[7] Commenting on her debate with Greenwald, Brookings Institution senior fellow Shadi Hamid called Fair's arguments "surprisingly weak".

[6] In 2010, Fair denied the notion that drones caused any civilian deaths, alleging Pakistani media reports were responsible for creating this perception.

[8] Jeremy Scahill wrote that Fair's statement was "simply false" and contradicted by New America's detailed study on drone casualties.

[9] Writing for The Atlantic, Conor Friedersdorf challenged Fair's co-authored narrative that the U.S. could legitimize support in Pakistan for its drone program using 'education' and 'public diplomacy'; he called it an "example of interventionist hubris and naivete" built upon flawed interpretation of public opinion data.

[10] An article in the Middle East Research and Information Project called the work "some of the most propagandistic writing in support of President Barack Obama’s targeted kill lists to date.

"[11] It censured the view that Pakistanis needed to be informed by the U.S. what is "good for them" as fraught with imperialist condescension; or the assumption that the Urdu press was less informed than the English press – because the latter was sometimes less critical of the U.S.[11] Fair's journalistic sources have been questioned for their credibility[12] and she has been accused of having a conflict of interest due to her past work with U.S. government think tanks, as well as the CIA.

[6] Pakistani media analysts have dismissed Fair's views as hawkish rhetoric, riddled with factual inaccuracies, lack of objectivity, and being selectively biased.

[12][13][14][15] She has been accused by the Pakistani government of double standards, partisanship towards India, and has been criticized for her contacts with dissident leaders from Balochistan, a link which they claim "raises serious questions if her interest in Pakistan is merely academic.