With President Obama’s ongoing escalation of the drone war in Pakistan, the question is which is hurt more by the aerial attacks: al-Qaeda’s leadership or the United States’ standing in Pakistan? As  former ambassador Tayyab Siddiqui, a columnist for the News, one of Pakistan’s leading newspapers,  notes the answer is obvious, at least in Pakistan.

….last year, there were 44 drone attacks, killing only five key Al Qaeda targets but the civilian casualties exceeded 700 Pakistanis. Passionate appeals have been made to all the visitors from the US – Congressmen, officials, military brass and others  that these attacks must stop. Pakistan is absolutely critical for US strategy in the region and its war against terror is solely dependent on Pakistanis’ cooperation. Pakistan must spell out to the Obama Administration that any more cooperation with the US would be subject to US meeting Pakistanis’ concerns.

There’s no evidence that is going to happen. From the point of view of U.S. policymakers, this isn’t a dilemma. In Washington, the answer is equally obvious, though diametrically opposed, to Pakistan’s: the battlefield advantages outweigh the political costs. In the short run, that is surely true. In the long run, it depends on ignoring Pakistani democracy.