2020
DOI: 10.1080/13698249.2020.1704603
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Predators and Peace: Explaining the Failure of the Pakistani Conflict Settlement Process in 2013-4

Abstract: Did US drone strikes cause the unravelling of the Pakistani conflict settlement process between the government and the TTP in 2013-14? In answering this question, we present strong, fieldwork-based evidence that the effects of leadership decapitation, civilian casualties, and loss of legitimacy and credibility as a negotiation partner by both the government and the TTP interacted in the context of specific social, political and cultural characteristics of a tribal society. We find that drone strikes 'produced'… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 57 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…While it is difficult to gauge actual numbers of civilian casualties (e.g., Ryan, 2018 ; Crawford and Lutz, 2019 ), evidence has accumulated that collateral damage—unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time ( U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013 )—can have a deleterious impact on intergroup conflicts beyond the obvious human suffering and financial burden. The incidental death of non-combatants can contribute to the perpetuation and even escalation of conflict through increased radicalization and more negative attitudes toward the rival outgroup (e.g., Condra and Shapiro, 2012 ; Deri, 2012 ; Lyall et al, 2013 ; Shaver and Shapiro, 2015 ; Farooq et al, 2020 ; though see Shah, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While it is difficult to gauge actual numbers of civilian casualties (e.g., Ryan, 2018 ; Crawford and Lutz, 2019 ), evidence has accumulated that collateral damage—unintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time ( U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2013 )—can have a deleterious impact on intergroup conflicts beyond the obvious human suffering and financial burden. The incidental death of non-combatants can contribute to the perpetuation and even escalation of conflict through increased radicalization and more negative attitudes toward the rival outgroup (e.g., Condra and Shapiro, 2012 ; Deri, 2012 ; Lyall et al, 2013 ; Shaver and Shapiro, 2015 ; Farooq et al, 2020 ; though see Shah, 2018 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This awful scenario altered the peace and smashed the political as well as socio-economic setup of both zones (Farooq et al, 2020;Jabeen and Bukhari, 2020;Khalid, 2020). Therefore, a survey on FORMER FATA clarifies that approximately 60,000 people lost their lives coupled with materialistic loss of more than $100 billion (Anwar and Khan, 2017;Mohammad and Khan, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%