Call off drone war in Pakistan, demands former US Intel Chief

[Imran Khan]

it will never stop by talking or mercy its need balls to show but sorry we don't have .even we have few balls these are given by mighty USA .so chill .

 

[Thorough Pro]

And you are just as idiot as your government.

Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness. Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.

 

[VCheng]

And you are just as idiot as your government.

Just a suggestion, which you are free to ignore: It would be to your advantage to attack his ideas with counter-logic rather than resorting to juvenile attacks against his person.

 

[Usama86]

Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness. Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.

Why don't you handcuff and gag me before you rape me, so that my screams don't cause any inconvenience to you.

 

[Solomon2]

Why don't you handcuff and gag me before you rape me, so that my screams don't cause any inconvenience to you.

Point taken - and I do find your metaphor apt. Yet it is an open secret that it is the GoP that insists on this approach.

Why is that? I perceive a constant in the conduct of Pakistani officials from 1971 to present: moral cowardice. That's why the GoP won't acknowledge involvement in the drone strikes; that's why so few officials stand against terror and crime; that's why so many Pakistanis who know better won't speak up for Israel.

Of course, I might be exaggerating matters. Maybe it's just race hatred, as drove West Pakistanis to murder their eastern brethren in 1971. But that, too, was evil, and failing to oppose it was an act of cowardice, is that not so?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Hmm, Blair didn't criticize drones' tactical effectiveness, only their strategic ineffectiveness.

"The drone attacks take out some mid-level terrorists"

The statement by Blair above does not support the argument that the drones offer any significant 'tactical effectiveness'.

Take a look at the TTP, which has had its top leadership taken out at least three times, and had many other high-mid level leaders eliminated - it continues to remain a threat and has continued to recruit cadres and find resources for its agenda. What really set back the TTP were the military operations led by the Pakistan Army and FC in its strongholds - boots on the ground, not simply air strikes.

The Haqqani network, ostensibly the primary target of US drone attacks, continues to function with its capabilities largely undiminished, some would argue it is as strong as ever.

So what 'tactical effectiveness' are you referring to?

Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.

That would be a complete lie and distortion of Pakistan's position, but then, little else is expected of the likes of you.

 

[Solomon2]

"The drone attacks take out some mid-level terrorists"

The statement by Blair above does not support the argument that the drones offer any significant 'tactical effectiveness'.

Sure it does. Aren't we writing in English?

Yet how can any anti-terror policy can be strategically effective unless Pakistan and the U.S. share the same strategic goals? For now, they don't: Pakistan sees Afghanistan as "strategic depth" - near-anarchy to be dominated by its sponsored terror proxies - whereas the U.S. seeks an Afghanistan that is a functioning state. So like Panetta says, right now the drones are the only game in town.

That would be a complete lie and distortion of Pakistan's position -

How is that, exactly?

- little else is expected of the likes of you.

There is really no need to make this personal. Look at this article from the left-leaning online journal Huffington Post, pretty close to the current Administration, and you'll see that my perception is widely shared, which concludes:

...Waiting another year before beginning to leave Afghanistan is also another year spent dumping billions of dollars and sophisticated military technology into the hands of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, those most responsible for the stoking the civil war and terrorism with their "strategic depth." The US must engage with and empower the democratically elected civilian government. It is they who must be strengthened in the battle against extremism, not the Army and ISI...

 

[GOD OF WAR]

Point taken - and I do find your metaphor apt. Yet it is an open secret that it is the GoP that insists on this approach.

Why is that? I perceive a constant in the conduct of Pakistani officials from 1971 to present: moral cowardice. That's why the GoP won't acknowledge involvement in the drone strikes; that's why so few officials stand against terror and crime; that's why so many Pakistanis who know better won't speak up for Israel.

These so-called leaders that lack moral cowardice have been selected by the US in order to meet their own goals, that's how the US misuses democracy, installing puppets like Karzai, Zardari and that idiot in Iraq and then signing the laurels of democracy and liberty, Its all hogwash. If the GoP is amenable to the drones, then the US role in destabilizing the whole region in the name of stabilizing and the farce WOT must also be brought into light. The US is the last country that should barf about Moral Cowardice.

Of course, I might be exaggerating matters. Maybe it's just race hatred, as drove West Pakistanis to murder their eastern brethren in 1971. But that, too, was evil, and failing to oppose it was an act of cowardice, is that not so?

Before bringing in 1971 , Read the book DEAD RECKONING by Indian author Sharmila Bose, maybe that'l bring about your wits together. On the same account, I guess you'l justify the genocide of the Red Indians, the slaying of the Vietnamese and the Koreans just like you conveniently do so in the case of the Afghans.

i don't know what 'The BIG problem' with the US is.... Vanity, Idiocy, Greed, Injustice or their overall Condescending bellicose, Or is it the amalgamation of them all.

Typical US holier than thou attitude.

As for the pseudo intellectual article that you linked up, I'll just remind what a US national of Pakistani origin said to Ron Paul, verbatim "PLEASE KEEP YOUR AID WITH YOURSELF AND GET OUT OF PAKISTAN" to which Ron Paul sheepishly agreed.

 

[Solomon2]

^^^
I'd appreciate that you use the quote function properly, GOW. It may not be clear to everyone that the green paragraph is your interpolation.

As for what you wrote, you have failed to object to any of my analysis of Pakistanis, you've just tried to bury it under a mass of unrelated verbiage. Does this sort of thing actually result in a passing grade in Pakistani schools?

