What's new

Predator in Pakistan

fatman17

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
32,563
Reaction score
98
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Predator in Pakistan
by Ajay Bose

A recent newspaper report discloses a secret CIA base in Pakistan that launches pilotless Predator drone aircraft operated by remote control from faraway Las Vegas to hit targets in Pakistan. It could be an assault, in the name of 'war on terror', on Islamabad's sovereignty

The extent of the American takeover in Pakistan never ceases to surprise. A report in the New York Times last week disclosing a secret CIA base in the country that launches pilotless Predator drone aircraft operated by remote control from faraway Las Vegas to strike targets within Pakistan is yet to be denied by either Islamabad or the Bush Administration. This underlines the near complete collapse of Pakistan's sovereignty under Gen Pervez Musharaf and the enormous challenges facing that country's newly elected rulers if they are serious about it becoming an independent democracy.

What makes the revelations in the New York Times particularly shocking is that it comes barely two years after a Predator attack on a village, Damadola, in north Pakistan, a few kilometres from the Afghan border, killing more than a dozen villagers, including several women and children, sparked off violent demonstrations and protests across the country. That particular attack was carried out by four Predators launched from a base in Afghanistan.

Amazingly, despite the huge political backlash in Pakistan at the botched up strike aimed at Al Qaeda's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri supposed to be visiting the village at that time, it now turns out that the Musharraf regime actually allowed a base for Predators to be set up by the CIA on Pakistani soil. This makes a mockery of the outrage expressed by the military ruler and his aides at the Damadola attack when it happened and their strenuous efforts to pretend complete ignorance of the impunity with which the CIA was attacking targets on Pakistani territory.

The Predator is an unmanned aerial vehicle operated by a mobile ground control station. It is equipped with cameras, sensors and radar that can capture video and still images. It also has a targeting system and can carry two laser-guided Hellfire missiles. It is about 27 ft long, weighs more than 1,100 pounds and can fly at up to 25,000 ft, remaining aloft for up to 40 hours.

Although the Predators have to be launched from local bases for obvious logistic reasons, they are controlled from the Creech airforce base in Las Vegas thousands of miles away. The US used them to target individual leaders of the Taliban and Al Qaeda during 2002 amid the battle to capture Afghanistan. In 2005, a Hellfire missile allegedly fired by a Predator killed an Egyptian Al Qaeda figure, Hamza Rabia, in North Waziristan although Pakistani authorities claimed that he died while making a bomb.

It is not known exactly when the CIA stationed Predators within Pakistan. But according to the New York Times, US officials in January persuaded Islamabad to "allow an increase in the number and scope of strikes by Predator aircraft launched from a secret base in Pakistan". Significantly, this happened shortly after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto pushed Gen Musharaf further on the backfoot, making him desperate to retain American support.

Shortly after this new arrangement, the Americans announced the killing of top Al Qaeda commander Abu Laith al-Libbi in North Waziristan by two Hellfire missiles fired from a Predator drone operating from the Pakistan base. He is supposed to be third in command behind al-Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden, although there is a fair degree of confusion because three years ago, there was much celebration by both the American and Pakistani authorities of having captured the same man. It now turns out that the man captured then was Abu Faraz al-Libbi, an inconsequential Al Qaeda operative that was wrongly identified because of the similarity of his name with the senior commander.

What makes the story even more bizarre is that the Damadola attack targeting al-Zawahiri was based on a tip off by Abu Faraz al-Libbi. The hapless operative, most probably inflicted with serious torture, is believed to have blurted out that al-Zawahiri was a regular visitor to the village that was attacked. The CIA under the mistaken notion that Abu Faraz al-Libbi was third in command of the Al Qaeda, consequently ordered a Predator strike leading to the tragic fiasco and the death of so many innocents.

Yet, regardless of whether the CIA has managed to target the right al-Libbi this time, it is quite amazing to see the freedom with which a foreign intelligence agency has been allowed to operate within a supposedly sovereign state in the name of fighting terrorists and militants. More than anything else, it is this crushing sense of humiliation that people in Pakistan felt at Americans sitting in some remote base in Las Vegas playing cowboys and Indians on their own soil, which led to the resounding rejection of Gen Musharaf in the recent election. Clearly, there is a strong text of nationalism that is evident from the electoral verdict across the border.

