What's new

The Drone Debate Reignited

Abu Basit

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 21, 2009
Messages
568
Reaction score
0
Drones shatter US-Pakistani trust

By Gareth Porter

WASHINGTON - The Pakistani military's recent demands on the United States to curb drone strikes and reduce the number of US spies operating in Pakistan, which have raised tensions between the two countries to a new high, were a response to US military and intelligence programs that had gone well beyond what the Pakistanis had agreed to in past years.

The military leadership had reached private agreements in the past on both the drone strikes and on US intelligence activities in


Pakistan, but both had changed dramatically in ways that threatened the interests of Pakistan.

The Pakistani military, which holds real power over matters of national security in Pakistan, is now insisting for the first time that Washington must observe strict limits on both the use of drone strikes and on the number of US military and intelligence personnel and contractors in the country.

And they have backed up that demand with a suspension of joint intelligence operations with the United States - a program that had been strongly sought after by the Barack Obama administration.

The new Pakistani demands for restrictions on US operations are being taken seriously by the United States, because it was Pakistan's army chief, General Ashfaq Kiani, who communicated them to US officials, as reported by the New York Times on Monday.

The detention of US contract spy Raymond Davis for killing three Pakistani citizens in January was a turning point in US-Pakistani relations. But it was only the occasion for the Pakistani military leadership and its Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) to take a much stronger position on larger issues that concerned them, according to Kamran Bokhari, a specialist on Pakistan for the consulting firm Stratfor.

"What we're seeing is ISI and the Pakistani state take advantage of the Davis affair to renegotiate the rules of the game with the United States," Bokhari told Inter Press Service (IPS) in an interview.

The first move by the Pakistani military and the ISI after Davis was detained was to suspend joint intelligence operations between ISI and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which had been successful in capturing a number of high-ranking Taliban leaders in early 2010.

That suspension was kept quiet for months by both sides until it was leaked by a ranking ISI official to Reuters last weekend. It was understood by US officials as a bid by the Pakistanis to force serious changes in US covert activities on Pakistani soil.

But Pakistan's tough line on Davis and on the joint intelligence operations clearly got the attention of the Obama administration. US drone strikes were suspended in January and February while US officials sought to resolve both issues.

During the Pervez Musharraf administration, the Pakistani military had reached a private understanding with the George W Bush administration on the use of drones against al-Qaeda and its Pakistani allies.

But military and intelligence officials had watched with growing concern as the drone program shifted from targeting high-level al-Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban officials to the rank and file members and supporters of either Afghan or Pakistani Taliban organizations.

Pakistani officials had privately sought to convince the Obama administration to narrow its targeting. Senior Pakistani officials had complained that the CIA was increasingly killing "mere foot soldiers", as reported in a February 21 story by The Washington Post's Greg Miller.

Within hours after Davis was released, however, the drone strikes resumed, as if to make the point that the US had no intention of altering its strategy of reliance on the drones.

Then on March 17, a drone strike on a gathering in North Waziristan killed more than 40 people, including some Taliban members but mostly tribal elders and members of the local government militia force. The tribesmen and elders were meeting in a jirga to discuss the issue of payment for the sale of a chromite mine by the Madda Khel tribe, according to local officials. One tribal elder who lost four relatives in the bombing said 44 people were killed, including 13 children.

The Pakistani military could hardly be insensitive to the fact that tribal leaders across the North Waziristan region were calling for revenge against the United States after the March 17 bloodbath. "We are a people who wait 100 years to exact revenge. We never forgive our enemy," the elders said in a statement issued immediately after the bombing.

It also outraged public opinion all across Pakistan, where the drone war has created growing anger at the United States.

Kiani issued a strong statement condemning that strike as "intolerable" and said it made it more difficult for the military to fight terrorism. Pakistani officials had long been saying both publicly and privately that the program had become "counterproductive", but it was the first time Kiani had weighed in.

In the past, Pakistani military and government complaints about drone strikes were "hypocritical", said Anatol Lieven, a specialist at Kings College, Cambridge, and the author of a new book on Pakistan.