 

[Juice]

it will never stop by talking or mercy its need balls to show but sorry we don't have .even we have few balls these are given by mighty USA .so chill .

Wow Mr. Imran Khan, you are becoming very cynical. We must have some divergent aims.

 

[Tshering22]

If the drones had been applied in 2003-04 onwards itself, so many Pakistani army and US military soldiers could have not died. Der aaye par durust aaye.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Munter was overruled on halting drone strike: Report​

By Agencies
Published: August 3, 2011

US envoy was worried that the strike’s timing will hurt Pak-US ties.
ISLAMABAD:
US envoy Cameron Munter had a heated argument with the CIA station chief in March 2011 over a proposed drone strike against militants on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border, The Associated Press reported on Tuesday. The envoy wanted him to call off the strike, fearing that its timing – coming only a day after Islamabad freed CIA contractor Raymond Davis – would further damage ties with Pakistan. But the CIA station chief and his bosses turned down the request.

The Associated Press noted that the March 17 attack helped send the US-Pakistan relationship into a tailspin from which it has not recovered.
“When the doors are closed they are shouting at each other, but once the doors are open they are congenial in front of the embassy staff,” said one official.
The hard-charging station chief also clashed with the head of the Inter Services Intelligence, over drone strikes, said a Pakistani official.

A US official familiar with the issue played down the tension. “It is very, very rare for the chief of mission to express concern about any particular operation,” the official said, referring to the ambassador. “When concerns are raised, they’re always given close consideration.”

Munter must sign off on every planned drone attack in Pakistan, although he rarely voices an objection, said a former aide to the ambassador. If Munter disagrees with a planned strike, the CIA director can appeal to him, said two US officials.

Clinton can also weigh in, and has done so at least once, one US official said. On March 17, Munter used the embassy’s secure line in an attempt to stop an imminent drone strike. His concern was that the strike would set back Washington’s already shaky relations with Islamabad, said the former aide and a senior US official. The Davis case had left bad feelings on both sides. On January 27 in Lahore, Davis shot to death two Pakistanis who he said were trying to rob him, enraging many people in a country where anti-American sentiment is high. The US insisted Davis had immunity from prosecution, but he was not released until March 16 under a deal that compensated the victims’ families. Pakistan’s security agencies came under intense domestic criticism for freeing him.

Munter’s request went to the State Department and was forwarded to then-CIA director Panetta, now secretary of defence, who insisted on going ahead, said the officials. It is unclear whether Clinton was involved in the decision. The former aide said the strike reflected the CIA’s anger at the ISI, which it blamed for keeping Davis in prison for seven weeks. “It was in retaliation for Davis,” the aide said.

Published in The Express Tribune, August 3rd, 2011.

Munter was overruled on halting drone strike: Report – The Express Tribune

===================

As I said on another thread, it would appear the CIA is as much of a 'rogue' agency as the ISI is alleged to be.

It is pretty clear that the tailspin US-Pak relations are the primary responsibility of the CIA and arrogant and inflammatory attitude and actions. Though of course the senior US leadership also shares blame in not reigning the CIA in.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Sure it does. Aren't we writing in English?

No it doesn't, as I already explained.

How is that, exactly?

I fail to see any support for your allegation that Pakistan wants 'terrorist proxies' to control Afghanistan.

There is really no need to make this personal. Look at this article from the left-leaning online journal Huffington Post, pretty close to the current Administration, and you'll see that my perception is widely shared, which concludes:

...Waiting another year before beginning to leave Afghanistan is also another year spent dumping billions of dollars and sophisticated military technology into the hands of Pakistan's military and intelligence services, those most responsible for the stoking the civil war and terrorism with their "strategic depth." The US must engage with and empower the democratically elected civilian government. It is they who must be strengthened in the battle against extremism, not the Army and ISI...

'Left leaning' means nothing in the context of the US media - the NYT is considered 'left wing' as well, yet is has clearly shown itself to be nothing but a US Establishment propaganda mouthpiece when it comes to covering/commenting on foreign affairs.

And the only thing the excerpt above does is offer yet another biased and unsubstantiated 'smear piece', much like the majority of your own comments - Unsubstantiated propaganda and smear campaigns.

 

[JayAtl]

Most Govt officials become wise after they quit.

Where were such thoughts when he was in the chair and under pressure to perform & deliver ?

one mans opinion does not equate to majority consensus. I can find you people who are in the US congress that think Kashmir should be mitigated by the US. would you care to give your endorsement of such as fast as you have done on this one mans opinion here?

if we had Blair during the cold war we would have lost... hardly " wise" as you have claimed his thought process here...

The problem with Pakistan IMO is that it is always looking outwards... they know exactly who are the bane of Pakistan's existence, its the religious zealots who been allowed to take over the country, period. Us can walk away this minute and Pakistan will still have grave issues... They need to cut off the rotten apples in their mix and they know exactly who they are.

 

[Solomon2]

...the NYT is considered 'left wing' as well, yet is has clearly shown itself to be nothing but a US Establishment propaganda mouthpiece when it comes to covering/commenting on foreign affairs...the only thing the excerpt above does is offer yet another biased and unsubstantiated 'smear piece'...

It doesn't matter what I think. What I'm trying to communicate to you is the operative political reality in D.C. Fair or not, substantiated or not, this is what policymakers are basing their decisions upon.

If Pakistan wants to change that it has to make more of an effort.