Other
- +5
Frances Z. Brown, Zainab Usman, Erin Jones, …
{
"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.
By Aqil Shah
Published on May 4, 2018
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.
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.
- Global Views of Biden’s Democracy Summit
- Pakistan’s “Moderate Taliban” Strategy Won’t Hold Up—For AnyoneCommentary
Aqil Shah
Recent Work
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
- The Fallout of the U.S.–Canada Trade War Won’t Be Limited to North AmericaCommentary
U.S. trading partners in Asia are closely watching the dispute for signs of how it may affect their own interests.
Barbara Weisel
- Europe Fails to Learn the Lessons from CeutaCommentary
The aftermath of the Ceuta crisis shows Europe has drawn the wrong lessons. Rather than doubling down on failed migration policies, the EU needs to address the underlying roots of such episodes.
Richard Youngs
- America Walks Away from Global DemocracyPaper
By abandoning past U.S. pro-democracy policies and adopting several lines of pro-autocratic action, the Trump administration has fundamentally repositioned the United States vis-à-vis democracy in the world.
Thomas Carothers
- American Power: A View from ChinaPaper
Chinese strategists are once again debating whether American power is declining and whether U.S. hegemony is experiencing irreversible decay.
Wu Xinbo
- Is the U.S.-Saudi Nuclear Deal Moving From the Gold Standard to a Gilded Standard?Commentary
Congress should ask tough questions about the agreement’s more unique features and whether they advance U.S. interests or compromise them.
Jane Darby Menton
