
Dr. Amna Buttar at the Drone Summit
The CIA launched a drone strike in Pakistan on Sunday that killed “three suspected militants” in an “abandoned school building” in Waziristan. As the New York Times notes in a report on the strike, this was the “first such attack since the country’s Parliament demanded an end to those missions just over two weeks ago.”
Jim White over at Emptywheel.net points out that this interrupted negotiations the US was engaged in with Pakistan. The attack just underlines the reality that the Obama administration is largely indifferent to the rage the Pakistani government has against the US drone program. In fact, some members of the administration will even slander studies on civilian deaths caused by drone attacks and say, “There are a number of elements who would like nothing more than to malign these efforts and help Al Qaeda succeed.”
The reality is that Pakistan’s parliament is powerless in the face of the United States. So long as the Obama administration cares little about the concerns of the government and people of Pakistan, the covert operations will continue. Without political pressure from Americans, there is nothing to stall or stop the government from launching drone strikes every other day.
Over the weekend, I attended an international drone summit in Washington, DC, co-organized by CODEPINK, the Center for Constitutional Rights and Reprieve. Dr. Amna Buttar, a member of the Punjab Provincial Assembly in Pakistan, spoke at the summit. She shared with me in an interview just how powerless Pakistan is in the face of America’s covert drone program saying, “There’s no way,” the program will stop without pressure from Americans. “That’s what I feel. I am in the government there and I am a politician. And, I see that.”
What are they going to do? We’re just a lot of people here or there, people who do a lot of — I call them cyber-warriors. And I used to be one of those people until I went there and I see—What are they going to do? We are not like Iran. We are not like Venezuela. We are not even like India. What are we going to do, shoot down American drones? We are not in a position to fight a war with America. So, what are we going to do? They’re powerless.
They say no. Parliament has said no. We do what we can – stop their NATO supplies – and we will try to do whatever we can, and that’s only possible because of a democratic government. If it was a dictator, this would not even have happened, because in a dictatorial regime people can’t find any news, any information. The only information you will get is what the military wants to feed you. [emphasis added]
Buttar has dual citizenship. She spent many years working in the United States in medicine. She has engaged in human rights activism to help poor women in Pakistani prisons. Five years ago she went to Pakistan to become a politician and extend her activism into the government of Pakistan.
She describes herself as being “unique” because she can see “the view” from her Pakistan street and from her US street. She sees from her US street that the “general public doesn’t even know what drones are” or know of the impact.” She knows from her Pakistan street that “someone can push a button and people are killed.” Thousands of innocents lose their lives. Only about 170 supposed terrorists have been killed.
During her presentation at the drone summit, she asked, “What have the Pakistani people done?” She recounted history and how there were really no terror attacks before 1979.
Afghanistan was occupied by Russia. That’s when Charlie Wilson was a senator and that’s when the American government and the Israeli government funded the mujahideen, gave them weapons, gave them technology for this war against Russia. And then, where 600 million refugees came into Pakistan, that’s when the seed of the terror tree was planted.
She said intelligence agencies in America and in Pakistan fueled the creation of Taliban. They fueled the creation of groups that are now being fought.
Now, Pakistani people – 190 million Pakistani people – are victims of [terrorism]. They are the victims of remote control killing. Because, viewed from my street when I was a little girl in Lahore, it was a very peaceful city. It was a mix of ancient and modern city. And today I am very sorry to say I wanted my girl to go back and see that view, but she will never see that view. She will be tainted [by] this security, guard, gated communities, this sheer fear in Lahore. In last five years, in Lahore alone, which is a city of 8 million people.
In Lahore alone, I think there have been more than 30 terrorist-mediated bombings. And it happens – there is a drone attack and then there is a terrorist-mediated attack. Our markets, our hotels, our restaurants, our schools, our railway stations. Just two weeks ago there was an attack on railway station. We have to think of these victims. We have to think of 190 million whose lives have been made living hell because of this war on terror and these terror attacks and these remote-controlled killings.
Buttar says with great conviction that the onus is on the American people to hold the US government “accountable for wars and intervention in Pakistan.” She says, “We are intervening in sovereign countries’ politics and issues.” And we should not do that — not give covert under-the-table money and instead give civilian aid for schools, hospitals – really focus on education because problems we are facing are really going to be solved by financial independence.”
