U.S Will Continue To Target Pakistan After Afghan Withdrawal

[OrionHunter]

Even with the war in Afghanistan winding down, the United States will continue its fight against al Qaeda and its affiliates, wherever they may be, by using all means available in an armed conflict, the Pentagon's chief lawyer said Friday.

"We must counter al Qaeda in the places where it seeks to establish safe haven and prevent it from reconstituting in others. To do this, we must utilize every national security element of our government," said Jeh Johnson, the top lawyer for the U.S. Defense Department, at a speech Friday at Oxford University in England.

Those elements of force, he said, include unmanned aerial vehicles, widely referred to as drones, to kill suspected terrorists hiding in the ungoverned regions of Pakistan, in Yemen and elsewhere.

Pentagon: U.S. fight on terror not ending with Afghan war – CNN Security Clearance - CNN.com Blogs
_______________________________________________________________

So we should expect more innocent men women and children being killed in drone attacks as collateral damage that will ensue, as is happening now. For how long will this continue? The US says this approach is consistent with the Geneva Conventions governing conflict and that all three branches of the U.S. government have endorsed the efforts used to combat al Qaeda.

Really? How is it consistent with international law? These extra judicial killings by drone attacks are a gross violation of human rights. Thousands of innocent civilians were killed in Iraq during Operation Shock and Awe. How many more in Pakistan? But for the US, civilian casualties are just a statistic for the record books.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

One has to really hand it to the Amreekans, on the on hand they offer some more weaponry to Pakistan and on the other declare their intention to keep sending Predators; all on the same day and in the same breath as it were.
Brazen "Carrot and Stick" policy?

 

[JayAtl]

Okay . let me see if I can start some " intellectual analysis" before this thread goes into the hand basket.

I suspect Pakistan, not the people , but the ruling class so as to speak, would want this too.

The reasoning behind it is_ that it will be too overwhelming and costly for Pakistan to tackle this on it's own. They claim the current costs are what close to 60 billion in out of pocket costs for them?

So imagine if the US does not have any involvement- is it then realistic to believe that Pakistan can a. afford it b. is capable of handling it by themselves.

This is of course based on the assumption that the terrorist are here to " stay" for a long time. And that last time a " peace deal" was made with them, they came and took over areas as close to 100 miles from the capital.

 

[Hasbara Buster]

Of course they will, Pakistan is the real target.

 

[Dushmann]

Pakistan is too big to take on directly militarily (it will be too expensive). And now too dangerous to be left alone. Who knows what is in store after 2014. It's going to be an interesting great game.

 

[my2cents]

Taliban is going to fill the void left by United States.... they will grab more areas and exert their influence. America will be mere spectator and will not much help. If Pakistan army is able then they can thwart their expansion. India has to watch out for talibanised neighborhood in near future.

 

[SQ8]

Okay . let me see if I can start some " intellectual analysis" before this thread goes into the hand basket.

I suspect Pakistan, not the people , but the ruling class so as to speak, would want this too.

The reasoning behind it is_ that it will be too overwhelming and costly for Pakistan to tackle this on it's own. They claim the current costs are what close to 60 billion in out of pocket costs for them?

So imagine if the US does not have any involvement- is it then realistic to believe that Pakistan can a. afford it b. is capable of handling it by themselves.

This is of course based on the assumption that the terrorist are here to " stay" for a long time. And that last time a " peace deal" was made with them, they came and took over areas as close to 100 miles from the capital.

Its a mix and match there, Initially.. these drone strikes were sort of welcomed as they were operated out of Pakistan and to an extent ended up killing the TTP commanders as well. However, as the US became more and more partial in response to Pakistan's support for Haqqani as a future power player in Afghanistan(which he very well is capable of being)... the strikes were found to be leaving TTP alone and only targeting those where suspected Haqqani elements were to be found.

Still, the strikes aren't only Haqqani specific and also target other elements that may not be TTP but be fighting the war in Afghanistan. Especially in the areas of North waziristan..
but the basic lack of cultural sensitivity(not knowing where to differentiate between aerial firing in a wedding.. or a gathering at a funeral..or the difference between a RPG and a shovel) with actual militant activity has led to the criminal collateral causalities which ironically work absolutely against what the drone strikes were designed for.
HOWEVER, the "children" of the drone strikes.. within their anger at the US.. are more easily recruited then by the TTP and its cohorts who direct them towards Pakistan.. hence it becomes a double benefit to the US.. who will not only have eliminated the threat to themselves but created more for Pakistan to be bogged down with.
So , while a threat to the US is eliminated.. more threats to Pakistan are created.. pushing it even further towards militancy and a weak state.. and making a case for the removal or pacification of Pakistan's nuclear ability.