There is also an obvious lesson in the plight of Pakistan in the vice-like grip of unfettered terrorism and religious extremism on the one hand and the American gorilla on the other. This underlines the perils of a procession of Pakistani politicians and Generals over the past many decades allowing and even sponsoring militant groups to carry out their violent agenda. This, as we have seen in recent years, has only served to ultimately turn the country into a virtual vassal state of the US.

It remains to be seen whether the new political order replacing the old one will be able to cope with the daunting task of combating the day-to-day threat of jihadi terrorism even as they dismantle the overt dependence -- almost subservience -- to the US establishment. There is little doubt that an overwhelming majority of people in Pakistan prefers these twin tasks to be simultaneously accomplished. But with Gen Musharaf still a player in the current scenario and the Americans showing no sign of giving up its stranglehold on the internal security apparatus of Pakistan, it will require a herculean effort from the palpably fragile political class of that country.
 
Fatman is this article from a magazine??

PS:I think there is a clip on youtube of javed Nasir on javab deh or some show where he says something similar (I could be wrong but it was very funny the way he ridicules everyone.. us bechare koh toh kuch pata hi nahin..)
 
Fatman is this article from a magazine??

PS:I think there is a clip on youtube of javed Nasir on javab deh or some show where he says something similar (I could be wrong but it was very funny the way he ridicules everyone.. us bechare koh toh kuch pata hi nahin..)

indian publication - pioneer
 
The article is interesting, mixed in with the usual anti-Pakistan Indian BS.

The author repeatedly mentions "supposedly sovereign state". A sovereign state has a right to allow what it sees fit in its national interest. We can disagree on whether or not it actually does serve Pakistan's national interest, but the decision to allow or disallow a "secret base" to conduct Predator strikes from is Pakistan's.

Far better than the CIA launching missiles into Pakistan from outside, or Predator attacks for that matter. That said, I personally disagree with the decision to allow them to operate a base and carry out attacks. The US can provide the requisite training and technology to Pakistan and cooperate in intelligence sharing and Pakistan can carry out such ops.
 
I think Pakistan at one point did ask the USA for Predetors but the request was denied.
 
Energon:

Refusing to transfer the predator may be linked to concerns wrt China, but measures similar to those governing the F-16's, Cobra's, NVG's etc. could have been adopted. The refusal strengthens my belief that Pakistan should not have allowed the US to base the Predators in Pakistan, or allowed them to conduct strikes. It will be interesting to see whether Nawaz Sharif will raise a fuss over this in a few months or so.

On a somewhat related note, Pakistan is reportedly cooperating with Turkey on the MALE project, and we may possibly see the development of a UAV similar to the Predator.
 
Fatman is this article from a magazine??

PS:I think there is a clip on youtube of javed Nasir on javab deh or some show where he says something similar (I could be wrong but it was very funny the way he ridicules everyone.. us bechare koh toh kuch pata hi nahin..)

I saw that one.

He was referring to probably a C 130 cargo flight from above Pakistan.

That was nothing serious.

BUT THIS IS.


I wonder one thing that if US wants Musharraf in power.

Then why are they leaking such things to discredit him:undecided:


If it is a fact then I think Mush should go.

Already much damage has been dont to pakistan's sovereignty .
 
Interesting report on a report. The other thread here on these predators did not contain any mention of Creech AFB in Nevada so there may be two newspaper articles out about the the same predator story.

What bothers me most of all about this secret predator arrangement is the precondition imposed by the US that the target will be decided without any consultation with the pak military and then at the last minute the pak military will be informed that a strike is now underway.
 
Agnostic:

I think people are far too eager to jump to the conclusions of what the Pakistan establishment should or shouldn't be allowing the Americans to do, or deriding Pakistani leaders for enabling American hegemony.

