Twin US drone strikes kill 21 in SWA - where Pak sovereignty existed

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Tell me one thing; if innocent people are always targeted in drone attacks then why do MILITANTS try to cordon off the attacked area to retrieve the dead bodies (if any remain) in many cases? Why not police, rescue workers, and other innocent people in every such a case?

Stop generalizing on these affairs. People like you are responsible for spreading even more confusion within this already confused nation.

As Pakistan has been arguing for a while, the issue would settle down considerably if it was Pakistan conducting these strikes, and not the US.

 

[LeGenD]

As Pakistan has been arguing for a while, the issue would settle down considerably if it was Pakistan conducting these strikes, and not the US.

Suppose that US transfers the control of some drones to Pakistan army to carry out drone attacks inside Pakistan against militants and suspects. Now if Pakistan army begins bombing through drones, people will still die. Who will prove their innocence?

Citizens will once again chant slogans like how shameful this army is. It is bombing its own people?

Brother, this is REALITY. People will always complain whether you are doing right or wrong.

 

[Perceptron]

As Pakistan has been arguing for a while, the issue would settle down considerably if it was Pakistan conducting these strikes, and not the US.

Now this statement of yours begs quite a wheelbarrow of Qs ::
1. Do you mean that Americans operate without reliable intel and hence their collateral damage is much higher ?
2. How do we know that the collateral damage when the PA will operate in these lawless regions will not be at least as great as incurred by the drones ?
3. How do we know that the PA in trying to reduce collateral damage will not achieve the objectives that the drones are trying to do ?
4. The previous operations in Waziristan led to massive (extra-judicial and if i may add, wanton) killing of civilians in Swat by the PA. What guarantee the PA can give that will not reoccur ?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Suppose that US transfers the control of some drones to Pakistan army to carry out drone attacks inside Pakistan against militants and suspects. Now if Pakistan army begins bombing through drones, people will still die. Who will prove their innocence?

The Pakistani military is already conducting operations without 'establishing guilt or innocence' - see the multiple operations in Swat, SW, Bajaur, Mohmand etc. Yet the latest PEW poll shows continued high support for the Army/Military in Pakistan, even after the Abbottabad raid.

The fact of the matter is that Pakistani public opinion can be managed and can (as in the case of the Swat and SW operations) be moved in support of military operations in FATA - it cannot be expected to be in favor of a foreign nation, especially one so reviled and distrusted as the US, conducting military operations in Pakistan.

If you cannot understand this dynamic and understand why even merley shifting control of drones strikes from US control to Pakistani control would make a significant difference, then you have a very poor understanding of Pakistan's politcal and public opinion dynamics.

Citizens will once again chant slogans like how shameful this army is. It is bombing its own people?

We continue to do that, 'bombing our own people' that is - the COAS himself traveled to a village in FATA and apologized for an air strike that killed innocents mistakenly. There is no reason why Pakistani control of drone strikes would invite any more criticizm than Pakistani air and artillery strikes that are currently carried out.

When you look at popular criticizm of the military currently, it is not primarily over 'fighing terrorism in Pakistan', it is over the Pakistan Military 'fighting America's war and selling itslef out for dollars to the US'. US controlled drone strikes on Pakistani territory killing Pakistani civilians only enforce that position and that criticizm of the military.

Brother, this is REALITY. People will always complain whether you are doing right or wrong.

The reality is that there is a demonstrably different reaction to Pakistani military led operations and US led operations. It is 'US intervention in Pakistan' that is the main flashpoint and focus of criticizm, not simply Pakistani military operations.

 

[Awesome]

Also, if you want to read endlessly about drone strikes, see this sticky thread:

http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistans-war/23429-missile-strikes-fata.html

No one knows who is killed in the overwhelming majority of these strikes because they occur in places that are outside the true reach of Pakistani sovereignty. In effect these strikes take place in a country we could call Talibanistan, and we only hear Talibani propaganda as to who is killed. The drone strikes will stop when Talibanistan is re-captured by Pakistan.

This is not true in this case right? Wana has been retaken and has presence of Pakistan military. Don't know how far Wana is from Shawal Tehsil, according to the map there seems to be an adjacent area called Shawal in Afghanistan right across Wana. The initial argument was that its an area out of Pakistan sovereignty, which might fly for NWA but not for 90% of SWA. Attacking in these areas should be condemned as we can safely say now not only the Pakistani public are being lied to, also the American public are being lied to when you break down into the nitty gritties of this illegal action that I like to see America take on its own soil for a change.

When was the last drone attack against criminals in the US?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Now this statement of yours begs quite a wheelbarrow of Qs ::
1. Do you mean that Americans operate without reliable intel and hence their collateral damage is much higher ?