It is the dependence on military aid from the US and NATO countries and the monopoly of force, which the US has on the region, that really makes Pakistan impotent in the face of American power. This gives the US an unrestrained ability to bully Pakistan into accepting whatever counterterrorism operations the US wants to carry out in Pakistan.
The struggle Buttar is engaged in and the fact that she has charged into the middle of this conflict to try and save the lives of Pakistanis from terror is very inspiring. It is also disheartening because one knows that the sense of duty she had to leave American and go serve Pakistanis is not likely to be understood by Americans here at home. She is more likely to be vilified for making the decision to go fight the US covert drone program, which regularly kills terror suspects extrajudicially and also kills civilians.
However, it is people like Buttar who really make one realize that the issue of drone strikes isn’t and shouldn’t be about what is possible in America’s broken political system and how a push to end drone attacks will affect Obama’s chances of beating Mitt Romney. She makes it clear that one is morally bankrupt to think like that. Americans have a responsibility to engage in conversation, to force their government to disclose what exactly they are doing to other countries’ peoples covertly and in America’s name. And whether it is feasible, possible or likely is irrelevant when faced with the fact that this is what must happen to save people from bloodshed and trauma.
Here is the interview I did with Dr. Amna Buttar. Special thanks to Samantha Colon of FDL, who helped me get Buttar for an interview:



23 Comments

I completely oppose the civilian casualties and I don’t understand the legal basis for an undeclared war like what is happening in Pakistan.
With that said, it is also true that Pakistan apparently is home to a good number of figures who are either involved in lethal attacks in Afghanistan, or who are otherwise interesting in attacking America or American allies like India.
The government of Pakistan seems unwilling or unable to stop these bad actors, and the news reports indicate that the Pakistani intelligence services may even harbor allegiances with very bad people.
If a large part of Pakistan becomes what Afghanistan was 15 years ago, then it may be that another major crisis might emerge, and requite a much larger response from the US including taking direct control of Pakistani nuclear facilities. Should that happen, the level of sustained crisis and disaster for both Pakistan and the US would become far larger than what it is today.
So again, I deplore the civilian fatalities that the drone-only war creates — I think if there is someone on the ground bad enough that he needs to die, we can boots on the ground to do it even though this risks casualties.
And I think the entire legal basis for simply waging war in Pakistan with no declaration, no near-term authorization, no oversight outside of the White House, no transparency, is completely not there. It can’t be there, because we can’t have laws that the president act like a king.
All I have to say is Iran just captured one of our drones. If we think we are going to be the only ones with drones forever we are fooling ourselves. Imagine drones over US cities killing people indiscriminately without charge or trial. How would we react. This country is supposed to be our ally.
Executions of people without charge or trial must be stopped where ever they occur and whomever is doing the killing.
This practice is unamerican and it is beneath us.
Gosztola: I think I understand your reasoning in opposing the drone war – what do you and those whom you team with such as Code Pink suggest be done about the genuinely violent bad actors in Pakistan? I mean, yes, when the US leaves Afghanistan, the direct risk to our military personnel will be lower, as they won’t be occupying Afghanistan. However, Central Asian terrorists have shown an ability to strike at us and real allies of ours well beyond their host nations. And even if we aren’t talking “mushroom clouds over New York” we certainly are talking about attacks for example in India like the one that took place in Mumbai. What do you suggest be done to address the lethal security problem of hardcore terrorists currently finding shelter in Pakistan?
It does appear Pakistan is a vipers pit of competing threats. It is a long shot to get public support to end drone strikes when so many so called smart people say there are many bad guys there. I wonder if we will ever leave Afghanistan/Pakistan. The drones could be the last to go. I wonder if pres Romney will curtail the use of drones?
Bears repeating.
Correction: This practice is as american as it gets and nothing is beneath us. Read history.
You won’t have to imagine drones over US cities for long. There’s already authorization for their use by police forces and other bad actors to do that in these United States. What you need to ask is how long before US drones with facial recognition software will be used by the PTB to target and kill Americans.
Pak gov ordered strikes on US folks via ICI (the intel command) – and Our giving Pakistan the nuke ability vis transfer of money and information beginning with Ike’s Atoms for Peace in 1958 and that $20 billion tossed at them as a counter to Russian influence in India, as we hired the leaders on to the CIA payroll only to see some join the apparently independent of civilian control or even Army control ICI in the ICI war on the US, does indeed make it a vipers den.