Like it or not, due to many complex historical reasons, Pakistan has in fact gone on to become an American vassal state. It is clear (and very understandable) that leaders and civilians alike have come to abhor the nature of this relationship and tend to avoid discussing it openly. However that doesn't change the empirical existence of this geopolitical phenomenon which requires Pakistani leaders to be subservient up to a certain extent to their American counterparts.

I think many aspects of the Pakistani involvement at the behest of the USA as far as the "WoT" goes, isn't as much as an "option" as it is an order. And not abiding by these orders will more than likely result in severe retribution resulting in a situation which Pakistan cannot sustain.

Also, I have a feeling that the primary motive of this article isn't really "Anti Pakistan" as it is a stark warning to the Indian establishment of the ills of "getting into bed" with the USA, primarily that of the loss of free will and sovereignty.
 
Agnostic:

I think people are far too eager to jump to the conclusions of what the Pakistan establishment should or shouldn't be allowing the Americans to do, or deriding Pakistani leaders for enabling American hegemony.

Like it or not, due to many complex historical reasons, Pakistan has in fact gone on to become an American vassal state. It is clear (and very understandable) that leaders and civilians alike have come to abhor the nature of this relationship and tend to avoid discussing it openly. However that doesn't change the empirical existence of this geopolitical phenomenon which requires Pakistani leaders to be subservient up to a certain extent to their American counterparts.

I think many aspects of the Pakistani involvement at the behest of the USA as far as the "WoT" goes, isn't as much as an "option" as it is an order. And not abiding by these orders will more than likely result in severe retribution resulting in a situation which Pakistan cannot sustain.

Also, I have a feeling that the primary motive of this article isn't really "Anti Pakistan" as it is a stark warning to the Indian establishment of the ills of "getting into bed" with the USA, primarily that of the loss of free will and sovereignty.

I disagree on your argument of a "vassal state". While Pakistan does indeed have strong reasons to "tow the line" with respect to the US WoT, most of those decisions are ones that I believe Pakistan should have taken any way to preempt to some extent a much larger threat years down the road had we not acted now. That this "realization" came after 911 when the US presented us with a stark choice of that there is no doubt, but it was a good and correct choice to make.

I would argue that a "vassal state" would have "towed" the US line far more when it came to issues related to Iran and China - a vassal state would not have dared try its own approach with resolving the Tribal situation with "peace deals". A "vassal State" would not have chosen to deploy its military defensively in FATA, when being continuously asked to undertake offensive ops.

Pakistan has towed the US line far less than it seems, when the US line has been opposed to what Pakistan's leadership considers detrimental to Pakistan's interests. The predator strikes were small sops to assuage US concerns about targetting AQ leadership, given that Pakistan did not have the capability. I also think that the "secret base", if the time line of its establishement is correct, may have resulted form the domestic pressure Musharraf is under, and was a means of garnering additional support for his position.

Now I don't think the strikes themselves are bad, I think they should be utilized, I just disagree with the US decision to not allow Pakistan to conduct them. Then again, Pakistan may not want to deal with the fallout of conducting such strikes itself (though that will be hard to do since the "secret" cover has been blown - and I suspect the Admin. had no issues with it, since such articles have to get clearance from the admin. any way, don't they?).
 
Energon:

I think your argument of "severe retribution" is way off as well. The amount of leverage the US has with Pakistan is limited almost entirely to its aid package. Given the declared US objectives in the region, attaining stability and peace in Afghanistan, cutting US reimbursements to the Pakistani military increases its problems in Afghanistan and therefore is diametrically opposed to its declared mission. If reimbursement is cut, and the PA moves out, carrying out operations in FATA also increase the problems an already stretched US military has to deal with. Such a move increases animosity for the US in Pakistan in general and NWFP/parts of Baluchistan in particular, and simply moves that "line the US cannot cross" further into Pakistan. Therefore such an approach also exacerbates US problems and makes achieving its objectives in the region an even more distant proposition.