Its fairly methodical.. and brilliant in its success.

 

[Armstrong]

Its a mix and match there, Initially.. these drone strikes were sort of welcomed as they were operated out of Pakistan and to an extent ended up killing the TTP commanders as well. However, as the US became more and more partial in response to Pakistan's support for Haqqani as a future power player in Afghanistan(which he very well is capable of being)... the strikes were found to be leaving TTP alone and only targeting those where suspected Haqqani elements were to be found.

Still, the strikes aren't only Haqqani specific and also target other elements that may not be TTP but be fighting the war in Afghanistan. Especially in the areas of North waziristan..
but the basic lack of cultural sensitivity(not knowing where to differentiate between aerial firing in a wedding.. or a gathering at a funeral..or the difference between a RPG and a shovel) with actual militant activity has led to the criminal collateral causalities which ironically work absolutely against what the drone strikes were designed for.
HOWEVER, the "children" of the drone strikes.. within their anger at the US.. are more easily recruited then by the TTP and its cohorts who direct them towards Pakistan.. hence it becomes a double benefit to the US.. who will not only have eliminated the threat to themselves but created more for Pakistan to be bogged down with.
So , while a threat to the US is eliminated.. more threats to Pakistan are created.. pushing it even further towards militancy and a weak state.. and making a case for the removal or pacification of Pakistan's nuclear ability.

Its fairly methodical.. and brilliant in its success.

Then why don't we shoot them down ?

 

[A.Rafay]

US wants its Path to destruction continued.....

 

[acid rain]

Its a mix and match there, Initially.. these drone strikes were sort of welcomed as they were operated out of Pakistan and to an extent ended up killing the TTP commanders as well. However, as the US became more and more partial in response to Pakistan's support for Haqqani as a future power player in Afghanistan(which he very well is capable of being)... the strikes were found to be leaving TTP alone and only targeting those where suspected Haqqani elements were to be found.

Still, the strikes aren't only Haqqani specific and also target other elements that may not be TTP but be fighting the war in Afghanistan. Especially in the areas of North waziristan..
but the basic lack of cultural sensitivity(not knowing where to differentiate between aerial firing in a wedding.. or a gathering at a funeral..or the difference between a RPG and a shovel) with actual militant activity has led to the criminal collateral causalities which ironically work absolutely against what the drone strikes were designed for.
HOWEVER, the "children" of the drone strikes.. within their anger at the US.. are more easily recruited then by the TTP and its cohorts who direct them towards Pakistan.. hence it becomes a double benefit to the US.. who will not only have eliminated the threat to themselves but created more for Pakistan to be bogged down with.
So , while a threat to the US is eliminated.. more threats to Pakistan are created.. pushing it even further towards militancy and a weak state.. and making a case for the removal or pacification of Pakistan's nuclear ability.

Its fairly methodical.. and brilliant in its success.

In between all this, one thing is incomprehensible, how come the drone strike still receives tacit approval and intelligence inputs from whoever is involved in Pakistan?
On one hand yr govt calls for stopping of drone strikes and on the other u actually dont do the thing that can stop the strikes and that is take one down or force one of them out of yr territory, if NATO planes can receive warning shots so can drones. why is that not being done? surely instead of crying about it u can actually make it stop, whats stopping you?

 

[RayKalm]

This should show all the pro-US Pakistanis something. Give them something to think about. Is the US really our ally? What do they want to achieve? Are these people in the borders really a threat to them? Or are they trying for a slow but big instability process of Pakistan?

 

[JayAtl]

Its a mix and match there, Initially.. these drone strikes were sort of welcomed as they were operated out of Pakistan and to an extent ended up killing the TTP commanders as well. However, as the US became more and more partial in response to Pakistan's support for Haqqani as a future power player in Afghanistan(which he very well is capable of being)... the strikes were found to be leaving TTP alone and only targeting those where suspected Haqqani elements were to be found.