In terms of Pakistani public opinion, it doesn't matter if they operate with covert Pakistani support or not. The institutions and individuals associated with these drone strikes ( in terms of extending covert support) are the focus of harsh criticizm.

2. How do we know that the collateral damage when the PA will operate in these lawless regions will not be at least as great as incurred by the drones ?

We don't, but see my response to LGenD above.

3. How do we know that the PA in trying to reduce collateral damage will not achieve the objectives that the drones are trying to do ?

A reduction in collateral damage is a good thing, I don't see why such an effort should be criticized.

4. The previous operations in Waziristan led to massive (extra-judicial and if i may add, wanton) killing of civilians in Swat by the PA. What guarantee the PA can give that will not reoccur ?

There is no evidence to support 'massive and/or wanton killings of civilians in Swat by the PA' in the Swat Operation. We have an entire thread (perhaps more) on this forum that covered the run-up to the operation, its duration, and its aftermath. Nothing along the likes of what you alleged was ever credibly reported. Some collateral damage did occur, as it would in any conflict, but there was no 'massive and wanton killing of civilians in Swat'. The current public support enjoyed by the Army in Swat debunks your propaganda.

 

[Awesome]

The Pakistani military is already conducting operations without 'establishing guilt or innocence' - see the multiple operations in Swat, SW, Bajaur, Mohmand etc. Yet the latest PEW poll shows continued high support for the Army/Military in Pakistan, even after the Abbottabad raid.

Pakistan military has parliamentary mandate to fight the terrorists, the US has a parliamentary resolution forbidding it from carrying out any more drone attacks. Moreover I can do something about Kayani if he turns into a raving lunatic and starts killing people in Pakistan, I can't do anything about Mike Mullen if he does the same.

Yes if Pakistan was the sole operator of drones and all military operations on Pakistani soil, we would be having a very different debate, still there would be a condemnation of heavy handedness that we have come to expect out of PA, but it wouldn't be issues of legality, sovereignty and due process.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan military has parliamentary mandate to fight the terrorists, the US has a parliamentary resolution forbidding it from carrying out any more drone attacks. Moreover I can do something about Kayani if he turns into a raving lunatic and starts killing people in Pakistan, I can't do anything about Mike Mullen if he does the same.

Yes if Pakistan was the sole operator of drones and all military operations on Pakistani soil, we would be having a very different debate, still there would be a condemnation of heavy handedness that we have come to expect out of PA, but it wouldn't be issues of legality, sovereignty and due process.

IIRC, Musharraf was quoted as arguing that the US should at least consider 'painting the drones in Pakistani colors' and officially claim Pakistani control, to assauge Pakistani public opinion, yet even that suggestion was rejected.

Either the US establishment is completely stupid when it comes to understanding Pakistan (an argument that has some merit IMO) or it has taken this route deliberately to undermine public support for Pakistan's military, because it knows that US controlled drone strikes will be condemned in Pakistan, and the military criticized for not being able to stop them.

Zardari and Co. probably want the same as well, since it weakens the military.

 

[Awesome]

Moreover there is an issue of competency of these drone pilots... There have been a incident in Afghanistan where they have killed US marines! If they can kill their own troops, how many civilians did they kill and then went woops?

Two U.S. troops killed in suspected Afghan drone attack | Mail Online

Drone attacks are now killing just under a thousand people every year. Do you know how big a dent that would put on terrorism if they were all terrorists?

Rehman Malik, of the pro US PPP sell out government, also couldn't help but agree that the majority of the 900 people killed last year were civilians. That means what? At least 451 (or more) wrongful deaths? You know how the world would shake if the US would lose 451 people in wrongful deaths due to friendly fire.

Documented here:

Pakistan’s foreign ministry denounced the drone strikes and claimed to have “taken up the matter with the US at all levels.” Interior Minister Rehman Malik, flatly contradicting US claims, said that the majority of the victims of US drone strikes—more than 900 people were killed last year—were civilians, including large numbers of women and children.

Drone attacks trigger fresh crisis in US-Pakistani relations | The Global Realm

I like to see cases where America has bombed people on its own soil.... Why are Pakistanis so much more killable than Americans for the USG?

 

[Awesome]

What I don't get it why aren't more people raising holy hell on this issue that with this drone attack, even the sovereign argument has been torn to shreds.

Troops to leave SWA after completing projects: Kayani | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online

WANA has at least so much sovereignty that the COAS felt comfy enough to attend ground breaking ceremonies of infrastructure projects and give out random speeches.

If there was a house that needed attacking, couldn't the PA do it? The entire lot of these corrupt leaders have thrown FATA to the wolves and this same habit of taking it easy is why they felt courageous enough to attack kilometers outside of Islamabad. If this attitude is kept up, tomorrow India would attack Muridke and our leaders would give a statement "Next time we won't let Muridke type attacks happen".

