Last weekend the major US media reported that three US-fired missiles struck targets in the northwest frontier region of Pakistan near its border with Afghanistan. The missiles were fired from Predator drones (pilotless aircraft operated by the CIA) apparently in collaboration with Pakistani intelligence, which provided information on the presence of Al Qaeda or Taliban militants. After the attack, according to the LA Times, 'village elders told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said.'

Since last summer, when President Bush ordered the creation of this CIA operation (which fires drone missiles guided by remote control at individuals it believes to be leaders of Al Qaeda or the Taliban), at least 100 civilians have been killed in nearly 30 missile strikes in the northwest frontier region, according to the Pakistani government.

In a statement, the Pakistani government this week responded by calling on Obama to review this missile strike policy 'and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism.' The Pakistani government added, 'We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued.'

Pakistan, with its fragile domestic situation, cannot afford such abuses of its national sovereignty to continue.

Pakistan could emerge as an important regional ally of the US and other countries opposed to the violent groups that have sought refuge in the mountainous border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Remote-controlled missile strikes over the protests of the Pakistani government are the worst way to build such an alliance, however.

Perhaps the CIA hates it when its critics “drone on” about “innocent civilian deaths.” But the moral outrage kindled around the world by the deaths of so many innocent civilians, whether in Gaza, Pakistan, Iraq or Afghanistan, is not a figment of the liberal imagination. Real human children and mothers and fathers are week after week being killed by the technological wizardry the CIA unleashes from on high.

In fact, no military solution from the air or ground will ever be found to solve the deplorable conditions – grinding poverty and benign neglect – that breed violence, hatred and rebellion.

Obama and his closest advisors may have made a careful political calculation before authorizing the CIA missile strikes in Pakistan: that the American public opinion would back the president on his decision to kill Al Qaeda leaders. Indeed, if Gallup conducted a survey on this one question, huge numbers of people would probably agree with his decision in this instance. The administration's political calculation may also have included the intent to send a message to all quarters that this president is willing to use both force and diplomacy, to kill America's enemies or bring them to the table, even if that means innocent civilians may be killed in the process.

History shows us, however, that one missile strike leads to another. Dozens of missile strikes, instead of simply eliminating people thought to be an enemy (and we have only the CIA's word that those who die are the enemy), inevitably create new enemies. Soon ground forces, warships, bombers and more are mobilized to manage a quagmire like the US invasion of Iraq or Vietnam, or the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviets in the 1980s and currently by US-NATO forces.

History also teaches that no outside intervention in Central Asia has succeeded for long or accomplished its main aims in any meaningful way. The CIA agents in their sterile state-of-the-art offices in Langley, Virginia who plot the trajectories of missiles fired from the Predator drones surely take great pride in their massive technological superiority over the poorly-armed and untrained mountain people in the border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan. But in the end history has always had a harsh lesson for such hubris.

In his inauguration speech, President Obama outlined a welcome change from Bush administration policies. He promised to extend an 'open hand' to the world and to pursue diplomacy to improve international relations. Since entering office, Obama has taken important steps to live up to the promise of a more peaceful world: he has ordered the closure of Guantanamo, appointed a special envoy to oversee the administration's interest in a permanent settlement in the Middle East, ordered the first steps for withdrawal from Iraq, and overturned the Bush philosophy of 'either you're with us or against us.'

Addressing the huge crowd gathered to celebrate his inauguration, President Obama said this: 'To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society's ills on the West – know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.'

This is a lesson President Obama and the American people should apply to this case. It is a lesson learned the hard way over the past eight years. Only a surge of diplomacy, development and deescalation of military force can repair the damage caused by the Bush doctrine. Since 2006, the American people, weary of war and militaristic policies, have voted to bring this doctrine to an end. While Obama campaigned on making this change and has taken some steps in that direction, the CIA missile strikes in Pakistan could undo all of the positive good he is trying to accomplish.

On another note, none of the missile strikes in Pakistan has created a single job in the US. No child was added to the health care rolls. No new public school was opened as a result of these attacks. No student found college expenses any more affordable. No family saw a bank agree to let them stay in their foreclosed home a little longer as a result of what President Obama authorized in Pakistan. Indeed, military escalation anywhere will cost the US its ability to recover from recession or to lay the basis for a new productive economy, as Obama has pledged.

Instead, anger against the US has been inflamed in Pakistan as more civilians have died.

It is up to the peace movement and all working-class forces to change the political calculus in this country, so that missile strikes in a distance land that result in the deaths of non-combatants are never politically feasible.