But Lieven told IPS the Pakistani military leadership appeared to have been "seriously annoyed" by that March drone strike and its large number of civilian casualties, because "it was such a public insult".

"The Pakistanis are in a deeply humiliating position" in regard to the drone strikes, said Lieven. He said the military leadership no longer trusts the Americans' judgment on the program, in part because the strikes were killing people in North Waziristan who were willing to make a deal to end their fight against the Pakistani military and government.

The Pakistani military's demand beginning after the Davis arrest that the United States reduce the number of CIA and Special Operations Forces personnel in Pakistan by 25% to 40%, as reported by the New York Times on Monday, was a response to a dramatic increase in the number of such personnel entering the country without explicit agreement from the Pakistani military, according to Lieven.

"What the Pakistanis are demanding is a rollback of a huge influx that has occurred in recent months," Lieven told IPS. "They are for a return to the status quo of last year." They are specifically complaining about more US personnel who had come into the country without explicit permission, said Lieven.

The United States had increased the number of "unilateral" intelligence personnel in Pakistan - those who were not specifically involved in joint intelligence efforts - by at least a few hundred in late 2010 and early 2011.

Lieven said some US officials had privately agreed that the US spying in Pakistan "has gotten seriously out of hand".

The Kings College scholar said he has been assured by Pakistani intelligence officials that they are committed to helping prevent any attack against the United States from Pakistani territory, because "the consequences would be disastrous for Pakistan if there were ever an attack."

But that does not apply to the Afghan Taliban presence in Pakistan. "The Pakistanis have been giving very little help on Afghanistan," he said. And that is one reason the US had increased the number of intelligence agents in Pakistan.

Gareth Porter is an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national security policy. The paperback edition of his latest book, Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam, was published in 2006.

(Inter Press Service)

Asia Times Online :: South Asia news, business and economy from India and Pakistan
 
.
I think military knows what is going on......other wise its not easy one after another....
 
. .
» The Pasha-Panetta puzzle | Dawn Blog | Pakistan, Politics, Terrorism, Satire, Cricket, Culture, Food, Vlogs and more

ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha, fresh off obtaining his second one-year extension, went to Washington for a meeting with his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta making demands that are completely unobtainable. Leaks to the media, as the Pasha-Panetta talks got underway, indicate that the Pakistan Army wants a complete halt to drone strikes in the tribal areas and the removal of all CIA agents currently roaming the country.

On the face of it, both demands are the right ones to make. Drone attacks, while being promoted by the US government (always through anonymous sources since the Americans do not officially confirm that it is using drones) as the most effective way to kill militants, is effective only in the sense that is risk-free for the country using them. Unmanned drones ensures that no American lives are lost in the hunt for militants; the lives of Pakistani civilians do not factor into the equation. Equally, no Pakistani patriot likes the idea of trigger-happy spooks traipsing around, bound by no law.

Let’s get real though. Making demands is one thing. Expecting those demands to be fulfilled is quite another. The alliance between the US and Pakistan is often called a “transactional relationship.” The US pays for what it wants and we give it to them, holding our nose and counting the cash. In such a relationship you don’t get to have your complaints heard.

Before making demands, we need leverage. Cash-strapped as we are, we cannot tell the US to keep its foreign aid and we’ll keep our sovereignty, thank you very much. The problem is we do not have any other kind of leverage either. The US has two fears about Pakistan: that the country will be taken over by terrorists or that they will get their hands on our nuclear arsenal. As much as we use the Taliban threat – and it is a very real threat, although not one that will take over the government, as panicked Westerners fear – to wring more strings-attached aid out of the US, ultimately everyone knows that it is equally in Pakistan’s interest to keep the Taliban at bay. Sure, we may use them and keep them alive to bolster our misguided policy, but the Taliban is as much a threat to the military and civilian leadership here as it is to the US. Similarly, we cannot bluff the Americans into agreeing to our demands by implying that we will hand over a nuke or two to the militants. Basically, it all boils down to having no leverage.

