Obama 'to expand drone strikes' in Pakistan

[ajpirzada]

NEW YORK, Dec 14 (APP): US President Barack Obama is resisting pressures to carry out drone attacks on terrorists in urban areas like Quetta as that would increase civilian casualties and jeopardize US-Pakistan cooperation, according to a report in a leading US magazine. “One person standing in the way of expanded missile strikes: President Obama,” Mark Hosenball, NEWSWEEK’s investigative correspondent wrote in the latest issue of the weekly.

Citing five administration officials, the correspondent said the president has sided with political and diplomatic advisers who argue that widening the scope of the drone attacks would be risky and unwise.

“Obama is concerned that firing missiles into urban areas like Quetta, where intelligence reports suggest that Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar and other high-level militants have sometimes taken shelter, would greatly increase the risk of civilian casualties,” correspondent Hosenball wrote.

“It would also draw protests from Pakistani politicians and military leaders, who have been largely quiet about the drone attacks as long as they’ve been confined to the country’s out-of-sight border region,” the report said.

“The White House has been encouraged by Pakistan’s own recent military efforts to root out militants along the Afghan border, and it does not want to jeopardize that cooperation”. Citing unnamed officials, the report said that the administration, which has been reviewing the drone programme for a long time, is likely to continue to debate.

It said the administration would even “plan for the possibility of expanding, drone operations in the future if only to keep the pressure on Pakistan to maintain its current efforts to capture and kill terrorists”. A White House spokesperson had no comment on the report.

Meanwhile, an identical report on the US drone programme in The Los Angeles Times said, “The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new U.S. resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington’s relationship with Islamabad.

“The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option,” The LA Times said in a front-page dispatch.

“Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta—or at least threatening to do so—is critical to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week”. “If we don’t do this—at least have a real discussion of it—Pakistan might not think we are serious,” a senior U.S. official involved in war planning, was quoted as saying.

“What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the U.S.; we can’t allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore.” But others, including high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials, according to The Times, have been more skeptical of employing drone attacks in a place that Pakistanis see as part of their country’s core. Pakistani officials, according to a report, have warned that the fallout would be severe.

“We are not a banana republic,” a senior Pakistani official involved in discussions of security issues with the Obama administration, was quoted as saying. “If the United States follows through, the official said, “this might be the end of the road.”

The Times said the drone operations “have been conducted with the consent of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has proved a reliable ally to America in his first 15 months in office”. But, the newspaper noted that the CIA airstrikes are highly unpopular among the Pakistani public, because of concerns over national sovereignty and civilian casualties. American and Pakistani officials stressed that the United States has stopped short of issuing an ultimatum to Pakistan.

“It just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to use heavy-handed tactics when you’ve got this kind of relationship,” a U.S. counter-terrorism official, was quoted as saying.

The senior Pakistani official bridled at the suggestion that Pakistan has been reluctant to target militants in Quetta, saying U.S. assertions about the city’s role as a sanctuary have been exaggerated. “We keep hearing that there is a shadow government in Quetta, but we have never been given actionable intelligence,” the Pakistani official was quoted as saying. Pakistan is prepared to pursue Taliban leaders, including Omar, even when the intelligence is imprecise, the official said. “Even if a compound 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer is identified, we will go find him.” But, he added, “for the past two years we haven’t heard anything more.”

Associated Press Of Pakistan ( Pakistan's Premier NEWS Agency ) - Obama resisting pressures for drone strikes on Quetta:NEWSWEEK

 

[pakdefender]

Pak cautions US against Quetta strikes

NEW YORK: A senior Pakistani official told Los Angeles Times if the US went ahead with its plan to launch drone strikes in Quetta then it would be ‘the end of the road’ for the US-Pakistan cooperation in the fight against extremist groups.

‘We are not a banana republic,’ said the official involved in discussions on security issues with the Obama administration. The official bristled at the suggestion that Pakistan had been reluctant to target militants in Quetta, saying US assertions about the city’s role as a sanctuary had been exaggerated. ‘We keep hearing that there is a shadow government in Quetta, but we have never been given actionable intelligence.

Pakistan is prepared to pursue Taliban leaders, including Omar, even when the intelligence is imprecise,’ he said. ‘Even if a compound 1km by 1km is identified, we will go find him.’ But, he added, ‘for the past two years we haven’t heard anything more.’



