Do U.S. Drone Strikes Cause Blowback? Evidence from Pakistan and Beyond
Abstract
Many analysts argue that U.S. drone strikes generate blowback: by killing innocent civilians, such strikes radicalize Muslim populations at the local, national, and even transnational levels. This claim, however, is based primarily on anecdotal evidence, unreliable media reports, and advocacy-driven research by human rights groups. Interview and survey data from Pakistan, where, since 2004, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency has launched more than 430 drone strikes, show little or no evidence that drone strikes have a significant impact on militant Islamist recruitment either locally or nationally. Rather, the data reveal the importance of factors such as political and economic grievances, the Pakistani state's selective counterterrorism policies, its indiscriminate repression of the local population, and forced recruitment of youth by militant groups. Similarly, trial testimony and accounts of terrorists convicted in the United States, as well as the social science scholarship on Muslim radicalization in the United States and Europe, provide scant evidence that drone strikes are the main cause of militant Islamism. Instead, factors that matter include a transnational Islamic identity's appeal to young immigrants with conflicted identities, state immigration and integration policies that marginalize Muslim communities, the influence of peers and social networks, and online exposure to violent jihadist ideologies within the overall context of U.S. military interventions in Muslim countries.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is evidence that drone strikes do not broadly cause blowback by generating more militant group recruitment.
“There is also evidence that drone strikes do not broadly cause blowback by generating more militant group recruitment (Shah 2018).”
From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Shah 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
What Explains Counterterrorism Effectiveness? Evidence from the U.S. Drone War in Pakistan
Mir, A. (2018) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00331 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics?
Horowitz, M. C. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
“This could connect back to research on nuclear proliferation and how countries might seek to leverage nuclear weapons to improve their security situation (Gartzke & Jo 2007, Kroenig 2018, Sechser & Fuhrmann 2017, Singh & Way 2004).”
Background
- Authors
- Shah, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Oklahoma (US)
- Corresponding author
- Shah, Aqil
- ORCID
- Shah, Aqil
- Venue
- International Security
- Publisher
- MIT Press
- Published
- 2018
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 47-84
- ISSN
- 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
- 1531-4804
- OpenAlex
- W2800613015
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 10.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Security (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Keywords
- drone strikes, blowback, civilian casualties, counterterrorism policy, Muslim immigrants, jihadist ideology, US military intervention, Pakistan
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review