Nabila ur-Rehman, 9, is a survivor of the U.S. drone attack that took place in her neighborhood in North Waziristan, Pakistan. According to CNN, Nabila lost her grandmother Momina, who was killed by this drone. Nabila recently visited Washington along with her brother Zubair, 9, and her father Rafiq to appeal against the drone strikes in front of Congress.
“I saw two missiles come down and hit, and at that moment, everything went dark,” Zubair said. Later, he found out that his and Nabila’s grandmother was blown to pieces.
Nabila and her family traveled to Washington to share their story.
However, she did not get much response from either Congress or the president. According to CNN, the government does not remark on drone strikes due to intelligence matters.
Nonetheless, the War on Terror is justified, and so are the drone attacks on these radical infidels. What’s not justified is innocent people getting killed during these attacks.
Accordin to CNN the October 2012 drone strikes killed 19 civilians, including the children’s grandmother. Nabila’s residence is in an area mostly controlled by militant groups which operate outside the laws of Pakistani forces.
In addition to civilians getting killed in drone strikes, what should be acknowledged is the fact that the United States does not want innocent people getting killed and works very hard to make sure of it.
“One of the ways this operation is so effective is that it can be called off at the very last moment, just as the weapon is about to impact. A missile can be diverted if a child or a woman comes into the shot,” said Jeremy Bash, a national security official, to CNN.
As Houstonians, as UH students and as Americans, we struggle to make this world a better place. Clearly, there is no hope, especially in the case of terrorism.
When Malala Yousafzai was shot by the Taliban due to her fight against the freedom of education for girls, we called her a hero. Why not Nabila? Nabila is not a supporter of terrorism. All she asks from the United States is a solution in which the terrorists are captured and no civilians get hurt. Her fight is simple: to stop innocent people from getting killed.
Clearly, the drone strikes are effective in eliminating terrorism from the world. However, it can also be said that this strategy is causing the victims to have grievances against the United States.
Grievances do nothing but give birth to new terrorists.
Even Yousafzai, the “bravest girl in the world,” according to CNN, confronted President Obama about the U.S. drone strikes.
Yousafzai expressed her concerns about the drones, which are doing nothing but fueling terrorism.
“Innocent victims are killed in these acts, and they lead to resentment among the Pakistani people. If we refocus efforts on education, it will make a big impact,” Yousafzai said.
Opinion columnist Rabia Sheikh is a political science senior and may be reached at [email protected]
Well said
Great work!
I would tend to agree that the US does not want innocent people killed but without documentation of what is done to prevent civilian casualties you shouldn’t state that the US works very hard to make sure of it.
Jeremy Bash may state that missiles can be diverted, but do we have confirmation that this actually occurs? Do we have a tally of scrapped drone strikes due to civilian contact? How does it measure against completed drone strikes? If we are making the effort to limit civilian casualties, why are our drone operators suffering from PTSD and “moral injury”. http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone-uav-pilot-assassination?printable=true
Then you have the drone tactic of the double-tap strike, secondary strikes after an initial hit intended to kill survivors, mourners, and rescuers. The US has even adopted the tactic of performing drone strikes on funerals. Do civilians not mourn or help the wounded? http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/20/us-drones-strikes-target-rescuers-pakistan
On top of that you have the issue of how the US classifies a military
combatant. Basically any man of military age is considered an enemy
combatant. If the US was serious about preventing civilian casualties,
why would they use a metric that would severely under-count civilian
deaths? http://intellihub.com/2013/01/24/remember-the-us-establishment-defines-a-militant-as-a-military-aged-male/
Maybe you believe the US is working hard to prevent civilian casualties, but there is obviously room for improvement. We need to try a lot harder!
I agree with you. However there are no safe tactics in the case of war on terrorism. And yes the US does need to work harder.