DAWN.COM | Pakistan | Pak cautions US against Quetta strikes

 

[pakdefender]

The quote in bold sums it up , it will really be the end of the road if the US behaves in a pig headed way and attacks Quetta.

 

[mshoaib61]

Reporting from Washington - Senior U.S. officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond Pakistan's tribal region and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in Quetta.

The proposal has opened a contentious new front in the clandestine war. The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new U.S. resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington's relationship with Islamabad.

The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option. Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta -- or at least threatening to do so -- is crucial to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week.

"If we don't do this -- at least have a real discussion of it -- Pakistan might not think we are serious," said a senior U.S. official involved in war planning. "What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the U.S.; we can't allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore."

But others, including high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials, have been more skeptical of employing drone attacks in a place that Pakistanis see as part of their country's core. Pakistani officials have warned that the fallout would be severe.

"We are not a banana republic," said a senior Pakistani official involved in discussions of security issues with the Obama administration. If the United States follows through, the official said, "this might be the end of the road."

The CIA in recent years has stepped up a campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, much of it with drone strikes in the rural tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. The operations have been conducted with the consent of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has proved a reliable ally to America in his first 15 months in office.

Zardari, however, is facing mounting political woes, and the CIA airstrikes are highly unpopular among the Pakistani public, because of concerns over national sovereignty and civilian casualties. If drone attacks now confined to small villages were to be mounted in a sizable city, the death rate of innocent bystanders would probably increase.

Obama has endorsed an expansion of CIA operations in the country, approving the deployment of more spies and resources in a clandestine counterpart to the 30,000 additional U.S. troops being sent into Afghanistan.

But the push to expand drone strikes underscores the limits of the Obama offensive. The administration has given itself 18 months to show evidence of a turnaround in Afghanistan. But progress in Pakistan depends almost entirely on drone strikes and prodding a sometimes reluctant ally, which provides much of the intelligence to conduct the strikes, to do more.

U.S. and Pakistani officials stressed that the United States has stopped short of issuing an ultimatum to Pakistan. "It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to use heavy-handed tactics when you've got this kind of relationship," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official. Like others, he discussed the issue on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject.

Obama alluded to the effort to enlist more Pakistani help on the day his strategy was announced.

"The most important thing we can do in Pakistan is to change their strategic orientation," Obama said in a meeting with news columnists Dec. 1. The pursuit of Al Qaeda involves a range of activities, he said, "some of which I can't discuss."

As Obama deliberated over the strategy for Afghanistan through fall, administration officials consulted with Pakistan in high-level meetings in Islamabad, also using those sessions to pressure the government to do more.

Among those involved were Gen. James L. Jones, Obama's national security advisor; Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan; and Leon E. Panetta, director of the CIA.

"We have applied enormous pressure," the senior U.S. official said.

Pakistan is not expected to hand over Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader and longtime ally of Osama bin Laden who fled Afghanistan when U.S. forces invaded after the Sept. 11 attacks. Omar is believed to have used Quetta as a base from which to orchestrate insurgent attacks in Afghanistan.

But U.S. officials said they have presented Pakistan with a list of Taliban lieutenants and argued that, with a U.S. pullout scheduled to begin in 18 months, the urgency of dismantling the so-called Quetta shura is greater than at any time in the 8-year-old war.

The senior Pakistani official bristled at the suggestion that Pakistan has been reluctant to target militants in Quetta, saying U.S. assertions about the city's role as a sanctuary have been exaggerated.

"We keep hearing that there is a shadow government in Quetta, but we have never been given actionable intelligence," the Pakistani official said.

Drone attacks may be expanded in Pakistan -- latimes.com

 

[koolio]

Any attack on Quetta which is the capital city of Balochistan will have dire consequences for the US, even though Drone strikes have been largely concentrated in FATA with the approval of GOP, if the US does go ahead to strike Quetta. Pakistan should suspend NATO supplies for an indefinite period.

 

[rajeev]

The quote in bold sums it up , it will really be the end of the road if the US behaves in a pig headed way and attacks Quetta.

Yea right. Rehman Malik will give approval and come outside and say he does not know why Americans bombed Quetta. He will talk to Clinton. After few days, people will forget this and it will be a regular occurrence.

Personally, I think other than blogsters talking about it, it is high time for Zardari to speak against this.

