White House Approves Plan for Pakistan Drone Expansion

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I don't get it. Why is the U.S. doing this stuff and not the PA? We don't even have to sell the drones, we could lease the PA the hardware and operators. I doubt I'm the only one to think of such an approach. So is there some resistance in the Pakistani leadership to PA control of drone operations?

The Pakistani leadership, going back to Musharraf, has repeatedly asked for the transfer of drones to Pakistan in some fashion. The objections to that have come from the US, not Pakistan.

 

[ajpirzada]

btw i really lik the way americans work. before they start doin anything, they do atleast an year long propaganda to convince the world. none of them have even seen mullah omar in quetta or anywhere in balochistan. and they if they have, they have failed to provide evidence other than their rhetoric. but now a lie said thousand times has become one big truth.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Pakistan's response to this suggestion:

Foreign Ministry spokesman Abdul Basit said there were limits to Pakistani cooperation, and the drone attacks were counterproductive.

‘This has never been part of our discussions. There are clear red-lines as far as we're concerned,’ he said when asked if there were any talks between Washington and Islamabad on expansion of drone attacks to Baluchistan.

‘We have clearly conveyed our red-lines to them.’
DAWN.COM | World | Pakistan opposes expanded US drone attacks

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but now a lie said thousand times has become one big truth.

Because of an acquiescent media and populace, that buy into the snake oil pushed by their establishment without any skepticism or questions - despite being sold lies just recently about WMD's in Iraq.

To the West, swallowing these lies from their establishment also serves the purpose of deflecting blame for their failures onto others, especially when you look at how they revere their military - its not that the West has failed, it has failed because someone else did something that they could not control.

 

[Solomon2]

"The Pakistani leadership, going back to Musharraf, has repeatedly asked for the transfer of drones to Pakistan in some fashion. The objections to that have come from the US, not Pakistan."

When the U.S. was operating with in the border and tribal areas with its own intelligence sources, U.S. control made some sense. But in Baluchistan? In Quetta? It's all going to be PA-directed. Why not give Pakistan the flag and let the PA seek the glory or blame of the battle?

‘We have clearly conveyed our red-lines to them.’

From what I read in the on-line Pakistani newspapers, the FM's initial response to Obama's speech earlier this week was concern that Pakistan would be left up the creek without a paddle after 2011. The threat to Pakistani sovereignty contained in the speech was ignored. Protests about drone attacks thus appear pro-forma and of little concern to Pakistan's leadership.

 

[Comet]

I thought they already expanded it. They have been attacking Pakistani Territory for some time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

When the U.S. was operating with in the border and tribal areas with its own intelligence sources, U.S. control made some sense. But in Baluchistan? In Quetta? It's all going to be PA-directed. Why not give Pakistan the flag and let the PA seek the glory or blame of the battle?

That is a question to ask the US government - the refusal to do so, anywhere, likely is one of the sources of distrust and tension on the Pakistani side.

From what I read in the on-line Pakistani newspapers, the FM's initial response to Obama's speech earlier this week was concern that Pakistan would be left up the creek without a paddle after 2011. The threat to Pakistani sovereignty contained in the speech was ignored. Protests about drone attacks thus appear pro-forma and of little concern to Pakistan's leadership.

This is also not the first time the comment about 'red lines' has been made by the Pakistani leadership. The 'red lines' came about after the SF raid in a village in FATA that I referenced on the other thread.

As to the speech - I listened to it and read it later - I did not draw the inferences from it that you did, and perhaps neither did the GoP. Secondly, the official GoP position has been that they are studying the new policy and will expound upon the GoP's views on it when it is complete - that does not equate with focusing on the withdrawal in 2011, though that too is a big concern.

 

[jnd3x0]

wth US wants?? why pakistan army is quiet on issuse??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

wth US wants?? why pakistan army is quiet on issuse??

It is a media report, and you have the Pakistani Foreign Office's comments on the issue.

 

[S-2]

"Because of an acquiescent media and populace, that buy into the snake oil pushed by their establishment without any skepticism or questions..."

B.S. Your own DAILY NEWS discusses Haqqani's presence in N. Waziristan. Your own tribal warlords fight in Afghanistan from your lands-Nazir and Bahadur. That, by itself, is more than adequate to suggest open collusion. Fact is that these men are on your lands and simple sense would suggest that Omar, as example, is far too valuable to be in Afghanistan, far too old to be humping the hills, and far too safe in Pakistan.

