Fresh Drone Attack in Miranshah, 6 Pakistanis Killed

[PlanetWarrior]

Its not that easy. You see in the past when the Military took over in Pakistan, initially the people in Pakistan supported them. But now the military thinks that the people are not gonna support if they take over. .

The military does not have to stage a coup de etat to do its job of protecting Pakistani sovereignity or airspace. I stand corrected but I don't recall reading about any parliamentary resolution in Pakistan to permit the USA drone attacks. Therefore wouldn't the PAF be justified in shooting down those drones if they enter Pakistani airspace? It's all about the PAF and the military in Pakistan doing its job and nothing else. I have no problem with the drones attacking people who kill others for their self proclaimed missions. My concern is for the possibly many innocent Pakistanis who are victims of these drone strikes. If this was happening in India or even in my adopted nation of South Africa, there would be a civilian uproar which would be heard by the government and the military. US aid is purely to help Pakistan tackle the militancy in your northern areas. It certainly was never meant to be an open door policy for the USA or any other nation or organisation to violate your nation the way it does. And it all goes back to the question of why are your military leaders not doing their jobs for which they are being paid for ?

 

[AAtish]

The military does not have to stage a coup de etat to do its job of protecting Pakistani sovereignity or airspace. I stand corrected but I don't recall reading about any parliamentary resolution in Pakistan to permit the USA drone attacks. Therefore wouldn't the PAF be justified in shooting down those drones if they enter Pakistani airspace? It's all about the PAF and the military in Pakistan doing its job and nothing else. I have no problem with the drones attacking people who kill others for their self proclaimed missions. My concern is for the possibly many innocent Pakistanis who are victims of these drone strikes. If this was happening in India or even in my adopted nation of South Africa, there would be a civilian uproar which would be heard by the government and the military. US aid is purely to help Pakistan tackle the militancy in your northern areas. It certainly was never meant to be an open door policy for the USA or any other nation or organisation to violate your nation the way it does. And it all goes back to the question of why are your military leaders not doing their jobs for which they are being paid for ?

No they would not be justified.. Drone attacks have gone too long to do that, it would had been justified if it was first drone attack..

Now after so long, PAF requires specific instructions to stop them..

 

[desioptimist]

Its not that easy. You see in the past when the Military took over in Pakistan, initially the people in Pakistan supported them. But now the military thinks that the people are not gonna support if they take over. .

Nobody is suggesting a coup. But military has enough clout to ensure that it does what it wants. Publicly telling others that we cant do because we dont have orders actually proves the point. They are hiding behind civilian govt.

 

[AAtish]

Nobody is suggesting a coup. But military has enough clout to ensure that it does what it wants. Publicly telling others that we cant do because we dont have orders actually proves the point. They are hiding behind civilian govt.

Thats a good thing then, if they have taken a back foot, political govt should take this chance to confirm that they are the controllers.. Govt. should order the PA and PAF to shoot them down.. throw the ball back in military's court.. isn't it?

If they are not doing it, means, military is right in saying that THEY NEED orders.. beauty of politics .. innih?

 

[S-2]

"It seems like US has gone for war against pakistan without GOP knowing about it... "

You are trolling. Please cease being a provocateur. Were America to go to war with Pakistan it would be irrevocably clear to all.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

"It seems like US has gone for war against pakistan without GOP knowing about it... "

You are trolling. Please cease being a provocateur. Were America to go to war with Pakistan it would be irrevocably clear to all.

With respect, warfare and its methods have changed over the years. Let's leave the USA out of the example of modern day warfare tactics. Gone are the days of napalm and landmines. The UK's war on Zimbabwe in revenge for the expulsion of Brit farmers is a good point in example. Not a single bullet was fired in that war. All it took for the UK to teach that country a lesson was to disinvest and to destroy the Zim economy, thus rendering it to a condition similar to Afghanistan during the Taliban rule. The message from the UK now to Zim is remove Mugabe and we may consider returning with our pretty pounds and big machines to help in devolping you.

The USA:

1. Infringement of Pakistan's airspace. Did you get a Pakistani parliamentary resolution authorising you to invade its airspace with amongst others drones? Gen Musharraf was a dictator in the normal interpretation of that word so his nodding his head to your request then cannot be construed as a legal acceptance by that country. Pakistan now has a democratically elected government which you claim to support.
2. Covert operations by your CIA and other ops. Would you not agree that this constitutes an open violation of that country's sovereignity? Covert intelligence gathering is something which all countries engage in and the USA would be justified in sending a few ops to gather intelligence in Pakistan. Can it however be denied that the USA is violating Pakistan's sovereignity by giving its ops an open mandate to engage military with counter interests within Pakistan?
3. Military operations of the sort utiilised to kill OBL where your tactical units entered Pakistani territory (presumably on your claim minus the consent of the country's military and government and intelligence agencies) where you engage in direct engagement and kill of people on Pakistani soil.