I agree ICI did not sponsor terror until the Soviet games of 78-79. And indeed the “we need to stop India having influence in Afghanistan” cry can be understood – but the idea that the Northern Territory, from which the ICI runs much of the terror, can not be policed, is nonsense. We have a Pushtun tribal loyalty that crosses borders with Saudi money spreading a form of Islam that creates hate of the west in Pakistan – and never complain to the Saudi.
So the drone program as a response – as illegal as the torture/detain for years program of the CIA – even under Obama’a no waterboarding rules – is evil. But how we continue the Pak is a friend pretense – how do we recover from the stupidity of Reagan letting the W-34 (not W-32 if memory serves) improved nuke get into Chinese hands as was revealed in Congressional Testimony in 91-92 about the 1987 Chinese publication of the American detailed nuke construction blueprint in their technical journal.
How do we ignore Khan sending the nuke knowledge and equipment on to North Korea?
I have very missed feelings about the drone program – because it not a black and white situation. But I am in awe of how well our media has covered up the situation – the CIA’s 1980 boast that it had a man in every media executive office seems true – for goodness sake the media even forget public Congressional hearings and accept new “history” of such hearings and of the 1987 publication.
True – the FAA hearings on how to allow for flights over US cities that have drone flights over them have already begun – as usual with little media attention.
Unamerican? — It’s the new normal, I doubt 83% of Americans even approve of apple pie:
Justice won’t be coming from state-side… hopefully from the Hague, but most likely from more blowback.
Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote for the SOB.
Reuters, Wed Aug 1, 2007
Obama said if elected in November 2008 he would be willing to attack inside Pakistan with or without approval from the Pakistani government, a move that would likely cause anxiety in the already troubled region.
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said.
Thank you, Kevin, for the wonderful coverage of the drone summit, and for this article Obama must have heard something was up, as he sent Brennan, military “terrorist” adviser out to defend drone warfare today! Keep it up!
forgot the link…http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/120430/john-brennan-top-obama-aide-says-drone-strikes-a
I am always chagrined to find statements like “genuinely bad actors in Pakistan” (or anywhere else) and “hardcore terrorists” in comments from people who, I assume, consider themselves “progressive.” IMO, it takes an act of tremendously bad faith to elide the truth that it’s the US government, especially so under the abominable and bellicose Obama (far worse than Bush), that is the most genuinely bad actor on the globe.
Are the “bad actors” in Pakistan (or anywhere else) starting our wars of choice and aggression? Wars that over the decades have killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians?
Define terrorists… define terrorism…
and then try find an honest way to separate those definitions from Obama’s foreign policy.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e1a_1334352177
I note that Medea Benjamin interrupted Brennan with a minute-long speech before being dragged out. It was a response to criticism and outrage building. May Day is tomorrow so I don’t know if I will get to give this proper coverage but I will hopefully get something up. It was another cheap attempt to bring “transparency” to the drone program without actually releasing any records that show the legal or factual basis for it.
What legal or moral right does the US have to launch drone strikes in countries where there is no declaration of war? How are these strikes in any way acceptable especially when a sovereign country does not approve of them?
1. End the drone strikes
2. End the war in Afghanistan
3. End military aid to Pakistan and instead provide civilian aid
4. Consult law enforcement in Pakistan & possibly advise & assist if necessary so actual terrorists or “bad dudes” are arrested.
5. Multilaterally help Pakistan strengthen its legal system.
6. Meaningfully address the decades-long conflict between India and Pakistan.
And, let Pakistan decide who is and is not a terrorist. Let the country order law enforcement operations. The US should at most provide outside assistance (but even that I am reluctant to support).
Gostztola:
1-6 are all meaningful and worthy responses, and hardly require any great leap of the intellect to understand. I diverge from you when it comes to simply letting Pakistan decide which operators within Pakistan are or not “terrorists”. While I agree that trampling Pakistani sovereignty hardly wins the US friends in the population there, and is not exactly ethical either if we wish to claim we are a human rights respecter, the fact is that, apparently, the Pakistani military and intelligence services are known to have connections to real, actual terrorists and very bad people. The Pakistani government was until very recently a quasi-dictatorship under Pervez Musharraf and does not have developed civil institutions that place the security establishment completely under the control of an entirely separate class of civilian leaders. The US should not turn a blind eye, because, again, a critical mass of post- Afghanistan insurgents, genuine terrorists, criminal warlords and drug lords, etc. will become inevitably a swamp.
