I'll admit, I didn't think that the American drone campaign that Bush 43 started was more than a holding action during the presidential transition period following the 2008 election. I took it as a fact that drone strikes (because they were air strikes and not because of the use of drones) would anger Pakistanis. I was wrong, and didn't realize that even as Obama continued them, that policy wasn't in defiance of public opinion in Pakistan (although it was in defiance of liberal opinion in the West).
There is a reason for being wrong:
The conventional wisdom (at least among local and international media) was that these airstrikes killed a lot of civilians and aided recruiting for Islamic terror groups. The opinion surveys of the Pakistani civilians (in areas where these missile attacks took place) showed that the missile attacks had little or nothing to do with why young men joined the Pakistani Taliban. The main causes of “radicalization” were the large number of religious schools extolling the spiritual benefits of being an Islamic warrior and defender of Islam. ... As in Afghanistan, the locals saw the American missile strikes as a benefit because they were precise and usually killed leaders of Islamic terror groups[.]
Not that the complaints by the enemy and their media allies and useful idiots didn't have an effect on our air support in Afghanistan.
It's misplaced false compassion, I've argued.