In my limited knowledge of what constitutes a state of war, it is evidentially clear that the USA is in a state of war with Pakistan. The good old days of issuing a formal declaration of war seems to be a thing of the past.

 

[AAtish]

With respect, warfare and its methods have changed over the years. Let's leave the USA out of the example of modern day warfare tactics. Gone are the days of napalm and landmines. The UK's war on Zimbabwe in revenge for the expulsion of Brit farmers is a good point in example. Not a single bullet was fired in that war. All it took for the UK to teach that country a lesson was to disinvest and to destroy the Zim economy, thus rendering it to a condition similar to Afghanistan during the Taliban rule. The message from the UK now to Zim is remove Mugabe and we may consider returning with our pretty pounds and big machines to help in devolping you.

The USA:

1. Infringement of Pakistan's airspace. Did you get a Pakistani parliamentary resolution authorising you to invade its airspace with amongst others drones? Gen Musharraf was a dictator in the normal interpretation of that word so his nodding his head to your request then cannot be construed as a legal acceptance by that country. Pakistan now has a democratically elected government which you claim to support.
2. Covert operations by your CIA and other ops. Would you not agree that this constitutes an open violation of that country's sovereignity? Covert intelligence gathering is something which all countries engage in and the USA would be justified in sending a few ops to gather intelligence in Pakistan. Can it however be denied that the USA is violating Pakistan's sovereignity by giving its ops an open mandate to engage military with counter interests within Pakistan?
3. Military operations of the sort utiilised to kill OBL where your tactical units entered Pakistani territory (presumably on your claim minus the consent of the country's military and government and intelligence agencies) where you engage in direct engagement and kill of people on Pakistani soil.

In my limited knowledge of what constitutes a state of war, it is evidentially clear that the USA is in a state of war with Pakistan. The good old days of issuing a formal declaration of war seems to be a thing of the past.

This is the one of the few mails i have seen that states the current scenario clearly by any Indian member.. thanks bro..

 

[desioptimist]

Thats a good thing then, if they have taken a back foot, political govt should take this chance to confirm that they are the controllers.. Govt. should order the PA and PAF to shoot them down.. throw the ball back in military's court.. isn't it?

If they are not doing it, means, military is right in saying that THEY NEED orders.. beauty of politics .. innih?

Well I am worried about the fact that people will jump up and down and ask for Gilani and Zardari's head where as the poor politicians are not be blamed. It is going to only make military stronger.
You can blame your politicians to be corrupt or incompetent but not about something which they have not been empowered to do.

 

[AAtish]

Well I am worried about the fact that people will jump up and down and ask for Gilani and Zardari's head where as the poor politicians are not be blamed. It is going to only make military stronger.
You can blame your politicians to be corrupt or incompetent but not about something which they have not been empowered to do.

Its high time for them to feel responsible for their job.. If they cannot bear the burden of their office then they should stop asking for the power, let the military deal with everything then.. If they want military to listen to them and work according to democratic government's order then they need to take responsibility also.. Presidency and Premiership is not only to collect dollars, it is also to face the hardship of decision making..

I stand by my point.. Its political government's responsibility to give orders, military cannot be criticized for not stopping drones, If commander-in-chief gives the order and military doesn't follow it, then military is to be blamed, otherwise, politicians should hand over everything to Military and go back to their homes, then we'll ask military to do what needs to be done..

Just my two cents..

 

[desioptimist]

Its high time for them to feel responsible for their job.. If they cannot bear the burden of their office then they should stop asking for the power, let the military deal with everything then.. If they want military to listen to them and work according to democratic government's order then they need to take responsibility also.. Presidency and Premiership is not only to collect dollars, it is also to face the hardship of decision making..

I stand by my point.. Its political government's responsibility to give orders, military cannot be criticized for not stopping drones, If commander-in-chief gives the order and military doesn't follow it, then military is to be blamed, otherwise, politicians should hand over everything to Military and go back to their homes, then we'll ask military to do what needs to be done..

Just my two cents..

I am in no way suggesting that military should pressurize civilian govt to give orders. I am saying all decisions by civilian leadership has tacit approval by military in pakistan, public posturing of military that they are willing to do but civilian govt does not allow is simply not true.

But anyway, OBL operation means people have started being skeptic of military capability already. They will surely understand why action is not being taken against drones.

 

[Avishek]

These attack cant be possible with out the permisson of pakistan army and the intelligence agency.

 

[S-2]

"1. Infringement of Pakistan's airspace. Did you get a Pakistani parliamentary resolution authorising you to invade its airspace with amongst others drones? Gen Musharraf was a dictator in the normal interpretation of that word so his nodding his head to your request then cannot be construed as a legal acceptance by that country. Pakistan now has a democratically elected government which you claim to support.
2. Covert operations by your CIA and other ops. Would you not agree that this constitutes an open violation of that country's sovereignity? Covert intelligence gathering is something which all countries engage in and the USA would be justified in sending a few ops to gather intelligence in Pakistan. Can it however be denied that the USA is violating Pakistan's sovereignity by giving its ops an open mandate to engage military with counter interests within Pakistan?
3. Military operations of the sort utiilised to kill OBL where your tactical units entered Pakistani territory (presumably on your claim minus the consent of the country's military and government and intelligence agencies) where you engage in direct engagement and kill of people on Pakistani soil."

