Mapping US drone and Islamic militant attacks in Pakistan

[SpArK]

Mapping US drone and Islamic militant attacks in Pakistan
​

Since January 2009 nearly 2,500 people have been killed in Pakistan as a result of US drones and Islamic militant attacks. The graphics below show how Islamic militant strongholds in the border area close to Afghanistan have been targeted by US drone aircraft, while, at the same time, Islamic militants have carried out attacks across Pakistan.

Missile attacks by US drones in Pakistan's tribal areas have more than trebled under the Obama administration, research by the BBC Urdu service shows.

Compared with 25 drone strikes between January 2008 and January 2009, there were at least 87 such attacks between President Obama taking office on 20 January 2009 and the end of June 2010.

More than 700 people have been killed in such attacks under Mr Obama, compared with slightly fewer than 200 from under his predecessor, George W Bush.

The militant backlash over the same period has been even more violent. Extremists have struck more than 140 times in various Pakistani locations, killing more than 1,700 people and injuring hundreds more, the BBC research shows.


While attacks by militants cannot be described as direct retaliation for drone strikes, they are firmly part of the battle the US and Pakistani authorities are fighting against radical Islam's operational bases in Pakistan.

Over the same 18-month period, many more than 2,500 people have died in offensives by the Pakistani army and fighting between troops and militants. Exact figures are impossible to obtain.

Places such as Swat and South Waziristan which have seen offensives by the Pakistani military are virtually closed to independent media and other groups.

The increased frequency of drone strikes follows a reported shift in US policy to extend its drone operations. It has moved from targeting al-Qaeda suspects to including Pakistani Taliban who are believed to be providing a haven for al-Qaeda leaders and operatives.

The bulk of these attacks have been in North Waziristan, with neighbouring South Waziristan the next main target.

While more than 700 people have died in these attacks, positive identification of the victims, either by Pakistani or US authorities, has been made in fewer than a dozen instances.



There have been notable successes for the Americans and Pakistanis, including the killing of Taliban militant leader Baitullah Mehsud last August and several people described as senior al-Qaeda leaders.

The data collected by the BBC Urdu service shows militant attacks dipping when Mehsud was killed and then peaking last autumn when Pakistani troops launched the South Waziristan offensive. Drone attacks reached a high when the operation was declared over and the Pakistani army refused to push on into North Waziristan as the US government wanted it to.

Pakistan has consistently argued that drone attacks are hindering rather than helping with the battle against extremism, saying they fuel public anger against the government and the US and boost support for militants.

On the other hand, the US, which does not routinely confirm drone operations, has always implied there is a tacit understanding between the two countries over the attacks.

The CIA declined to comment for this story.

The Taliban say drone attacks make them more determined to fight, but admit that they have disrupted their operations.

Ten cities worst hit by militant attacks


Location No of Deaths

Peshawar 362

Lahore 253

Khyber 120

Rawalpindi 98

Lakki Marwat 93

Kohat 91

Dera Ismail Khan 77

Lower Dir 75

Karachi 69

Dera Ghazi Khan 50


Areas hit by drone attacks

Province No of deaths

South Waziristan 279

North Waziristan 386

Bajaur 14

Bannu 5

Orakzai 8

Kurram 54





This data was compiled between January 2009 and July 2010 by the BBC Urdu service. It is based on reports from BBC World Service correspondents working in Northern Pakistan and the tribal areas.

 

[SpArK]

To the military, they are UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles) or RPAS (Remotely Piloted Aerial Systems). However, they are more commonly known as drones.



Drones are used in situations where manned flight is considered too risky or difficult. They provide troops with a 24-hour "eye in the sky", seven days a week. Each aircraft can stay aloft for up to 17 hours at a time, loitering over an area and sending back real-time imagery of activities on the ground.

Those used by the United States Air Force and Royal Air Force range from small intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance craft, some light enough to be launched by hand, to medium-sized armed drones and large spy planes.

Two medium-sized drones currently in use in Afghanistan and Pakistan are the MQ-1B Predator and the MQ-9 Reaper.

These strange-looking planes carry a wealth of sensors in their bulbous noses: colour and black-and-white TV cameras, image intensifiers, radar, infra-red imaging for low-light conditions and lasers for targeting. They can also be armed with laser-guided missiles.



Key uses


* Intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance
* Checking for roadside bombs or devices on landing areas
* Listening to mobile phone conversations
* Helping understand daily routine of locals to see what
is normal behaviour
* Close Air Support
* Following or attacking suspected insurgents

Each multi-million dollar Predator or Reaper system comprises four aircraft, a ground control station and a satellite link.

Although drones are unmanned, they are not unpiloted - trained crew at base steer the craft, analyse the images which the cameras send back and act on what they see.

The base may be local to the combat zone or thousands of miles away - many of the drone missions in Afghanistan are controlled from Creech airforce base in Nevada, USA - although take-off and landing are always handled locally.

The MQ-1B Predator (formerly called the RQ-1 Predator) was originally designed as an aircraft for intelligence-gathering, surveillance, identifying targets and reconnaissance.