Still, the strikes aren't only Haqqani specific and also target other elements that may not be TTP but be fighting the war in Afghanistan. Especially in the areas of North waziristan..
but the basic lack of cultural sensitivity(not knowing where to differentiate between aerial firing in a wedding.. or a gathering at a funeral..or the difference between a RPG and a shovel) with actual militant activity has led to the criminal collateral causalities which ironically work absolutely against what the drone strikes were designed for.
HOWEVER, the "children" of the drone strikes.. within their anger at the US.. are more easily recruited then by the TTP and its cohorts who direct them towards Pakistan.. hence it becomes a double benefit to the US.. who will not only have eliminated the threat to themselves but created more for Pakistan to be bogged down with.
So , while a threat to the US is eliminated.. more threats to Pakistan are created.. pushing it even further towards militancy and a weak state.. and making a case for the removal or pacification of Pakistan's nuclear ability.

Its fairly methodical.. and brilliant in its success.

nicely laid out and I don't have much to contest that theory.

Rather my next question would be : Can we show the tangibles in cost vs. benefit of having this done by US vs Pakistan. Where cost is outweighing the benefit in terms of US involvement. i.e How many terrorists are killed to civilian collateral, keeping in mind that ( I think you may agree) , collateral damage if this thing were a sole pakistan operation would be severely high. After all we know that from past operations by pakistan, where thousands got displaced and artillery firing and aircraft bombing was used. That kind of force applied is more unforgiving in whom it hits ( radius)

So again not disputing your theory but rather asking, is this why Pakistan's ruling class ( which includes the military too), looks at this, they too measure the cost vs benefit of the US doing vs Pakistan doing it and thus allow this to continue? The constant in the situation being " terrorists are not going anywhere" and needs to be tackled by one team or the other

 

[SQ8]

nicely laid out and I don't have much to contest that theory.

Rather my next question would be : Can we show the tangibles in cost vs. benefit of having this done by US vs Pakistan. Where cost is outweighing the benefit in terms of US involvement. i.e How many terrorists are killed to civilian collateral, keeping in mind that ( I think you may agree) , collateral damage if this thing were a sole pakistan operation would be severely high. After all we know that from past operations by pakistan, where thousands got displaced and artillery firing and aircraft bombing was used. That kind of force applied is more unforgiving in whom it hits ( radius)

So again not disputing your theory but rather asking, is this why Pakistan's ruling class ( which includes the military too), looks at this, they too measure the cost vs benefit of the US doing vs Pakistan doing it and thus allow this to continue? The constant in the situation being " terrorists are not going anywhere" and needs to be tackled by one team or the other

Quite a bit of them are currently weighing in their own apples... individually.
Since the ruling class is never long term orientated(contrary to all expectations).. the mentality may be.. never the personalities.
The question is not of the effectiveness of the Drone as an assassin.. perhaps the best assassin ever invented.
But of the targets, and the precision of the assassination.
The cost benefit here.. is in terms of holding terrorists at bay.. and holding out on the long term to quell any further rise of terrorism while making sure that those terrorists that exist are not able to exert their activities and influence out of these key incubators.
Now, that approach has worked on one end.. i.e the blocking of terrorism from exporting terror to the capital.
But the rate at which that worked.. is less than the rate at which more sympathizers(assisted or not) have propped up in major population centers and otherwise.. based on the effects of these drones..and moreover, based on the "additional" material the anti-drone effects get across the result is an actual rise in extremism rather than a containment of it.
To the ruling class, this presents a problem.. and for most they consider Pakistan a sinking ship and are simply trying to prolong the patients life so whatever can be sucked out of it is done..There is a MASSIVE bubble that is eventually going to collapse on Pakistanis(at least in my view).

The drones then, in this equation.. are useful for taking out some elements that effect Pakistan as well.. but at the same time.. not. The Ruling class has decided, that while it means that the equation is being lost.. it is still a delayed decay as compared to the crises that will follow if one of these drones is shot down.
Its basically the preference of a slow death over a quick one.

 

[KingMamba]

Then why don't we shoot them down ?

Pakistan can, but will they be willing to bear the consequences?

 

[Vassnti]

So how did

Pentagon: U.S. fight on terror not ending with Afghan war

become

U.S Will Continue To Target Pakistan After Afghan Withdrawal

change the title much?

On topic

the United States will continue its fight against al Qaeda

we are told time and time again there are no al qaeda in Pakistan so your safe