Oct 1, 2009 1:36pm

Why Would the Pentagon Worry About Improved Success of Predator Airstrikes in Pakistan?

Obama administration officials have been proud of the fact that largely because of better intelligence, unmanned Predator drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Pakistan have been more successful in the first eight months of President Obama’s presidency than in the previous two years combined.

Sources say this success is largely because of better intelligence, stemming from greater cooperation by the Pakistani government and a stronger U.S. counter-insurgency program on the other side of the border in Afghanistan.

That added pressure creates the conditions for better intelligence on the ground as to where Taliban and al Qaeda forces are, sources say.

“They’re squeezed,” a Pentagon source says of individuals on the border region. “And when people are squeezed, they talk.”

But military officials who support Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s proposal for a larger counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan are concerned that some in the White House interpret this success as a reason to focus entirely on counterterrorism using drones.

Skeptics of the McChrystal plan in the White House, including Vice President Biden (and even President Obama, to a degree), are considering a shift in focus to counter-terrorism – less nation-building in Afghanistan and concern for protecting Afghans, more targeting of al Qaeda and allies in the Taliban.

Military sources worry that the success of the predator strikes will be seen as “happening in a vacuum,” with insufficient credit given to the counterinsurgency in Afghanistan.

An unofficial analysis of U.S. airstrikes in Pakistan through September 2009 by the reputable website LongWarJournal, based on the publicly available data, indicates that 404 Taliban/al Qaeda were killed by Predator strikes in 2009, with 43 civilians killed.

In 2008, Predators killed 286 Taliban/al AQaeda, with 31 civilian killed. In 2007, 73 Taliban/al Qaeda were killed.

The Pentagon would not comment on the study. Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal, says the information comes from press reports including local Pakistani newspapers — Dawn, Daily Times, Geo News, as well as wire services such as AFP, Reuters, and AP.

The study noted that “more than one in three of the strikes have killed a High Value Target (HVT). An overwhelming number of strikes – nearly 90 percent – have taken place against al Qaeda and Taliban targets in North and South Waziristan. Notably, a large percentage of the high value targets killed were killed in a tribal region operated by a Taliban leader whom the Pakistani military and government considers an ally.”

As the number of strikes has markedly increased, the average casualty rate has increased as well – from 10.64 killed per strike, compared to 8.81 in 2008.

Eight high-value targets were killed in 2008: Abdullah Azzam al Saudi, Abu Zubair al Masri, Abu Jihad al Masri, Khalid Habib, Abu Haris, Abu Khabab al Masri, Abu Sulayman Jazairi, and Abu Laith al Libi.

So far in 2009, six high value targets have been killed: Ilyas Kashmiri, Najmuddin Jalolov, Mustafa al Jaziri, Baitullah Mehsud, Osama al Kini, and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan.

– jpt

User Comments

The most important aspect of Predator strikes is that they don’t produce prisoners.

Posted by: mesquito | October 1, 2009, 2:15 pm 2:15 pm

America is the most efficient modern nation when it comes to killing human beings. Now we wage war with “video game aficionados,” safely tucked into some dark command center, who fly deadly drones in search of human targets to destroy. And the comments about this article only confirm our ever increasing levels of bloodlust. Instead of being ashamed of this carnage, we celebrate it.

Posted by: Steve Hanes | October 1, 2009, 2:46 pm 2:46 pm

“So far in 2009, six high value targets have been killed: Ilyas Kashmiri, Najmuddin Jalolov, Mustafa al Jaziri, Baitullah Mehsud, Osama al Kini, and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan.”
Meanwhile tens of thousands of children are being indoctrinated as we speak by the religion of peace.
I used to attend an annual Christian men’s conference that taught me “if you want to change the world, change the men.” Good advice for everyone – religious or otherwise.

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 1, 2009, 2:47 pm 2:47 pm

And the comments about this article only confirm our ever increasing levels of bloodlust. Instead of being ashamed of this carnage, we celebrate it.
Posted by: Steve Hanes | Oct 1, 2009 2:46:36 PM
Sometimes the celebration spills out onto our own streets – like in Chicago where we beat young high school kids to death. Hands on blood lust totally ignored by liberals, centrist and conservatives alike. So what’s your point?