However, since 2002 it has been equipped with two Hellfire II missiles, meaning it can strike at a range of up to 8km (five miles).

By contrast the newer MQ-9 Reaper was conceived as a "hunter-killer" system.

It can carry four Hellfire missiles and laser-guided bombs such as Paveway II and GBU-12.

Its cruise speed is 370kph (230mph), much faster than the 217kph (135mph) of the Predator which is more vulnerable to being shot down at low altitudes - although the drones would usually be flown above the range of most of the weapons available to the Taliban.



British forces use a variety of remotely piloted aircraft. The British Army has used the Hermes 450 UAV in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as smaller UAVs to help check for roadside bombs ahead of patrols. In 2011, the Hermes 450 will be upgraded to the Watchkeeper which, like the Reaper, can be armed.

The RAF has four of the higher-spec Reaper aircraft, with operators based at the Creech air force base. Two more are due to come into service in 2010 and the Ministry of Defence is looking at placing an order with the US Government for five additional Reaper UAVs and four Ground Control Stations

In July 2010, the UK Ministry of Defence unveiled Taranis, its prototype unmanned combat air vehicle which is designed to be able to fend off attack as well as perform the intelligence gathering, surveillance and strike roles of other UAVs.

In recent years there has been a surge in further research and development of unmanned aircraft, leading to predictions of future "robo-wars".

 

[SpArK]

Mike C is a drone pilot who used to work in Iraq and more recently - from last November to May this year - in the southern Afghan province of Helmand. Here he describes his job, in an interview conducted before the end of his assignment.

"We are deep in Taliban territory in one of the most dangerous areas of the country.

I have been observing the situation here with a bird's eye view: I fly unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones.

I work directly with Isaf forces in the region and keep an eye on what's going on. The drones I fly don't carry weapons, they have a reconnaissance role.

The UAV I fly is launched, flown and recovered via a ground control station, which is attached to whichever military command I am supporting at the time of the deployment.

I can't specify where exactly we are located nor where our UAVs go to. All I can confirm is that it is locally, within Helmand province. I don't know where the drones in Pakistan are being launched from.

What we try to do is establish patterns of life or respond to troops engaged in combat or taking indirect fire from militants.

I watch out for anything suspicious. You can watch for hours and see nothing happen or be right over a fire fight.

We watch for indications of activities: men shovelling by the road, motorcycles zooming about with people. Spotting evil-doers in the midst of the everyday hustle and bustle takes vigilance.



Essentially the operator of a UAV co-ordinates with a mission commander. When we identify a target, we follow it, we relay the information to the mission commander and continue surveillance.

It's for the military to analyse the situation and take a decision about what should be done next.

It's a cat-and-mouse game. It's not like in the movies when you see something happening and then you go boom. You have to wait and figure out who's doing what, you pass on the information, you clear air space but you don't take decisions.

Limitations

What makes this job difficult is that you can't easily distinguish a group of ordinary people doing their ordinary business from armed groups. In an insurgency, you are dealing with civilian-clothed opponents.

It's hard to tell who are the Taliban. I am sure there are hard-core elements but because of the nature of the society, one day you are aligned to the Taliban, the next day - to somebody else.

The trick for them is to blend in with the locals. The Taliban use communities to play hide and seek with us. Until they fire upon our troops it's impossible to determine their motives.

According to the rules of engagement (ROE), that's the only time when it becomes obvious who the enemy is.

Even when a hostile is identified, if he throws down his weapon or there is a risk of collateral damage and civilian casualties, the most troops can do is to ask for permission to search homes and compounds.

Once a hostile lays down his weapon, there's no more justification to engage him.

The limitations of what we can and cannot do boil down to the rules of engagement. In order to limit civilian casualties, the troops cannot fire until fired upon.

It's much simpler when they are targeting us. They probably know the rules just as well. In fact, I believe they are very skilled in using the rules of engagement to protect themselves and they often get away. This happens quite often."

 

[SpArK]

North Waziristan has gained a reputation as having been a haven for the world's most dangerous Islamist militants, Osama Bin Laden among them.

In recent years, with the absence of decisive Pakistani military action in the area, America decided the best way to kill those deemed a risk to US security was by firing missiles at them from unmanned aircraft.

The use of these planes in the tribal areas of Pakistan began under the watch of President George W Bush, but has increased markedly since his successor Barack Obama took office.

The Taliban have admitted, in a statement to the BBC, that they have been affected by the attacks, but say they will win the war in the end.

Drone strikes fuel anti-US feeling, but not all Pakistanis oppose such raids




It is not easy to get an independent assessment of their impact. North Waziristan, where most of the attacks have taken place, is all but inaccessible to foreign journalists.

And those living there are often scared to speak out on the subject.

Raids 'good'

But the BBC has managed to get the views of several civilians living in the battle zone.

One resident, Sher Ahmad Wazir, from Mir Ali in North Waziristan, said: "I'm against the drone attacks because a lot of civilians die. What does America want from us? Our government should not side with the Americans."


