CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 109Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political ViolencePolitics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle EastMilitary History and Strategy

What Explains Counterterrorism Effectiveness? Evidence from the U.S. Drone War in Pakistan

Mir, Asfandyar·2018·International Security
DOI 10.1162/isec_a_00331
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

For years, the U.S. government has been waging counterterrorism campaigns against al-Qaida and other armed groups in safe havens and weak states. What explains the effectiveness of such campaigns? The variation in effectiveness may result from differences in select tactical, organizational, and technological capabilities of the counterterrorism state and its local partner, captured by the concept of the Legibility and Speed-of-Exploitation System (L&S). Empirical studies, including novel fieldwork data, on the U.S. drone war in Pakistan's Waziristan region from 2004 to 2014 reveal the influence of the L&S on targeted groups. From 2004 to 2007, a lack of U.S. counterterrorism capabilities aligning with the L&S allowed both al-Qaida and the Pakistan Taliban to build their operational infrastructure, expand their bases, engage in extensive recruitment drives, and broker important local alliances. In contrast, as the United States made substantial improvements in the L&S from 2008 to 2014, the campaigns against both groups became increasingly effective. Both al-Qaida and the Pakistan Taliban experienced sustained reductions in operational capabilities, losses of bases, and high desertion rates; they also faced growing political challenges, including from within their own organizations. These findings contrast with the view that counterterrorism offers short-term gains at best and is counterproductive at worst.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/isec_a_00331

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Drone strikes may decrease the capacity of militant groups to conduct subsequent attacks.

    “From a purely military perspective, drone strikes may also decrease the capacity of militant groups to conduct subsequent attacks (Mir 2018).”

    From Do Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics? (2020) · cites this paper as Mir 2018

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mir, A.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Mir, Asfandyar
ORCID
Mir, Asfandyar
Venue
International Security
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018
Volume
43
Issue
2
Pages
45-83
ISSN
  • 0162-2889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-4804
DOI
10.1162/isec_a_00331
OpenAlex
W2899696422
Cited by
109
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1
FWCI
6.26
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 › Military History and Strategy
Keywords
counterterrorism effectiveness, drone warfare, Waziristan, al-Qaeda, weak states, insurgency, group recruitment, desertion, local partnerships

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