 

[LeGenD]

The Pakistani military is already conducting operations without 'establishing guilt or innocence' - see the multiple operations in Swat, SW, Bajaur, Mohmand etc. Yet the latest PEW poll shows continued high support for the Army/Military in Pakistan, even after the Abbottabad raid.

The fact of the matter is that Pakistani public opinion can be managed and can (as in the case of the Swat and SW operations) be moved in support of military operations in FATA - it cannot be expected to be in favor of a foreign nation, especially one so reviled and distrusted as the US, conducting military operations in Pakistan.

If you cannot understand this dynamic and understand why even merley shifting control of drones strikes from US control to Pakistani control would make a significant difference, then you have a very poor understanding of Pakistan's politcal and public opinion dynamics.

How many people responded to those polls? Millions? Show me.

Criticism will CONTINUE regardless of who controls the drones. Point is that it will shift towards Pakistan army.

Being a Pakistani, I fully understand the mentality of this nation. Your understanding of Pakistan's political and public opinion dynamics could be poor. Not mine.

We continue to do that, 'bombing our own people' that is - the COAS himself traveled to a village in FATA and apologized for an air strike that killed innocents mistakenly. There is no reason why Pakistani control of drone strikes would invite any more criticizm than Pakistani air and artillery strikes that are currently carried out.

And you expect COAS to personally apologize to people on each attack gone wrong? How many times would he do this? It is not that our INTEL is always flawless.

When you look at popular criticizm of the military currently, it is not primarily over 'fighing terrorism in Pakistan', it is over the Pakistan Military 'fighting America's war and selling itslef out for dollars to the US'. US controlled drone strikes on Pakistani territory killing Pakistani civilians only enforce that position and that criticizm of the military.

The reality is that there is a demonstrably different reaction to Pakistani military led operations and US led operations. It is 'US intervention in Pakistan' that is the main flashpoint and focus of criticizm, not simply Pakistani military operations.

The perception that we are fighting America's war is coming from where? Did USA created TTP?

Cold war era policies of both USA and Pakistan are responsible for promoting militancy in Afghanistan and Pakistan (the opponent which both nations are facing in WOT). Pakistani people should not just blame USA for the current mess. Pakistan is equally responsible. Blame game on each other will not resolve our issues.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

How many people responded to those polls? Millions? Show me.

Polls may not be completely accurate, but they are conducted using scientific methodology that does offer a degree of certitude about the results, especially when the questions are relatively simple, at least in terms of a snapshot of public opinion at a particular time. And the recent poll is extremely close to the poll numbers from earlier polls, conducted over the past several years by several different organizations.

The consistency of the results from multiple polls, WRT simple questions such as 'do you support the military/Army', does indicate a degree of certitude.

What empirical evidence can you point to suggest public opinion is other than what the polls suggest?

Criticism will CONTINUE regardless of who controls the drones. Point is that it will shift towards Pakistan army.

And do you really think that the current PAF and PA Artillery strikes cause less collateral damage than drone attacks? If anything, Pakistani use of armed drones will limit collateral damage, not increase it (if drones replace PAF and Artillery strikes to any degree), and therefore 'criticizm' of the military is unlikely to increase.

You cannot just ignore the question of 'Who controls the drones' - American intevention in Pakistan is a major issue in Pakistani public opinion. Eliminating US military operations on Pakistani soil can only improve public opinion and public support for the government and military.

How many times would the COAS apologize to people on attacks gone wrong? It is not that our INTEL is always flawless.

That is not the point - the point is that our mistakes are OUR mistakes. Our COAS, military and government can be pressured and made to apologize/compensate for collateral damage - the CIA/US cannot.

Your inability to understand this simple concept is rather odd.

The perception that we are fighting America's war is coming from where? Did USA created TTP?

The 'perception' comes from the fact that the US conducts military strikes on Pakistani soil and is perceived to be an invader and occupier of Afghanistan, and is forcing/paying off the Pakistani military and government for supporting the US invasion/occupation and alowing US military operations on Pakistani soil.

Whether you agree with the perception or not is irrelevant - but the fact of the matter is that the perception exists, and so long as the Pakistani military/Government is seen as 'subserbvient to the US' they are going to find it very hard to garner support for military operations against extremists.

You can rationalize and argue against 'Pakistani public perceptions' all you want, that is not going to make them change and that is not going to overcome generations of distrust and anger towards the US.

US led/controlled military strikes in Pakistan are extremely destablizing and are hindering the GoP and Pakistan Military's own efforts against terrorism and increasing public support for those efforts.