Posted by: Visualize Whirled Peas | October 1, 2009, 2:50 pm 2:50 pm

Because Obama is going to pull the troops out. Biden’s strategy.
So they’ve got to play up the success of drones even though it kills civilians.
Candidate Obama accused the military of bombing villages and killing women and children. Now it’s a brilliant strategy.

Posted by: max | October 1, 2009, 2:52 pm 2:52 pm

Maybe Obama should come up with combat strategy for the streets of Chicago instead of worrying about the Olympics.

Posted by: larry | October 1, 2009, 3:18 pm 3:18 pm

“unmanned Predator drone strikes against Taliban and al Qaeda forces in Pakistan have been more successful in the first eight months of President Obama’s presidency than in the previous two years combined.”
- 2009 vs. 2008 civilian-to-Taliban kill rate is about the same (~10%)
- 8 “high-value targets” killed in 2008 vs. 6 in 2009
If success measured by “number of deaths” then I suppose the strikes have been more “successful” (but number of strikes has markedly increased in 2009 vs. 2008).
It appears that “success” (by WH) is measured by the increased average casualty rate 10.64 killed per strike, compared to 8.81 in 2008. Perhaps this is explained by more attacks in higher-density areas?
So is it more important to (a.) kill more Taliban (as occurred in 2009) or (b.) kill more “high-value targets” (as occurred in 2008)?
Is there a correlation between increased kill rate and higher Coalition casualities?
How is “success” measured? What is important? Seems the administration’s pride is in the eye of the beholder…

Posted by: tjp612 | October 1, 2009, 4:09 pm 4:09 pm

The drone strikes stir up a lot of animosity in Pakistan and it’s worth remembering that the country’s intelligence service has a certain degree of sympathy with the Taliban. What’s more, it is a nuclear power. A look at the nuclear threat that is Pakistan at asiachroniclenews.

Posted by: Dersu Ouzala | October 1, 2009, 4:23 pm 4:23 pm

Let me see if I understand this correctly:
Traditional, compassionate, humanitarian, nation-building (troops) VS. just use it as a battleground for our own purposes (drones).
Stunning that they would even publicly contemplate such pitiless inhumanity towards Afghan citizens.

Posted by: SjB | October 1, 2009, 7:17 pm 7:17 pm

I love the way the anti-obama fringe like to have it both ways,…
- it’s too bad that Bush and his cronies weren’t able to defeat the Taliban or Al Queda.. in spite of all the patriotic rhetoric and flag lapel pins, Bush’s policy in Afghanistan was an abject failure by any measure.
will Obama’s policy be any better, I don’t know, but, after 8 plus years of Bush, we certainly know that the republican strategy didn’t work.

Posted by: all hat, no cow | October 2, 2009, 1:23 am 1:23 am

Wow, I really thought America was a lot smarter than this. We’re involved in two wars now and we have a Commander-in-Chief who has done nothing in his lifetime but work as a civil rights worker. Does anyone remember Jimmy Carter and the Iranian hostage situation?

Posted by: Michael Ray Thompson | October 3, 2009, 6:22 pm 6:22 pm

What a morale boost it would be for jihadis if the US gave up in Afghanistan. First they defeat Russia, then America. We need another surge, like we had in Iraq. Force the tribal chiefs to picks sides, after showing them that we are more ruthless than the Taliban. The strategy worked in Iraq, and it would work in Afghanistan, simply because tribal people respect strength.

Posted by: Jack | October 5, 2009, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm

Man is in revolt with nature. Man does not believe in the religion of nature. Man is creating a new religion of reason ignoring the imaginative disciplines of mysticism and mythology. Freedom of will has become a compound of credulity and prejudices. Only if we could be inspired by natural reason: the rites and symbols of the faith could help those who are incapable of scientific and rational thought. We have trouble with vision. Vision comes from the heart and the affections rather than what Wordsworth called “the meddling intellect” whose purely analytic powers could destroy intuition.
The presence of fear disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoughts of triumph over madness

Posted by: masood anwar | November 2, 2009, 5:24 am 5:24 am

Leave a Reply

Do you have more information about this topic? If so, please click here to contact the editors of ABC News.