Are Drone Strikes Effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan? On the Dynamics of Violence between the United States and the Taliban

Jaeger, David A.; Siddique, Zahra

doi:10.1093/cesifo/ify011

Cited by 19 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Jaeger and Siddique (2011) apply a multiple time series method, similar to Enders and Sandler (1993), to show that drone attacks had no significant effect in Afghanistan, but did serve as a short-term deterrent effect in Pakistan. For Pakistan, Jaeger and Siddique (2011) find an increase in the vengeance or backlash effect during the first week following a successful drone strike on Taliban and al-Qaida assets. The short-term reduction in terrorist attacks came during the second week after the drone strike, consistent with an intertemporal transference of attacks.…”

Section: Drones and Targeted Killingsmentioning

confidence: 94%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11

Gaibulloev

Sandler²

2019

Journal of Economic Literature

147

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This overview examines critically the post-9/11 empirical literature on terrorism. Major contributions by both economists and political scientists are included. We focus on five main themes: the changing nature of terrorism, the organization of terrorist groups, the effectiveness of counterterrorism policies, modern drivers or causes of terrorism, and the economic consequences of terrorism. In so doing, we investigate a host of questions that include: How do terrorist groups attract and retain members? What determines the survival of terrorist groups? Is poverty a root cause of terrorism? What counterterrorism measures work best? In the latter regard, we find that many counterterrorism policies have unintended negative consequences owing to attack transference and terrorist backlash. This suggests the need for novel policies such as service provision to counter some terrorist groups’ efforts to provide such services. Despite terrorists’ concerted efforts to damage targeted countries’ economies, the empirical literature shows that terrorism has had little or no effect on economic growth or GDP except in small terrorism-plagued countries. At the sectoral level, terrorism can adversely affect tourism and foreign direct investment, but these effects are rather transient and create transference of activities to other sectors, thus cushioning the consequences. (JEL F21, F52, H56, K42, Z31)

show abstract

Section: Drones and Targeted Killingsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Opponents argue that drones are locally unpopular and create backlash that fosters terrorist recruitment (Bloom 2005 and. Proponents view effective drone attacks as disrupting and degrading targeted terrorist groups, thus reducing the incidence and lethality of their attacks Siddique 2011 andJohnston andSarbahi 2016).…”

Section: Drones and Targeted Killingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11

Gaibulloev

Sandler²

2019

Journal of Economic Literature

147

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even using these numbers, however, the programme is of significantly lower intensity and greater precision than conventional military operations, killing 65 sectarian leaders, 1,576 militants and 305 civilians from 2004 to 2013. Overall, the literature finds that the programme is “relatively” precise and achieves its military goals, although often only temporarily (Jaegar and Siddique, ; Johnston and Sarbahi, ). As a result, the study expects strikes to degrade militant control, increasing employment migration.…”

Section: Pakistani Data On Violence and Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The New America Foundation (NAF) has collected data on these strikes from major international, regional, and Western media outlets, tracking the date, location, and estimated casualties of each strike. Their tallies have been used extensively in public discussions about the program's efficacy, as well as academic studies like Johnston and Sarbahi (), Jaegar and Siddique (), and Mir and Moore ().…”

Section: Pakistani Data On Violence and Migrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Economic Migration and Communal Violence in Pakistan

Kuo¹

2019

International Migration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overseas employment provides multiple socioeconomic benefits for families and communities in sending countries. But communal violence can potentially disrupt these flows, causing lasting damage to local and national economic development. Under what conditions does political violence – and particularly low‐intensity sectarian conflict – increase or decrease economic migration? This article argues that the level of militant control over local political and social institutions conditions whether individuals emigrate for work. Using statistical analysis of Pakistani data on overseas employment and political violence, it finds that attacks by transnational/Islamist militants on local political institutions substantially reduce economic migration. Attacks against non‐political targets have no significant effect, further emphasizing the importance of these bodies.

show abstract

“…A second study by David Jaeger and Zahra Siddique concludes that there is no consistent relationship between attacks by RPAS and terrorist violence in Afghanistan, and it confirms that, both when the correlation is positive and when it is negative, its effects are minor. 48 For example, it suggests that an attack may diminish the capacity to respond violently the first week, but this may lead to more attacks in the second week after the attack. 49 A third study by James Walsh and John Szmer suggests that the effect of RPAS strikes is different on different groups.…”

Section: Rpas Outside Of Rra Contexts: Proportionality and The Reasonmentioning

confidence: 99%

The ad bellum Challenge of Drones: Recalibrating Permissible Use of Force

Chehtman¹

2017

European Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drones constitute an incremental advance in weapons systems. They are able to significantly reduce overall, as well as collateral, damage. These features seem to have important implications for the ad bellum permissibility of resorting to military force. In short, drones would seem to expand the right to resort to military force compared to alternative weapons systems by making resorting to force proportionate in a wider set of circumstances. This line of reasoning has significant relevance in many contemporary conflicts. This article challenges this conclusion. It argues that resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would usually be disproportionate. The reason for this is twofold. First, under conditions of radical asymmetry, drones may not be discriminatory enough, and, thereby, collateral damage would still be disproportionate. Second, their perceived advantages in terms of greater discrimination are counteracted by the lesser chance of success in achieving the just cause for war. As a result, resorting to military force through drones in contemporary asymmetrical conflicts would generally be disproportionate not because of the harm they would expectedly cause but, rather, because of the limited harm they are ultimately able to prevent. On the basis of normative argument and empirical data, this article ultimately shows that we need to revise our understanding of ad bellum proportionality not only at the level of moral argument but also in international law.

show abstract

Are Drone Strikes Effective in Afghanistan and Pakistan? On the Dynamics of Violence between the United States and the Taliban

Cited by 19 publications

References 12 publications

What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11

What We Have Learned about Terrorism since 9/11

Economic Migration and Communal Violence in Pakistan

The ad bellum Challenge of Drones: Recalibrating Permissible Use of Force

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About