[Reader-list] USA Drone attacks -FATA Pakistan (A survey)

[Rakesh Iyer]

Dear Kshamendra (and all)

Now I am putting across a structured response, in reply to the arguments
which have been raised in this particular survey.

First of all, I can understand that a survey is trying to put across the
fact that the people across the NWFP, don't support the Taliban or the
Al-Qaeda. This is a welcome development. The more such surveys, and the more
people's voices are heard, the better.

But I can never support surveys having questions as '*Do you think the
drones are accurate in their strikes?'* being asked to common people. After
all, how can a survey decided whether the drones were actually accurate in
their strikes or not? It can be determined by first America declaring their
strike points they wished to target, and matching them with the actual
points targetted.

Similarly, it is useless to ask questions like *'Do the militant
organisations get damaged due to drone attacks?*' to people. This is no way
to decide whether the infrastructure for militancy and terrorism is nipped
in the bud or not. The only way is to find out the organizations and
institutions involved in propagating, managing and perpetuating this
structure in the areas, and then finding out whether such attacks did manage
in changing these three activities of the 'terrorists', so to speak. How can
surveys decide such things?

My second concern stems from the kind of background of people who have been
chosen for the survey. When it comes to the questions asked, it's just 650
people chosen, out of whom 100 don't respond, as per the site link you have
given. That means about 15% of people haven't expressed their opinion at
all, which is significant, considering the percentage figures given for
certain questions, which are very close, in terms of their choices.

Also, the people chosen have been from business, health, education and
transport. But the way these occupations have been taken up, it may be
possible that these people are actually from the upper sections of the
society. Ironically coming up from a researcher only, it would be much
better, that to allay the apprehensions for once and for all, an economic
background of the people whose views were asked for in the survey, can also
be looked at.

The third concern is with respect to lack of data.

When it is said that

 '*The people I asked about civilian causalities in the drone attacks said
most of the attacks had hit their targets, which include Arab, Chechen,
Uzbek and Tajik terrorists of Al-Qaeda, Pakistani Taliban (Pakhtun and
Punjabis) and training camps of the terrorists. There has been some
collateral damage.*'

 or

'*The drones hit hujras or houses which the Taliban forced people to rent
out to them. There is collateral damage when the family forced to rent out
the property is living in an adjacent house or a portion of the property
rented out*.',

there is no numerical statistic or data to point out how many Tajiks, Arabs,
Chechen, Uzbeks or Tajiks were there among those killed. Similarly, there is
no assessment economically and in terms of number of innocents killed here,
who are referred to as collateral damage. How does Farhat Taj say that
drones have hit Taliban based upon surveys?

'*Other innocent victims are local people who just happen to be at the wrong
place at the wrong time.*'

Indeed. But my point is that, there is no reference to either experiences of
this being the reason for people being killed, in the above-mentioned
article, neither is there data responding to the same. I don't understand
how can this be accepted.

Henceforth, it would be much better that we actually stick at least in such
cases, to experiences of people at least, if not numerical data, to support
our arguments, rather than giving macro-based statements which can fall
flat. (although experiences can be misleading). After all, in research, it
is important to first put arguments, then give constructive proofs for those
arguments, and then conclude the argument. According to me, these arguments
have loopholes, and may well turn into only perceptions. And perceptions are
just that, perceptions.

Regards

Rakesh