It is a beautiful morning in Seattle when, over Puget Sound, a glinting object is spotted in the sky. Within minutes an unmanned drone, painted in the emerald green of the Pakistani flag, is raining down missiles on Pike Place Market where suspected al-Qaeda operatives are meeting to plan an attack on Karachi. The next day Islamabad admits that although the mission successfully took out the suspected terrorists, there has been some collateral damage. Among the American civilians killed is a 68-year-old grandmother who had come to the market with her grandchildren to buy vegetables. Her eight-year-old granddaughter, though unharmed in the attack, asks: “Will I be next?”
Just imagine the hell that would break loose if such an event were to occur. Defenders of US drone strikes will object that it is unfair to compare this fictional event with the deployment of US drones in Pakistan – or for that matter in Yemen or Somalia. Indeed the parallel is far from perfect. Washington is not generally accused of turning a blind eye to terrorists, much less secretly egging them on to fight proxy wars. Nor does the US lack the will or capacity to take on terrorist threats in its midst. Neither such claim can be made, hand on heart, of Pakistan.
Some justifications for drone strikes seem persuasive. Militants with an express mission of killing civilians – western and Muslim alike – have been neutralised before they can carry out their murderous plots. Because of drone strikes, says Washington, the al-Qaeda leadership has been “decimated”.