Well, it was sort of a figure of speech when I said, signed an agreement, not really was saying if a paper was inked or not. However, what I have been told that an agreement was made with the then establishment to carry on the attacks and the govt. will keep on protesting it (it was also disclosed by I guess Washington Post, if not NY Times).
And I deffinately remember how the Israeli UAV (flown by Indian) was brought down along with a Mig back then, so the question wasn't really whether we can, or we can't, the question was, whether we are "allowed" or we are not, and thats where the talk of agreement kicks in.
Because if you see, the ground is controlled by ISI, they provide all the (target) information to U.S. upon which U.S. action (with these drones), tho not entirely, as U.S. also have created her assets on the ground and is getting some information as well to act upon.
But anywhichway, if we are to combine the empty protest of govt. against attacks, then General saab's strong statement that sovreignty will be maintained at all costs (even after couple of hours of that statement, the attack took place taking a few more innocent lives) and then Air Marshal stating "if govt. will order" we can take care of it (where I believe the defending borders has nothing to do with govt. approved orders to defend the borders you know, rather it is an understood/given duty of the Military to defend the borders and not wait for the Govt. to pass an order to defend the border - doesn't make sense you know), and still nothing happened, and then we heard statements coming from Zardari/Gilani et al. about "there will be no more attacks from Jan", etc., all leads us to the outcome, that these (protests/statements) were all delay tactics, meaning there was/is an agreement with U.S. for these drone attacks, which will halt if not re-signed/agreed upon, in Jan.
I am just trying to piece things together. If you have a better twist to it, please do not hesitate to put forth.