But Zahid (not his real name), from Wana, in South Waziristan, said: "I think the drone strikes are good: they target the right people, the terrorists."

Bahar Wazir, from Shawal, North Waziristan, said: "I prefer the drone attacks to army ground operations, because in the operations we get killed and the [Pakistani] army doesn't respect the honour of our men or women."

A major issue with the use of drones concerns civilian deaths.

Often, after drone missile strikes, the Pakistani army will release a statement saying all of the casualties were from the various militant groups based in the area, only for local residents to say civilians have been killed.

It has to be taken into account that those living in North Waziristan may be afraid to admit that militants were killed when the Taliban has such a strong hold there.

Hitting targets?

Recent research by the Ariana Institute in Islamabad found that around 80% of people interviewed in Pakistan's tribal belt felt that targeting by the drone strikes was accurate
Many said that foreign fighters (Arabs, Uzbeks and Tajiks, among them) in particular were being affected.

Dr Khadim Hussain, director of the institute, says research about whether or not Waziris resented the drone strikes proved inconclusive.

A senior US official has told the BBC that approximately 650 militants have been killed inside Pakistan due to drone strikes since Obama took office.

This official says only about 20 non-combatants have been killed due to those strikes.

Research by the BBC's Urdu service puts the number of those killed considerably higher, and says there have been many cases where there has been no positive identification of those killed at all.

There is little doubt that the onset of drone attacks prompted a change in the pattern of militant behaviour in the tribal areas.

Observers say the Taliban and foreign fighters are more careful about gathering in large groups and tend to move on from locations more quickly.

The highest profile casualties of the drone attacks have been one leader of the Pakistani Taliban, another man believed to have been al-Qaeda's third in command, and his successor.

The Taliban admit that the drone attacks have disrupted their operations.
'New blood'

"In the short term, yes, you can say it has caused us some difficulties because of the martyrdoms and realignment of our ranks," says a Taliban spokesman, Muhammed Umer.

"But our command and control system is very strong and well established, so we won't be affected for long," he adds. "Instead we get new courage, becoming more powerful with the flow of new blood."

Certainly, if the measure of success is taken as the number of attacks carried out by the Pakistani Taliban, then the drone strikes have not helped.

The last 12 months have seen an increase in the number of Pakistanis killed in bombings by militants.

Some, like the attack on the Pakistani army's headquarters in Rawalpindi, have shown a new level of audaciousness.

There are many here who feel the drone attacks are being used as a propaganda tool by the militants, and successfully so.

Among them is Rahimullah Yusufzai, a journalist and leading expert on militancy in north-west Pakistan.

"How many people do you want to kill to get Osama Bin Laden?" he asks.

"How many common militants who may not have done much harm to the US or its allies do you want to kill to get Dr [Ayman] al-Zawahiri [Bin Laden's deputy]? That is the question."

But there is a large proportion of Pakistani society which has turned against the influence of militants here.


They want to see an end to the kind of bombings that have terrorised them, and they are getting increasingly desperate for a solution.

They are not likely to take to the streets in protest at the drone attacks.

The Pakistani government itself may publicly disapprove of US drone strikes on its soil.

But it rejoiced at the passing of Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud, who was killed in one such attack in August 2009.

So is Pakistan complicit or not?

Pakistanis will frequently tell you they believe their country's establishment is co-operating with America when it comes to the drone attacks.

It is a charge that has consistently been denied by Islamabad.

I suggested to Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik that even if the planes are controlled in America, some intelligence has to come from Pakistan.

"I am very much fighting the war in that area, I know the way they do it," Mr Malik says. "I know the technology, and I can assure you it is done independently."

He goes further, saying his government has strenuously taken up the issue with Washington as an attack on "our sovereignty".

But many outside observers will see it as convenient for Pakistan to publicly criticise the drones, while privately supporting them.
'Most precise'

Increasingly desperate

The country is often accused by outsiders of allowing militants from Afghanistan to stay in places like North Waziristan.
Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi (R) and Richard Holbrooke US special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, during a joint news conference at the foreign ministry in Islamabad on 7 April 2009 Pakistan is accused of publicly criticising but secretly supporting US strikes

The critics' theory is that Pakistan feels the Taliban are ultimately going to be back in charge of Afghanistan, and it wants a friendly neighbour over which it can exert its influence.

Those same voices suggest Islamabad wants to deal with some of the militant elements in the tribal areas which are hostile to its interests, but would rather someone else take the blame.

In response to that, the Pakistani army points to the large number of casualties it has suffered in its ranks in the fight against militants.

Is there an alternative?

The CIA declined to comment for this story but the American position is that drones best limit collateral damage.

In speaking to the BBC, a senior US official called it "the most precise weapons system in the history of warfare".

Whether because it does not have the resources, as Islamabad claims, or does not have the will, as many in the West have suggested, the Pakistani army is unlikely to carry out ground operations in North Waziristan.

What Pakistan says it wants is for the drone strikes to continue, but under its ownership, not that of the US.

"The US should just give us the technology," says Rehman Malik. "If we do it ourselves, Pakistanis won't mind."