Taliban Leader Maulvi Kabir Captured

[S-2]

S-2's rationales for restricting that technology would go beyond the short memories of some here. Aside from technology, I've many times here mentioned that we'll reserve the right to defend ourselves. We use the least intrusive means but providing that technology to Pakistan would mean they'd have no disincentives from attacking our drones or denying us the tacit approval to use their airspace once they possessed their own.

As to whether technology might be transferred or not, that's not something any here could assure.

Thanks.

 

[Solomon2]

The speculation in Pakistani circles is the same, that there is a private approval, however I would argue that the approval is a coerced one and given reluctantly.

In that case, the U.S. would occasionally choose to employ manned aircraft for Pakistan operations, as it does in East Africa.

The US has publicly refused to provide Pakistan with drone technology-

Unnecessary. They could simply be leased to Pakistan, complete with U.S. operators, with no prospect of technology transfer. Since that isn't happening, I conclude the drones operate under U.S. flag because the GoP wants them that way - so it can conceal choices that would alienate part of the Pakistani population.

Pakistan would continue to have no control over the Predators, and so we would not be able to apply greater resources against targets of our choosing in NW, despite having made more enemies by allowing the US to use those resources.

Sounds like the solution is more Predators, regardless of who operates them.

 

[Solomon2]

That Farzana Shah, for instance-she's a real source of credibility. Ever read her work?

I don't think so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Aside from technology, I've many times here mentioned that we'll reserve the right to defend ourselves

That argument is an invalid one given the GoP's public statements of conducting the same operations if it is provided with the resources to do so.

In the absence of a GoP refusal to conduct the actions the US is conducting unilaterally, US strikes are illegal and the argument of 'self defense' does not apply.

 

[S-2]

"In that case, the U.S. would occasionally choose to employ manned aircraft for Pakistan operations, as it does in East Africa."

Now you'd employ a more onerous means to assert a right of self-defense. Slippery slope, that one.

"Unnecessary. They could simply be leased to Pakistan, complete with U.S. operators, with no prospect of technology transfer."

Solomon2, those drones are piloted from the states by U.S. officers. You don't re-flag our pilots so easily and that equipment isn't going to be leased to anybody.

"the GoP wants them that way - so it can conceal choices that would alienate part of the Pakistani population."

Cake and eat it too.

"Sounds like the solution is more Predators, regardless of who operates them."

I personally know a few folks from that region who are regularly in and out of there whom feverishly support our use. The GoP hasn't a handle on the full range of sentiments within their own country on this score and are too swayed by that which comes from east of the Indus.

Thanks.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In that case, the U.S. would occasionally choose to employ manned aircraft for Pakistan operations, as it does in East Africa.

Then it would raise the issue several notches since that technically comprises US 'boots on the ground', along with putting in Pakistani airspace a military asset that poses a significant military risk to Pakistan. The drones, slow moving as they are, are not really capable of defending themselves from the PAF.

Unnecessary. They could simply be leased to Pakistan, complete with U.S. operators, with no prospect of technology transfer. Since that isn't happening, I conclude the drones operate under U.S. flag because the GoP wants them that way - so it can conceal choices that would alienate part of the Pakistani population.

I don't believe I have heard the US offer to lease them to Pakistan either, and drones operated by US officers raises issues of command, and likely would not really be under Pakistani control. Again, if you believe the comments attributed to Musharraf by Seymour Hersh, the US was unwilling to even 'paint' the drones in Pakistani colors and pretend that Pakistan was operating them.

Sounds like the solution is more Predators, regardless of who operates them.

A solution that is not completely illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty is only one where Pakistan conducts these strikes.

 

[Solomon2]

Then it would raise the issue several notches since that technically comprises US 'boots on the ground' -

Now you'd employ a more onerous means to assert a right of self-defense. Slippery slope, that one.

If the U.S. didn't care about the GoP, what difference would that make?

those drones are piloted from the states by U.S. officers. You don't re-flag our pilots so easily -

I never mentioned re-flagging U.S. military personnel, so I disagree with this assessment.

Cake and eat it too.

Exactly.

 

[S-2]

"If the U.S. didn't care about the GoP, what difference would that make?"

Where did that come from?

"I never mentioned re-flagging U.S. military personnel, so I disagree with this assessment."

You can't lease the equipment complete with U.S. operators without our military pilots. There's a reason they, and not the C.I.A., sit in those seats.

Thanks.

 

[Solomon2]

Where did that come from?

If the U.S. wasn't seriously taking the GoP into account it wouldn't hesitate to use manned aircraft in its airstrikes in Pakistan. So it isn't an issue of the U.S. coercing Pakistan.

There's a reason they, and not the C.I.A., sit in those seats.

There is?

 

[S-2]

"If the U.S. wasn't seriously taking the GoP into account it wouldn't hesitate to use manned aircraft in its airstrikes in Pakistan. So it isn't an issue of the U.S. coercing Pakistan."

I understand the comment and concur. I don't understand where it hasn't been apparent we reserve the right to self defense but choose the least intrusive means.

There are a variety of sources that can provide legal rationales. Others provide legal arguments against such. We choose to permit legal ambiguity run its course in due time while addressing the threat as necessary.

"There is?"

I just did a pretty extensive google search. I can't confirm it. There's indications from footnotes that U.S. officers piloted a drone strike for the C.I.A. in Yemen back in 2002. OTOH, there are indications of parallel programs run now by both the Air Force and C.I.A. One controls ops over regions where our military has authority to operate in the local airspace. The controls ops elsewhere.

Here's a very interesting New Yorker article that discusses the ops-

The Predator War-New Yorker Oct. 26, 2009

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If the U.S. didn't care about the GoP, what difference would that make?

To a degree the US has to care about the GoP as much as the GoP to a degree has to care about the US, given the dependency of one on the other for intelligence and logistical support, and funds for propping up the economy respectively.

I never mentioned re-flagging U.S. military personnel, so I disagree with this assessment.

Then the US government should take up the GoP's offer of carrying out the drones strikes herself (given control of the drones to Pakistan), and call the 'GoP bluff' as you seem to be implying.

Till then, barring GoP acceptance of an agreement with the US, the strikes are illegal and a violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

 

[Thomas]

Here is an interesting article from last year on drone operations in Pakistan.

Allegations That CIA Predator Drones Have Bases in Pakistan - ABC News

 

[Cynic Waheed]

I thought we were developing our own drones... then what's the point of begging these arrogant Americans?
Perhaps if we stop wasting time begging them and get our as*es to work, we might actually pull it off ourselves...!

 

[Slides]

From my understanding, there have been some manned attacks inside FATA by the US.

 

[karan.1970]

That Farzana Shah, for instance-she's a real source of credibility. Ever read her work?

Isnt that our very own Jana ??