you can't compare a reccon UAV to an armed manned aircraft.....symbolically they use remote operated (armed) drones over manned aircrafts because it spares the risks of their pilots and also gives it a more ''robotic'' rather than ''humanized'' dimension even though the unmanned aircrafts are remotely piloted by humans - who are susceptible to emotion or flawed judgement
over a decade on, it seems that at times they have failed to understand that in those areas - anyone could look like a militant. You even have young boys clutching an AK with 2 or 3 bullets in the magazine. A lot of the tribespeople have beards, wear traditional garb and could pass as ''terrorists'' by American/western standards (it's very superficial)
i dont know what agreement exists between GovUSA and GovPak. Obviously a clandestine one. Both sides are playing double games with the minds of the general public on both sides.
it's erroneous however to think that the security establishment would be unable or unwilling to bring down those unmanned intruding aircrafts...all they need is the orders, they cant act unilaterally.
Pakistan and US have had issues determining who the enemy is....Our enemies are not necessarily theirs, and vice versa. Vested interests come into play, but so does differing strategies. Pakistan's approach is that we'd rather work with the people in FATA and build coalitions against the militants. To an extent, our strategy has succeeded. I always cite the example of agencies like S.Waz Orakzai and my native Kurram - where former militants and their sympathetics are actually cooperating with the State. We've lost some ''allies'' actually because they demanded arms and the State (rightly) was hesistant to just start doling arms. But on the whole part, for moral reasons I think the tribespeople of FATA would feel obligated and would favour cooperating with security forces simply because they are fed up of the fighting and bloodshedding - many have been affected by it. Local economy (which as it is, is quite modest and agrarian based; mostly informal) has been detrimentally effected
when you have people in your constituency, you want to keep them on your side......when a drone hits suspects in Miranshah and say it kills 4 militants and 1 bystander - you have 4 dead militants and the family of 1 victim civilian who will then say ''f*ck this, we will swear revenge''
Pakmil did not have a trigger happy approach when it went into Swat to clean up the place of the miscreant *****. To be very honest with you, there were some casualties - there was damaged property. But Pakmil also helped the people on the ground and then rebuilt whatever was damaged...not just personal property, but even public property destroyed by the militants themselves (e.g. girl schools, the famous Ski resort, etc.)
we didn't just go in doing mass killings.....we had what is called a ''strategy'' .....and for the most part, it's worked wonderfully.
NATO's mission however is doomed for failure......and that is why after all these sunk costs, they are forced to now negotiate with the talebs; allow them to set up political offices in ''neutral'' countries, etc.
instead of heeding to our warnings in 2001, they resort to blame games and scape-goating in 2011-12.
it will, however, prove to be a failed strategy. As failed as the NATO campaign itself. But please don't just take my word for it. Observe yourselves.
p.s. when rogue NATO troops pee on dead bodies, burn Qurans and go on mass shooting sprees (not to mention false imprisonment of innocent people) there's no need to talk of Pakistan undermining the NATOs mission....they've done fantastically at undermining it on their own!
READ and never forget the HISTORY of Afghanistan......understand whom you are dealing with and never ignore historical perspective.