You see, it is a good thing to respect the sovereignty of foreign nation-states, and let them manage security issues to all of us that come from their soil themselves. The trouble begins when a nation-state cannot remotely claim to control – even militarily – a major component of its geographic extents. This is the case with Pakistan, which has national government control up to and stopping at the beginning of the no-man’s-land in its northwestern extent.
If Pakistan cannot control truly malevolent and threatening actors in that area, even with its national military and intelligence services, in part because those service have figures who sympathize with and are in cahoots with the bad elements in the northwest, then Pakistan should not expect other countries to stand by waiting for well-organized attacks with lasting impact.
Finally, I agree that the US should push for an end to the Pakistan-India dispute … and it could be that the US has as much chance of driving the end of that dispute as the US has in driving the end of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, or in the China-Taiwan conflict. In all these cases, the parties embroiled in the conflict have to actually want peace, not total victory, before peace can be brokered.
In a nutshell – we largely agree – I just *don’t* believe that the US should turn a blind eye to northwestern Pakistan, which is where you find virulently anti-Western terrorists, insurgents, and warlords who are the survivors of decades of conflict and hardship in the region, and who are capable of causing great harm if unchecked.
(Gosztola – consider this: we agree, end the Afghanistan war, and pull out American soldiers! And when this is done, it’s true – the elements acting out of northwest Pakistan won’t have American soldiers and personnel occupying the country next door to shoot at and bomb. Great!
What they’ll do instead is collapse the Karzai regime and Afghanistan will return to de facto rule by the Taliban. The security problem – the sadly-named swamp – will have re-filled in Afghanistan, after 10 years of costly and violent warfare in the region.
I don’t like the American occupation of Afghanistan – and I publicly protested the invasion of Afghanistan before it happened, my guess is, before you were old enough to vote. Yes, I protested the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. I believed – and believe to this day – that the proper response to 9/11 was to capture or kill bin Laden, and even if there was to be an invasion, it should have been limited to precisely that goal and followed by massive civilian support to Afghanistan. I protested the invasion itself because the I thought the Bush regime was evil and dishonest and exploiting the 9/11 tragedy to start an imperialist march on the entire Middle East. I remember still the New York Times article that emerged shortly after Bush’s coronation er inauguration indicating that Iraq was a topic of discussion in the incoming administration. What I am telling you with all of this is that people who can understand your perspective, who could even be “farther left” than you in some ways take a look at the situation in Pakistan and believe that history has to be stopped from repeating itself in that area, once and for all.)
Substituting Mexico for Pakistan in your tiresome analysis about “truly malevolent and threatening actors,” ought the US be shooting explosive rockets at Mexican homes and travelers who might be suspected “truly malevolent and threatening actors?”
After all, Mexico is quite close and Pakistan is on the other side of the planet — not a threat to the US at all. But that Mexico drug violence, that’s hitting home. How about droning Mexico? Good idea?
You are putting words in my mouth here. I never suggested we “turn a blind eye to terrorists.” In suggesting we advise & assist, I actually could be accused of advocating that the US continue to meddle in the affairs of Pakistan. Some might call that supporting operations that could be used to produce “regime change.” But that isn’t what I am advocating.
What I am advocating is essentially what you are advocating: there are people in Pakistan who commit terrorism. They are there partly because of US foreign policy. We owe it to Pakistan to help them address the presence of people willing to launch violent attacks on innocent people in Pakistan. Of course, I suggest the US end its violent drone attacks before trying to meaningfully stop terrorism in the country.
The situation in northwestern Pakistan is of absolutely no interest to the average American, nor should it be, despite the hysterical claims of “virulently anti-Western terrorists, insurgents, and warlords” all of which is baseless, unproven and unsubstantiated. Virulently so.
Brush up — President Karzai is (constitutionally) due to leave office in a couple years, or sooner. Just about the same time that US combat forces leave, if anyone believes that.