But it increases their hate against Pakistani armed forces and government, right?
Hate is a subjective word. In the generalized sense of the word, yes but that "hate" does not lead to suicide bombings. General lack of dismay over an issue will not lead to increased militancy.
I guess I'll have to post my old rant.
Success rate cited by right wing media has been challenged internationally. The statistics being reported by our media depend on a certain website called
Pakistan Body Count. Hence militant is only Al Qaeda by their standards as the website only counts Al-Qaeda and civlians in separate categories. Heck even Baitullah Mehsud isn't counted as a militant. WTF man? Killing Baitullah not being counted as a success should be the biggest joke. No LI, TTP or Taliban are counted as militants and that's a big joke. The News used a website maintained by a single guy as their source instead of doing something on their own and labeled it "by Pakistani authorities". Had their been an official document, they would have named it and they just relied on the figures collected by one man through news reports that counts only Al-Qaeda as successful kill. The website didn't include TTP, LI and Taliban in it's count. What a rubbish way of calculating effectiveness.
Independent groups have calculated ratio of miliant to civilian/unknown death rate at 3.4 and militant casualty rate at 77.2% unlike the 1 or 2% cited by our right wing fundos. Even this is high collateral damage but way different than what our crackpots tell the people.
Read the following two papers
New Light on the Accuracy of the CIA’s Predator Drone Campaign in Pakistan
Sudden Justice? Evaluating the U.S. Predator Campaign in Pakistan
This does not mean that I inherently agree with their findings, methods or views. I wanted to present to you a scientific study rather than urban jargon.
The need to analyze the effectiveness of a remote targeting technology demands considering its strategic objectives mostly but it has to consider the political, social and economic factors as well. For the US, the necessity to avoid the loss of life on their own side is very important as well. But it would be difficult to establish whether Pentagon would discontinue its policy of drone strikes if it is established that it has caused more collateral damage than it has possibly killed militants. Nevertheless, our public opposition to this policy does not hold much weight in their opinion for our state has allowed and supported it for so long that a demand for canceling it entirely won't matter to them. Our military supplies intelligence for these strikes and it is not unimaginable that we have used them to target known militants not reachable by foot soldiers easily (meaning that we knew the presence of a militant or training school, supplied intelligence and asked for its destruction). Our military is hand-in-hand with these policies.
Ghairat brigade chest thumping irks me.