 

[SparklingCrescent]

hmmmm... why not Pak Army in NWFP start firing missiles into Afghanistan where Taliban are in safe havens??? we can use obamas excuse "if we’ve got actual war intelligence on high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders, or for that matter high-ranking Taliban leaders who are directing actions against Pakistani troops –then we will take action" .. wat u guys think???

 

[rajeev]

hmmmm... why not Pak Army in NWFP start firing missiles into Afghanistan where Taliban are in safe havens??? we can use obamas excuse "if we’ve got actual war intelligence on high-ranking Al Qaeda leaders, or for that matter high-ranking Taliban leaders who are directing actions against Pakistani troops –then we will take action" .. wat u guys think???

And you think PA will attack on its "strategic assets" to prove a point to US? I dont think US would hardly care whether you kill Taliban in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. It the was PA that was differentiating between the good Taliban and bad Taliban.

 

[SparklingCrescent]

And you think PA will attack on its "strategic assets" to prove a point to US? I dont think US would hardly care whether you kill Taliban in Pakistan or in Afghanistan. It the was PA that was differentiating between the good Taliban and bad Taliban.

that is also a gudd point.. someone in Pakistan will take action against these drones soon.. inshallah

 

[pakdefender]

Yea right. Rehman Malik will give approval and come outside and say he does not know why Americans bombed Quetta. He will talk to Clinton. After few days, people will forget this and it will be a regular occurrence.

Personally, I think other than blogsters talking about it, it is high time for Zardari to speak against this.

I think it has been said before also that Quetta is an Army garison and those who think that they can get away with attacking this city are sadly mistaken.

Let the Americans show thier foolishness and pighaededness in this matter and they will pay dearly for such a move.

 

[Barrett]

This is ridiculous attacking cities?? These drone strikes, Blackwater are USA's way of trying to destabilize Pakistan, there is no need for drones to be used over heavily populated cities, why can't US forward intelligence to Pakistan and let Pakistan take care of the terrorists in their territory.

You answered your own question, 'destabilize Pakistan'. Iraq was attacked in the name of democracy and so was Afghanistan to liberate its people and bring democracy to that country, a deceptive tradition of the impudent United States of America.

The 'Democratically' elected Parliament of Pakistan unanimously passed a resolution against the Drone attacks but that is conveniently ignored, now what democracy is U.S talking about when they attack & invade countries.

The first drone attack was on June 18, 2004 near Wana S.Waziristan. Before June 18, 2004 there were 8 suicide attacks in Pakistan, 2 in 2002, 2 in 2003 and 4 in 2004 and all of them either sectarian or attempted targeted killings e.g 'Pervaiz Musharaf, French Engineers'

Between 18th June, 2004 - 1st Dec 2009 there has been '216' suicide attacks. I'm sure the U.S authorities are very much aware of these facts. The justification these terrorist groups give is that the U.S is attacking them through drones and the GOP is not doing anything, so it gives them all the reasons to attack the Gov and the people supporting the Gov. So what do you need to do to destabilize a country? increase the drone attacks and that is exactly what U.S has done, 43 drone attacks in 2009 alone. Now if that is not enough you start attacking other provinces and that is exactly what they are planning to do attack Baluchistan, a province whose population is already not too supportive of the Gov and a separatist movement is underway.

What will be the implications of Drone attacks in Baluchistan ?
The anti-state elements will become more active, since it has a long border with Afghanistan we will see an influx of fighters, money and weapons from Afghanistan. The PA army will be stretched along the length and breadth of Pakistan.

 

[TruthSeeker]

The justification these terrorist groups give is that the U.S is attacking them through drones and the GOP is not doing anything, so it gives them all the reasons to attack the Gov and the people supporting the Gov.

Please tell me that you don't believe this. Do you honestly think that if the USA stops drone strikes that suicide and other attacks inside Pakistan will stop? If so the solution is simple. The TTP and others merely agree that they will lay down arms and stop attacking the PA and the PA can agree to shoot down any USA drones.

 

[Barrett]

Please tell me that you don't believe this. Do you honestly think that if the USA stops drone strikes that suicide and other attacks inside Pakistan will stop? If so the solution is simple. The TTP and others merely agree that they will lay down arms and stop attacking the PA and the PA can agree to shoot down any USA drones.

Attacks will stop or not it gives U.S no right to attack a sovereign country. But yes they will certainly increase with more drone attacks and that is exactly what has happened.