There is one negotiating tactic the military could use, although its chances for success are slim. Pakistan is a vital supply route for Nato forces in Afghanistan, one that the army could threaten to shut down if some of their concerns aren’t addressed. It would be inconvenient for the US to rely solely on Central Asian routes to supply the coalition forces so perhaps this threat could get us a minor concession or two. For that, too, the window of opportunity is narrow. If President Barack Obama follows through on his promise to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan next years, Pakistan’s role as a hub will diminish.

The army, for its part, knows that its complaints amount only to public posturing. We went through this whole charade with army opposition to the Kerry-Lugar Bill, where it was made clear that the army did not like being dictated to by the US. Yet it, and the country, ended up accepting the aid and the conditions attached to it and the issue is a forgotten one. As was the case then, the army’s main motive was to make its displeasure known domestically. This essentially boils down to the army trying to maintain its sense of self-pride by telling everyone that they know they have to accept American control but they certainly don’t like it. Everyone fretting about the US-Pakistan alliance should just keep that in mind and tone down the alarmism.
 
.
Though off the Dawn blog, the above article is full of inaccuracies and straw man arguments. Posting these to provide some more substance. Have chanmged the thread title accordingly.




Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
» See all analysis and opinion

Pakistan vs U.S. Dumbing down the drones debate
Apr 14, 2011 12:28 EDT

*

al Qaeda | CIA | drones | ISI | Pakistan | Predator | Taliban | United States


If there was one thing the United States might have learned in a decade of war is that military might alone cannot compensate for lack of knowledge about people and conditions on the ground. That was true in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may also turn out to be the case in Libya.

Yet the heated debate about using Predator drones to target militants in the tribal areas of Pakistan – triggered by the spy row between the CIA and the ISI – appears to be falling into a familiar pattern – keep bombing versus stop bombing. Not whether, when and how drones might be effective, based on specific conditions and knowledge of the ground, and when they are counter-productive.

Combined with that is a tendency to discuss the use of drones in isolation without taking account of the historical context (Pakistan and the United States have been rowing about this for several years – it is not new) or indeed the broader political context (a botched drone attack by the CIA is guaranteed to enrage all the more if it comes at a time when American diplomats are trying to convince Pakistan they want to improve relations.)

Consider, for example, the case of a tribesman with a performing monkey who gathered an audience of turban-clad, rifle-bearing men around him in a village in 2005. The U.S. controllers of the drone mistook the event for a weapons-training session or military briefing and dropped a missile, killing many in the audience. That story was recounted by General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, now head of the Pakistan Army, and quoted by Brian Cloughley in his book “War, Coups and Terror”. “This, said the General, was an example of lack of cultural understanding,” wrote Cloughley.

Then there was the botched drone attack on Damadola in Bajaur agency in 2006 – by some accounts it was intended to target al Qaeda deputy Ayman al Zawahiri. According to the Pakistani version, many women and children were among the victims of the strike, enraging the local population, driving them into the arms of local Taliban militants and fuelling a ferocious insurgency which took the Pakistan military several years to contain.

In language that could have been written today (and it has) the Guardian reported at the time that Pakistan had lodged a strong protest with the Americans over the attack and “the strained relation between Pakistan and the U.S. has been pushed to breaking point.” It blamed the botched attack on faulty intelligence on the ground.

Compare that, though, to the killing of Baitullah Mehsud, leader of the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), in a drone strike in 2009. His death was welcomed by Pakistani authorities, and indeed by many ordinary Pakistanis who blamed him for bomb attacks in Pakistan. Good intelligence. Specific target. And probably the high point of cooperation between the United States and Pakistan over the use of drones.

Just last month, a senior Pakistani military officer was quoted as saying the drone attacks were effective, and most of those killed were hard-core militants, including foreigners.

But then another drone attack in North Waziristan in March killed more than 40 people, prompting a furious condemnation from Kayani, who said it had targetted a jirga of tribal elders. Remember this is the same man who complained about U.S. lack of cultural understanding in 2005 – there is some consistency here.

