old as 67. 

The only tangible way these deaths have benefited us, or impacted the larger scheme of things is by creating opportunities for a quarrel over succession within the TTP.

Other than that, there are little gains. The TTP is an umbrella group and pretty decentralized. Separate chapters are independent in their actions, so it isn’t clear how striking at specific leaders would, or does, hamper their operational capabilities.

Nor does it scare them. Or deter. In any sense that would benefit us. From Nek Mohammed to Hakimullah, after each killing, as a rule, a more demented guy takes over, with a more aggressive, vile agenda. Take Fazlullah for example.

No drone strike I can think of has actually resulted in wrestling back territory from the TTP. In fact, North Waziristan (245 drone strikes), the most droned place on earth outside Afghanistan, remains the strongest bastion of Taliban.

This is consistent with the lack of success drones have had in Afghanistan. In 2012 alone almost 350 drone strikes were carried out across the Durand line, forcing the Taliban into giving the US ... no concessions at all.  

Minor Issues:

No point in pretending that people give a shit about civilian deaths, so let's focus on the larger picture.  In the last decade, drones are pretty much the best thing that has happened to the Taliban. At least the Pakistani ones.

What was achieved from getting Nek Mohammed droned?

His death didn’t break the spirit of his fighters. Thousands attended his funeral, he became a rallying cry and, as mentioned above, months later we had to concede a more humiliating deal to his successors.

More than that, it was the way the whole affair was handled. ISPR claimed back then that any suggestion of American involvement in his killing was “absolutely absurd”. He was killed by Pakistan. Clearly not taken into account while making this claim; the fact that people have eyes.

They did the same thing when a drone struck a seminary in Bajaur, 2006. It killed over 80, labelled militants. After the attack, Pakistani helicopters arrived at the spot and fired at nearby hills. Another pathetic claim was made, that the military had carried out the attack. A commission of the Peshawar High Court Bar Association and Peshawar District Bar Association ascertained that the Pakistani Helicopters arrived a full 20-25 minutes after the attack and most of the 80 plus dead were kids aged between 9-18.

Around a month later 42 soldiers were killed in a revenge attack. As in they called and said, “Hey, we killed 42 soldiers because of that drone strike”.

Pakistan owned these attacks. We requested some. Even now, or until the last government, our Presidents gave the go ahead. Yet utter shock is witnessed when suggested we have to face the blowback.

The commonality among all the Taliban militants, as mentioned above, is the pledge of loyalty to Mullah Omar and enmity with the US. And in “our” war that was ordered, and is completely paid for, by the US, drone attacks are the most visible link of our alliance with the Americans.

Drones are not a decisive weapon or a trump card. They haven't pushed the fight an inch closer to the end. In fact, what they are is the foremost tool for prolonging it.

Even if bad options are all we have in this war; drones shouldn’t be one.