Why can't U.S do something first other then preemptive strikes, based upon your inner fears and nothing else, take Iraq for an example. Your Gov conveniently fooled you with shouts of WMD and what did you find ? "nothing"

And yes one more thing do you americans seriously support the actions of your gov or you just come here and disagree for the sake of defending your country because you speak against all the facts and always say that your policies are right and the whole world is wrong.
For heavens sake have some shame and courage to admit what is wrong.

 

[ejaz007]

Obama resists drone strikes in Pakistan
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
By Sami Abraham

WASHINGTON: US media reports have revealed that President Barrack Obama, during situation room meetings at the White House to review the US strategy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, did express concern over the idea of expanding drones attacks to Quetta and other urban centres of Pakistan. The White House has not confirmed or denied the report.

The reports say that President Obama was of the view that widening the scope of the drone attacks to more Pakistani areas would be risky, unwise and draw strong reactions from Pakistani politicians and military leaders, who have been largely quiet about these attacks as long as they were confined to the remote Pak-Afghan border areas.

A top US official, told this correspondent on condition of anonymity, that top US diplomats, including US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Special US representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan Ambassador Holbrooke and US Ambassador to Pakistan Anne Paterson, were also of the view that the US should be ready for a very strong reaction from Pakistan in case drones attacks were expanded to settled areas of Pakistan, including Quetta.

However, no one disputed the benefits and advantages of these drone attacks, the US official added. The US official also said that the top US leadership had been encouraged by Pakistan’s recent military efforts to root out militants, along the Afghan border, and it did not want to jeopardise that cooperation.

President Obama, the official added, has not closed the door on wider drone attacks. And it is likely that the US administration will continue to debate, and even plan for the possibility of expanding, drone operations in the future if only to keep the pressure on Pakistan to maintain its current efforts to capture and kill terrorists.

APP adds: “One person standing in the way of expanded missile strikes: President Obama,” Mark Hosenball, Newsweek’s investigative correspondent wrote in the latest issue of the weekly.

“Obama is concerned that firing missiles into urban areas like Quetta, where intelligence reports suggest that Taliban leader Mulla Mohammad Omar and other high-level militants have sometimes taken shelter, would greatly increase the risk of the civilian casualties,” correspondent Hosenball wrote. “It would also draw protests from Pakistani politicians and military leaders, who have been largely quiet about the drone attacks as long as they’ve been confined to the country’s out-of-sight border region,” the report added.

Meanwhile, an identical report on the US drone programme in The Los Angeles Times said: “The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new US resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington’s relationship with Islamabad.

“The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option,” The LA Times said in a front-page dispatch.

“Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta — or at least threatening to do so — is critical to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week.” “If we don’t do this — at least have a real discussion of it — Pakistan might not think we are serious,” a senior US official involved in war planning, was quoted as saying.

“What the Pakistanis have to do is to tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the US, we can’t allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore.” But others, including high-ranking US intelligence officials, according to The Times, have been more skeptical of employing drone attacks in a place that Pakistanis see as part of their country’s core. Pakistani officials, according to a report, have warned that the fallout would be severe.

“We are not a banana republic,” a senior Pakistani official involved in discussions of security issues with the Obama administration, was quoted as saying. “If the United States follows through, the official said, “this might be the end of the road.”

The Times said the drone operations “have been conducted with the consent of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has proved a reliable ally to America in his first 15 months in office”. But, the newspaper noted that the CIA air strikes are highly unpopular among the Pakistani public, because of concerns over national sovereignty and civilian casualties. American and Pakistani officials stressed that the United States has stopped short of issuing an ultimatum to Pakistan.

The senior Pakistani official bridled at the suggestion that Pakistan has been reluctant to target the militants in Quetta, saying the US assertions about the city’s role as a sanctuary have been exaggerated. “We keep hearing that there is a shadow government in Quetta, but we have never been given actionable intelligence,” the Pakistani official was quoted as saying.

Pakistan is prepared to pursue the Taliban leaders, including Mulla Omar, even when the intelligence is imprecise, the official said. “Even if a compound 1 kilometer by 1 kilometer is identified, we will go to find him.” But, he added, “for the past two years we haven’t heard anything more.”

Obama resists drone strikes in Pakistan

 

[Solomon2]

At what point can the GoP acknowledge the extent of its responsibility for drone attacks?