 

[Respect4Respect01]

Tell me one thing; if innocent people are always targeted in drone attacks then why do MILITANTS try to cordon off the attacked area to retrieve the dead bodies (if any remain) in many cases? Why not police, rescue workers, and other innocent people in every such a case?

Stop generalizing on these affairs. People like you are responsible for spreading even more confusion within this already confused nation.

do u even know anything, u know after the drone attack ppl are scared to save those injured because they know another drone is waiting for them to go near to save those ppl.

 

[TruthSeeker]

US message in drone strikes: If Pakistan doesn't take on Taliban, we will

By Howard LaFranchi, Staff writer / June 28, 2011
Washington

US drone attacks targeting militants in Pakistan’s North Waziristan region Monday sent a “we told you” message to Pakistan’s leadership: If you won’t take on the Taliban and other extremists crossing over to fight in Afghanistan, we will.

The Obama administration has stepped up drone strikes inside Pakistan over the past year – in particular in the North Waziristan region abutting Afghanistan in recent months. Pakistani officials have called publicly for the strikes to cease, insisting they alienate the general population.

At the same time, the Pakistani military has also promised – as recently as late May – that an offensive against North Waziristan’s havens was imminent. But no such offensive into North Waziristan, stronghold of groups like the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, has been launched.

The strikes this week, which reportedly killed up to 21 militants, suggest the US has no intention of waiting.

The attacks occur as US-Pakistan relations, never easy, pass through a particularly tense period in the aftermath of the successful American raid that killed Osama bin Laden in his compound not far from the Pakistani capital.

Pakistan has ordered a steep reduction in the number of US intelligence agents and special-operations forces in the country, while some in the US Congress advocate cuts in aid to Pakistan. Some officials and experts on both sides conclude it’s time for a divorce between the two countries.

But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week that, even though conducting diplomatic relations with Pakistan can be a “very outraging experience,” there remain compelling national security and regional stability reasons for the US to offer Pakistan substantial defense and development assistance.

Speaking at the same hearing, Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the senior Republican on the committee, offered a succinct argument for why the US needs a strategic partnership with Pakistan.

“Despite the death of Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups maintain a strong presence. And there is no question that the threat of these groups – combined with worries about state collapse, a Pakistani war with India, the safety of the Pakistani nuclear arsenal, and Pakistan’s intersection with other states in the region – make it a strategically vital country, worth the cost of engagement,” Senator Lugar said.

The drone strikes do not contradict that argument, but they also convey a message that the US has certain expectations of the relationship – and that the US will not sit by if it determines its national security is threatened, as President Obama stated in his June 22 speech on Afghanistan policy.

“So long as I am president, the United States will never tolerate a safe haven for those who aim to kill us,” Mr. Obama said.

Secretary Clinton has said she told Pakistani officials when she visited the country after the bin Laden operation that the US has set benchmarks for Pakistan to meet. Those include taking a more aggressive stance against terrorist groups and senior Al Qaeda leaders and supporting Taliban reconciliation in Afghanistan.

It is not clear if Clinton, who was accompanied by Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed upon the Pakistanis the importance of undertaking an offensive into North Waziristan. Some Pakistani military commanders announced publicly in the days following the Americans’ visit that such an operation would be forthcoming.

Some Pakistan experts caution against the US pressing for something that might end up backfiring. A Pakistani military push into North Waziristan could end up further destabilizing a precariously fragile Pakistani state, says Michael Kugelman, a South Asia expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington.

“The US either doesn’t understand or chooses to disregard that having Pakistani forces enter that particular tribal area would have huge blowback,” Mr. Kugelman says. “It would very likely destabilize Pakistan more than it is now.”

Why? Militants in the region primarily focused on routing the US from Afghanistan might be flushed out of North Waziristan, Kugelman argues – and they might end up in neighboring territories where the militants are more focused on undermining the Pakistani state.

“If you have all these different groups banding together, you essentially have the conditions for the insurgency against the Pakistani government to increase,” Kugelman says. “The US has to consider that it has a much more vital interest in a stable Pakistan than any other interest in Afghanistan.”

US message in drone strikes: If Pakistan doesn't take on Taliban, we will - CSMonitor.com

 

[Awesome]

Tell me one thing; if innocent people are always targeted in drone attacks then why do MILITANTS try to cordon off the attacked area to retrieve the dead bodies (if any remain) in many cases? Why not police, rescue workers, and other innocent people in every such a case?

Stop generalizing on these affairs. People like you are responsible for spreading even more confusion within this already confused nation.

1. Civilians are not targeted but when you fire so many bombs you're bound to kill a lot of civilians. You're using bombs to do what bullets should be doing

2. Militants cordoning off may have happened a few times, but generally you tend to pick up the dead not leave them lying around. On the Drone Cam, they just see a bearded guy pulling the bodies out, assume they are militants, shoot them too!