Pakistan could use such to justify they're at war with America. In fact, all could certainly be construed as rationales by those inclined to promote such a condition. Would you be one of those?

I ask because there is ample justification for both drone attacks and the OBL raid under the internat'l laws of warfare without resorting to open declarations of war or even for the conditions of war to exist-

"'…t is the considered view of this administration…that targeting practices, including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), comply with all applicable law, including the laws of war….As recent events have shown, Al Qaeda has not abandoned its intent to attack the United States, and indeed continues to attack us. Thus, in this ongoing armed conflict, the United States has the authority under international law, and the responsibility to its citizens, to use force, including lethal force, to defend itself, including by targeting persons such as high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks….[T]his administration has carefully reviewed the rules governing targeting operations to ensure that these operations are conducted consistently with law of war principles, including:

- First, the principle of distinction, which requires that attacks be limited to military objectives and that civilians or civilian objects shall not be the object of the attack; and

- Second, the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

In U.S. operations against al Qaeda and its associated forces – including lethal operations conducted with the use of unmanned aerial vehicles – great care is taken to adhere to these principles in both planning and execution, to ensure that only legitimate objectives are targeted and that collateral damage is kept to a minimum...

...ome have suggested that the very use of targeting a particular leader of an enemy force in an armed conflict must violate the laws of war. But individuals who are part of such an armed group are belligerent and, therefore, lawful targets under international law….ome have challenged the very use of advanced weapons systems, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, for lethal operations. But the rules that govern targeting do not turn on the type of weapon system involved, and there is no prohibition under the laws of war on the use of technologically advanced weapons systems in armed conflict – such as pilotless aircraft or so-called smart bombs – so long as they are employed in conformity with applicable laws of war….ome have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force. Our procedures and practices for identifying lawful targets are extremely robust, and advanced technologies have helped to make our targeting even more precise. In my experience, the principles of distinction and proportionality that the United States applies are not just recited at meeting. They are implemented rigorously throughout the planning and execution of lethal operations to ensure that such operations are conducted in accordance with all applicable law….Fourth and finally, some have argued that our targeting practices violate domestic law, in particular, the long-standing domestic ban on assassinations. But under domestic law, the use of lawful weapons systems – consistent with the applicable laws of wear – for precision targeting of specific high-level belligerent leaders when acting in self-defense or during an armed conflict is not unlawful, and hence does not constitute ‘assassination.’”

Dr. Harold Hongju Koh, Senior Legal Advisor to the U.S. Dept. of State before the American Society Of International Law Annual Conference March 2010-

The Obama Administration And International Law-U.S. Dept. Of State

"...In my limited knowledge of what constitutes a state of war, it is evidentially clear that the USA is in a state of war with Pakistan. The good old days of issuing a formal declaration of war seems to be a thing of the past."

Would those good old days include the extensive legal support compiled by the Bush administration and other international bodies following 9/11? How about the debates inside the U.S. Congress before the invasion of Iraq? What sort of discussions ensued globally prior to intervention in Kosovo? How about DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM?

I think amassing both jus ad bellum and consensus behind such remains a prime motivating force for any democratic entity.

Secondly I'd ask if, in your considered view, the United States would take such pains to measure aid as a benefit to our relationship were we at war (even tacitly as suggested by you) with Pakistan? The monies and military hardware devoted to Pakistan are alternatively attacked as threats by Indians and derided as insignificant and/or mis-directed/ill-used by many Pakistanis. Nonetheless, they hardly constitute an insignificant sum to the American public.

Third, despite Agnostic Muslim's rants regarding what America fails to do on Pakistan's economic behalf, we remain their largest import market and run an annual trade deficit with Pakistan. Conversely, Pakistan's "all-weather" friend-the PRC, imports more goods to Pakistan and runs a tidy trade surplus with their ostensible ally.

Have we exercised, remotely, any economic warfare policy reminding you of the U.K's surreptitious war upon Zimbabwe?

I note, anecdotally, it serves the interests of some Indians here and elsewhere to promote a state of antagonism between the United States and Pakistan. This may stem as a residual hang (left)over of India's socialist alignment with the Soviet Union. Conversely, it may be simple deflection from India's own issues with Pakistan over J&K and water, etc. Who knows? Who really cares?

I will re-iterate that we've the means to make clear if we're at a state of war with any nation. That isn't the case with Pakistan. The American government very much wishes for good and cordial relations with Pakistan in these difficult times. We will, however, retain the right and exercise such to self-defense in accordance with prevailing laws where necessary. Both drones and the OBL raid are such in the opinion of the POTUS.

Neither, however, are acts of war...unless you really WISH them to be.