The PPP will more than likely continue to cooperate with the US, and they should, such cooperation is in our interest. However I would at the very least try and make "bases in Pakistan" dependent upon the US helping Pakistan boost its own capabilities. But perhaps the denial of Predators is not as big an issue because Pakistan sees its own development of UAV's as progressing well.
 
Please note, that my posts regarding Pakistan being a client state aren't meant to lay blame, insult or humiliate the memebers of this board, or anyone else for that matter. I do however strongly feel that this is an important factor explaining how many of the world's events pertinent to this discussion (and of personal interest/importance) have unfolded.

Agnostic:

There is no doubt that Pakistan should have dismantled the terror base of the 80s a long time ago, but the change of heart that came about post 9/11 was achieved under the threat of total annihilation. Subsequently, the core of the schism between the Pakistan government/Armed forces and the radical elements (other than the Baluchis) is specifically because of this 180 by Musharraf under US pressure.

Also, the USA has played a major role in the development of Pakistan since the 50s including substantial direct loans, grants and aid arranged through INGOs like the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, IMF, UN etc; all in addition to the vast amounts of appropriated and unappropriated funds to the military. Now given that Pakistan hasn't had any other way to repay this money other than it's transient strategic importance, it gives the leaders of Pakistan very little leeway in dealing with the benefactor.

It should also come of no surprise, that many acts of independence only started materializing after the USA got bogged down in Iraq thereby reducing the chances of them carrying out the initial threat of comprehensive carpet bombing. Even then, Musharraf was heavily rebuked for having struck peace deals with the tribals, and that action further prompted the USA to consider carrying out unilateral action within the borders of Pakistan. To what effect this will happen will be determined moreso by the policies of the next president, the condition of the US economy and the limitations of the US armed forces itself given the losses incurred in Iraq rather than desires of Pakistan.

There is nothing I've seen so far in the US-Pak interaction that indicates that Pakistan isn't a vassal state of the US.

Now I am by no means saying that the USA has been completely dismissive of Pakistan in the bargain. Using it as a base to launch attacks against Iran or to antagonize China would pretty much result in the downfall of Pakistan which is unacceptable to the USA given the nuclear arsenal. The Bush administration has certainly been ameliorative to Pakistan's basic needs to ensure it's rudimentary stability; but that again isn't because the latter has had any real leverage to arm twist the former. The relationship is still extremely non-equitable.

If Pakistan were to completely remove itself from the WoT or become highly uncooperative, the USA would probably go ahead and carry out unilateral operations within Pakistan, or possibly even act on it's initial promise of carpet bombing Pakistan back to the stone age (if they are still able to afford it in addition to be able to capture all the nuclear materials). Also, there would be heavy sanctions from the west, very little aid, and no loan forbearance. That would pretty much push Pakistan in another downward spiral which I honestly think it cannot possibly afford.

I think it's going to take a lot of time and a comprehensive economic turn around within Pakistan to move away from the benefactor- client state relationship. And honestly, this will not happen until the pathologic connection between "strategic importance" and "economic aid" is severed. I have always been of the opinion that the incessant policy to make vassal states out of fledgling or impoverished nations during the cold war has led to a lot more harm than good which has then come right back to bite us in the butt. It has also in the bargain precluded development within all the vassal states of lesser importance. The emerging problems of Pakistan and many countries within Latin America support this hypothesis.

If you're interested in this topic, I recommend Dr.Anatol Lieven's works.
 
If indeed the Predators are being employed from within Pakistan, it make sense to attack the terrorists with technology rather than lose men of the Pakistan Army attempting the same task.

It is obvious that the US would not like its sophisticated equipment being handled by another country's personnel, more so, when Pakistanis have a soft corner for US' bete noire, China.
 
As a pakistani i do have serious reservations about the increasing US activity within Pakistan. If US wants to deploy the Predators in pakistan, IMO they should be under the pakistan army control and all such actions taken should be with accordance to the pakistani authorties and since i highly doubt that US will ever gonna do so, hence we should eliminate this base from the pakistani soil. Perhaps this way US will have to rethink about their policies related to countries like pakistan who supposedly are known as allies.
 
Back
Top Bottom