The timing – just after CIA contractor Raymond Davis was released from a Pakistani jail – could hardly have been worse. It raised questions about whether the drone operators were working completely independently of their political masters who at the time were engaged in trying to patch up relations with Pakistan soured by the Davis affair. (So much for U.S. aspirations to put together an integrated military-civilian-political strategy.)

Those same questions on timing came up this week when a meeting between ISI chief Lieutenant-General Ahmed Shuja Pasha and CIA director Leon Panetta in Washington to repair counter-terrorism cooperation was followed two days later by another drone attack. “It may have been for a very good reason and a quality target, but the politics of it look a little insensitive,” the New York Times quoted former CIA officer Bruce Riedel as saying.

It is difficult to predict the outcome of the latest row between Pakistan and the United States. The chances are the use of drones will continue, because under the right circumstances they can be useful to both countries. But at risk of stating the obvious, airpower needs good intelligence on the ground. While some have suggested that Washington go it alone without Pakistani help, the United States does not have a great track record in the kind of cultural expertise and linguistic skills that would allow it to hire its own reliable spies, let alone identify targets and avoid killing large numbers of civilians.

Of course there are other issues. The deep distrust between Pakistan and the United States which goes back to 9/11 and indeed before. The perception in Pakistan that drone attacks are an assault on its sovereignty, regardless of whether they are sometimes effective – a perception that bolsters support for, or at least tolerance of, Islamist militants. The arguments of those who either reject the use of force altogether in the tribal areas, or find the unmanned Predator a particularly troublesome weapon.

But all that said, dumbing down the debate on drones into what is effectively a reframing of the “with us or against us” dichotomy is unhelpful. More interesting would be a discussion of how and when Predator drone strikes might or might not be effective; and indeed on how the drone missile programme, whose use is still officially a secret, might be integrated into overall strategy rather than operating on a moral, legal and geographical frontier whose rules none of us know.
 
.
This one's also well-written and well-argued, though one might not agree with it entirely.

It's by Ali Chisti.

Time to Re-think the Drone War

Ali Chishti | April 14, 2011

Bookmark and Share

It's no secret that drone strikes have become a hot-button issue in Pakistan. The Pakistani security establishment has publically distanced itself from the CIA drone program while allegedly supporting it quietly. Pakistani military officials have called the drone attacks in its federally administered area “against humanity” at the same time they openly ask the United States for joint control of drone operations and a transfer of drone technology.

According to Wikileaks there have been a total of 233 drone strikes since 2004 that have resulted in 228 deaths in this "drone war." Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani appreciates the security value of the CIA drone program but spoke against it in the parliament. Only recently a top commander of the Pakistani Army stationed at forward lines fighting the Pakistani Taliban (TTP) and al-Qaeda told local journalists that he supported the drone program. For its part, the (TTP) -- which has forged a close alliance with al-Qaeda and is emerging as the biggest national security threat to the United States -- publically acknowledged sending out a Jordanian suicide bomber who killed 14 members of CIA working at a drone command and control station in Afghanistan?

There's no denying drone attacks have had an effect. In June 2004 the first drone attack killed Nek Muhammad Wazir in Wana, South Waziristan. The next attack came almost a year later, in May 2005, killing Haitham al-Yemeni -- a top al-Qaeda member in North Waziristan. Since that time drones have killed bad guys from Baitullah Mesud -- Pakistan's public enemy number one -- to Atiyah Abd al-Rahman. Drones have killed more enemies of both the United States and Pakistan than ground offensives or any other strategy attempted since 9-11. And one former general in the Pakistani army estimates that "thousands" of casualties would have resulted had forces tried to get the same result fighting on the ground.

So what do the Pakistanis really want?

Direct US military aid to Pakistan has been approximately $4 billion from fiscal years 2002 to 2010 while security assistance support had been $462 million in FY2008, $884 million in FY 2009 and $1,114 million in fiscal year 2010. (This doesn't include CSF reimbursements since coalition support program is not technically an aide program. CSF reimbursements to Pakistan from the United States have been approximately $8.88 billion since 2001.