That's where he is.

So let's forget Omar for a moment. Voila! Gone. Fini.

Explain the presence of Haqqani. Explain your own warlords. Most of all, explain the central issue of eight years of sanctuary. I don't care which name you dance around, that's the central problem.

 

[PakShaheen79]

When the govt will discuss expanding the drone attacks to South Punjab??

First of all Pakistani govt. is NOT discussing it. It is what White House has decided. Second of all, we must talk about ending drone attacks in FATA rather than expanding them to other areas.

 

[PakShaheen79]

"Because of an acquiescent media and populace, that buy into the snake oil pushed by their establishment without any skepticism or questions..."

B.S. Your own DAILY NEWS discusses Haqqani's presence in N. Waziristan. Your own tribal warlords fight in Afghanistan from your lands-Nazir and Bahadur. That, by itself, is more than adequate to suggest open collusion. Fact is that these men are on your lands and simple sense would suggest that Omar, as example, is far too valuable to be in Afghanistan, far too old to be humping the hills, and far too safe in Pakistan.

That's where he is.

So let's forget Omar for a moment. Voila! Gone. Fini.

Explain the presence of Haqqani. Explain your own warlords. Most of all, explain the central issue of eight years of sanctuary. I don't care which name you dance around, that's the central problem.

BS. For the sake of argument lets accept these assumptions that Haqqani is in Pakistan and Nazir and Buhader are really fighting against US/NATO in Afghanistan and not against Pakistan army inside Pakistan. Tell me how, all this bring Baluchistan in equation. Today he is in Baluchistan, after drone attacks there.. What excuse US of A will come.. He is in Karachi or Lahore?? Huh,

Tell me why Pakistan army must make enemies of itself when it already is fighting against TTP that has all support from US controlled Afghanistan???

Would you mind if tomorrow Hikmatyar say,"OK! I am not gonna fight against US and my own government"? I don't think you would or would you, Mr. Over smart??

 

[Awesome]

Judging from how the previous deal was brokered, this may have clandestine Pakistani approval as well. We know that Pakistanis were able to get Americans to attack TTP just as much as they attacked the supporters of the Afghan Taliban. Would it be possible to attack the BLA this time around as well?

Of course there is a much much much larger population density that we're talking about here when compared to the tribal areas. If the same thing happens with them as it did in the tribal areas where many of the victims of collateral damage from the bombings turned towards the Taliban in hopes for revenge, it is mission accomplished for the Taliban and America will run away soon as their media reports are suggesting, leaving Pakistan as the sole loser.

 

[ajpirzada]

"Because of an acquiescent media and populace, that buy into the snake oil pushed by their establishment without any skepticism or questions..."

B.S. Your own DAILY NEWS discusses Haqqani's presence in N. Waziristan. Your own tribal warlords fight in Afghanistan from your lands-Nazir and Bahadur. That, by itself, is more than adequate to suggest open collusion. Fact is that these men are on your lands and simple sense would suggest that Omar, as example, is far too valuable to be in Afghanistan, far too old to be humping the hills, and far too safe in Pakistan.

That's where he is.

So let's forget Omar for a moment. Voila! Gone. Fini.

Explain the presence of Haqqani. Explain your own warlords. Most of all, explain the central issue of eight years of sanctuary. I don't care which name you dance around, that's the central problem.

this is exactly how bramdagh bugti is in afghanistan and attackin pakistanis everyday. y then you dont get him? bec he is not botherin u. similar is the case with indian involvement in pakistan from afghanistan. u r not bothered coz they are not botherin u.
y should it not be similar when it comes to pakistan. y should we target those who are not botherin us. we have already got our hand ful.

balochistan equation has been a prapoganda with no proof. if u do have some proof of taliban shura other than the planned leaks and many news articles then please do share.

also about al qaeda please do share the actionable intelligence if u have any but no all u have are ur educated assumptions.

 

[ajpirzada]

secondly lik i said many times before. drone strikes will only make things worse. more pakistanis will hate u guys and therefore more pakistanis will join this fight against u which means more pakistanis will go to afghanistan.
and when this happens then u will say: werent we rit in sayin that balochistan is the hub of taliban?
inreturn ill repeat myself while u ll plan to strike karachi, lahore and isb.