More Diplomacy, Fewer Drones
Ibrahim Mothana, an activist, is a co-founder of the Watan Party and Yemen Enlightenment Debate. He is on Twitter.
UPDATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2012, 11:50 AM
Drone-striking militants to eradicate terrorism is like machine-gunning mosquitoes to cure malaria. Rather than tackling the real drivers of extremism, drone strikes create an ideal environment for Al Qaeda to grow and propagate.
Winning the hearts and minds of people is key in such unconventional warfare, yet the U.S. alienates Yemeni civilians, many of whom have lost relatives or friends in drone strikes.
Strikes in areas where government barely exists and no services are provided to citizens simply spells disaster. There is also devastating damage to an already fragile economy. Forty percent of Yemen's 23 million people live on less than $2 a day and 10 million people don't have enough food to eat. Unemployed youth living in desperate economic conditions in conflict areas often join militants. They have reached a point where seeking death becomes easier than struggling for life.
There could be short-term military gains from killing militant leaders in these strikes, but they are minuscule compared with the long-term damage caused by drones. The notion of targeting Al Qaeda’s leaders to demolish its organizational structure has been proven ineffective; new leaders spontaneously emerge in furious retaliation to the attacks.
snip
The drone program is by nature a Sisyphean struggle, no matter how many terrorists are eliminated. In Yemen, every time a drone kills civilians, young Yemenis like me who have always admired America start to see it as part of the problem, not the solution.
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/09/25/do-drone-attacks-do-more-harm-than-good/more-diplomacy-less-drones
= new reply since forum marked as read