The counter-argument on drone attacks is that they fuel more terrorism than they prevent. Understandably there's a backlash as a result of drone attacks in Pakistan but the fault for that lies with Pakistan as much as any other country. The government's ill-conceived policies that provided safe havens to mercenaries around the world in the 80s and 90s along with the deals carried forward from the regime of General Pervez Mushraff have created a very divided country.

Pakistan needs a clear policy on drone attacks along with an above-board counter terrorism policy that doesn't pick between the good terrorists and bad ones. For its part the United States needs to realize that any policy on drones needs to be carefully worked out with Pakistan before any more strikes happen. As it appears right now, the U.S. seems to be settling for short-term disruptions at the expense of long term solutions. And that acceptance won't eliminate the terror threat to either country.
 
.
this entire drone dilemma is only Pakistan's govt and it's army's doing. They say publicly drone attacks should be stopped but behind the curtain they endorse it. If they are not endorsing the drone policy then what's stopping them from shooting these drones down? military confrontation with the US? ok, then at least make your voice heard in the U.N. Regardless of whether they'll hear you or not at least let the U.N. know the US is violating our sovereignty. That way at least we know the gov't is serious about tackling this issue.

But they wont do it. That means they're in on it. Well, if you're in on it then spare us your bullshit and come out clean and say we're endorsing the drone policy and spare the nation this entire mental dilemma. Simple.
 
.
Only drone attacks won't do. It must be complimented with ground action. Pakistan army should enter North Waziristan and finish the Taliban, Haqqani, Al-Qaida etc. Yaar please also eliminate some anti India groups like Lashkar and JEM.
 
.
Only drone attacks won't do. It must be complimented with ground action. Pakistan army should enter North Waziristan and finish the Taliban, Haqqani, Al-Qaida etc. Yaar please also eliminate some anti India groups like Lashkar and JEM.

oh yaar, no such groups or lashkar exist in Pakistan, it's just bollywood movies plot. dont worry so much.
 
.
If you are right then God bless you. After Mumbai we haven't seen anything major in India so there is chance that you might be right.
 
.
oh yaar, no such groups or lashkar exist in Pakistan, it's just bollywood movies plot. dont worry so much.


What is Laskar e Jangvi(LEJ), and I guess the Taliban also doesn't exist???..Ohhh its only TTP not the Haqani taliban..

Jo kudh ke liye preshani ho, wo to maujood hai, nahi to fiction..
 
.
What is Laskar e Jangvi(LEJ), and I guess the Taliban also doesn't exist???..Ohhh its only TTP not the Haqani taliban..

Jo kudh ke liye preshani ho, wo to maujood hai, nahi to fiction..

stop believing in conspiracy theories, you are sole responsible for you kashmir attitude, kashmiris are punishing you for the barbarity you have done there

and please also inform us abt the samjhota express , innocent pakistanis lost their lives on indian soil, now dont tell me another conspiracy theory that some isi guys crossed the border and killed them so indians can be blamed thanks
 
.
Nobody gets away with their crimes.Americans will pay for the blood they have on their hands of thousands of civilians.
 
.
oh yaar, no such groups or lashkar exist in Pakistan, it's just bollywood movies plot. dont worry so much.

thanks for the valuable post. they belong to lalaland right?
UN are indian stooges to ban pious organizations of Pakistan.... right?
Damn we are powerful...
 
.
stop believing in conspiracy theories, you are sole responsible for you kashmir attitude, kashmiris are punishing you for the barbarity you have done there

Then how do maximum of them hold passports of Pakistan
and please also inform us abt the samjhota express , innocent pakistanis lost their lives on indian soil, now dont tell me another conspiracy theory that some isi guys crossed the border and killed them so indians can be blamed thanks

they were indian agencies not pakistani agencies who gave clean chit to ISI and their relative jehadi groups for this incidents
 
.
Back
Top Bottom