• Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
Carnegie Global logoCarnegie lettermark logo
DemocracyIran
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Aqil Shah"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "SAP",
  "programs": [
    "South Asia"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "South Asia",
    "Pakistan"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Democracy",
    "Security",
    "Military",
    "Foreign Policy",
    "Civil Society",
    "Religion"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Do U.S. Drone Strikes Cause Blowback? Evidence from Pakistan and Beyond

New interview and survey data from Pakistan provide little or no evidence to support the claim that U.S. drone strikes generate blowback and contribute to the radicalization of local populations.

Link Copied
By Aqil Shah
Published on May 4, 2018
Program mobile hero image

Program

South Asia

The South Asia Program informs policy debates relating to the region’s security, economy, and political development. From strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific to India’s internal dynamics and U.S. engagement with the region, the program offers in-depth, rigorous research and analysis on South Asia’s most critical challenges.

Learn More

Source: International Security

Many analysts argue that U.S. drone strikes generate blowback: by killing innocent civilians, such strikes radicalize Muslim populations at the local, national, and even transnational levels. This claim, however, is based primarily on anecdotal evidence, unreliable media reports, and advocacy-driven research by human rights groups. Interview and survey data from Pakistan, where, since 2004, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has launched more than 430 drone strikes, show little or no evidence that drone strikes have a significant impact on militant Islamist recruitment either locally or nationally. Rather, the data reveal the importance of factors such as political and economic grievances, the Pakistani state's selective counterterrorism policies, its indiscriminate repression of the local population, and forced recruitment of youth by militant groups.

Similarly, trial testimony and accounts of terrorists convicted in the United States, as well as the social science scholarship on Muslim radicalization in the United States and Europe, provide scant evidence that drone strikes are the main cause of militant Islamism. Instead, factors that matter include a transnational Islamic identity's appeal to young immigrants with conflicted identities, state immigration and integration policies that marginalize Muslim communities, the influence of peers and social networks, and online exposure to violent jihadist ideologies within the overall context of U.S. military interventions in Muslim countries.

This article was originally published in International Security.

Read full text

About the Author

Aqil Shah

Former Visiting Scholar, South Asia Program

Aqil Shah was a visiting scholar in the South Asia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Recent Work

  • Other
    Global Views of Biden’s Democracy Summit
      • +5

      Frances Z. Brown, Zainab Usman, Erin Jones, …

  • Commentary
    Pakistan’s “Moderate Taliban” Strategy Won’t Hold Up—For Anyone

      Aqil Shah

Aqil Shah
Former Visiting Scholar, South Asia Program
Aqil Shah
DemocracySecurityMilitaryForeign PolicyCivil SocietyReligionSouth AsiaPakistan

Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.

More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Why Has Tokyo’s Response to Kremlin Challenges Been So Muted?

    Japan’s long-term security policy is driven by concerns about China, and there is little appetite for (or interest in) pursuing a confrontation with Moscow.  

      James D.J. Brown

  • Commentary
    Strategic Europe
    Containing Escalation in the Black Sea

    Russia is testing the waters of NATO’s mutual defense clause. What do strikes in Romanian territorial waters mean for the alliance’s posture toward Moscow?

      Dimitar Bechev

  • Three men talking and laughing
    Commentary
    Emissary
    The Mecca Pact and the Limits of American Guarantees

    Why Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey are joining forces on regional security.

      Alper Coşkun, Amr Hamzawy

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    The Future of Russian-European Relations Is Bleak

    The truth of the strategic situation is that Europe and Russia are extremely unlikely to be able to “turn the page” on their confrontation within the next two decades.

      Arkady Moshes

  • leaders sitting in chairs speaking
    Commentary
    Emissary
    As Rubio Lands in India, the U.S.-India Relationship Is Stronger Than It Looks

    Despite public disputes over trade and immigration, the strategic partnership’s foundations remain sturdy.

      • Sameer Lalwani

      Sameer Lalwani

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Carnegie global logo, stacked
1779 Massachusetts Avenue NWWashington, DC, 20036-2103Phone: 202 483 7600
  • Research
  • Emissary
  • About
  • Experts
  • Donate
  • Programs
  • Events
  • Blogs
  • Podcasts
  • Contact
  • Annual Reports
  • Careers
  • Privacy
  • For Media
  • Government Resources
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.