According to The Bureau of Investigative Journalism (TBIJ), a London-based not-for-profit research organisation that has been tracking drone strikes in Pakistan for the past two years, there have been approximately 376 strikes on Pakistani territory since 2004, of which 325 have taken place under the Obama administration. The number of people killed by these strikes ranges between 2,525 and 3,613; the number of civilians who have died at the hands of drones are between 407 and 926. Of these, between 168 and 200 are believed to have been children. The number of those injured by drone attacks is between 1,117 and 1,505. Only one in five of those killed in the strikes have been named.

Earlier this month, a United Nations expert investigating drone strikes, stated that the Pakistani government had informed him that at least 400 civilians have been killed in drone attacks in the country since 2004, a figure that roughly matches the lower end of the estimate put out by TBIJ. Towards the end of the month, however, the Pakistani military in an official statement claimed that 67 civilians have so far been killed at the hands of drones in the past five years, alongside at least 2,000 suspected militants. According to TBIJ, the number of people killed in drone attacks since 2008 should be at least 300. The Washington-based New America Foundation puts the figure closer to 185.

A number of things are clear from the above. There is a growing chorus of critics laying false the claims by the US administration that drones are highly precise weapons that target al-Qaeda and affiliated groups, whilst causing almost no civilian harm. There are concerted efforts to record the civilian casualties – which activists claim do take place – and to put names and faces to those numbers, as evidenced by a slew of recently released documentaries, reports by human rights organisations as well as the US congressional hearing of late, in which a family from North Waziristan gave a first-hand account to [a handful of] US lawmakers about living, and dying, under drones. And there is growing debate within the United States, though, perhaps, not within its government, about the effectiveness of its drones programme and about the ‘vaccuum of accountability’ within which it remains placed.

But a number of things remain unclear, particularly within Pakistan. On October 31, condemning the latest drone attack that targeted the town of Miramshah, Foreign Office spokesperson Aizaz Ahmed Chaudhry maintained that the strikes were a violation of national sovereignty and universal human rights. Innocent civilians were being killed — this was bound to continue causing friction between Pakistan and the US. Despite this, there was no mention of drones in the joint statement issued by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif during the latter’s visit to the US last month. Indeed, during the ministerial visit, news reports emerged from within the US citing secret documents which confirmed that for years Pakistan had secretly approved of drone strikes within its geographical boundaries, despite the simultaneous issuing of public denunciations. That Pakistan has secretly been supporting strikes whilst deliberately stoking anti-drone sentiment among its own people, by publicising innocent casualties, has long been suspected. But the figures pertaining to civilian deaths most recently released by Pakistan – wherein such deaths constitute just three per cent of total casualties – undermined this assumption to some extent, catching both commentators and campaigners off guard.

And so, the questions that remain unanswered are: What tricky tightrope is Pakistan treading vis-à-vis drone strikes? Can dissension on drones, either by Pakistan or by civil society groups within the US, put an end to their use and can a more effective counterterrorism strategy be devised to root out militancy from the tribal regions?

There is another question that needs to be asked, however, pertaining to the broader problem of terrorism, a question that Pakistan needs to ask of itself, urgently: If drone strikes were to end tomorrow, would that drastically change the security paradigm within the country? “If drones didn’t exist, we’d probably make them up anyway,” noted one commentator recently — and he’s right. The current debate surrounding drones – who is killed and why and by whose permission – is an important one as far as the preservation of human rights and international law is concerned. But as far as the roots of militancy are concerned, it merely serves as a smokescreen, delaying the inevitable [and uncomfortable] national conversation about who Pakistan’s real enemies are.

— Compiled from news reports