Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Secret memos reveal explicit nature of U.S., Pakistan agreement on drones

    Pakistan briefed on drone hits and picked targets for the CIA, reported Washington Post.
    All those who are merciful with the cruel will come to be cruel to the merciful.
    -Talmud Kohelet Rabbah, 7:16.

  • #2
    Timely leak.
    To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

    Comment


    • #3
      The reported degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes, if consistent, appears to come close to meeting the Pakistani request for 'joint US-Pakistan drone operations', which raises the question of why there is so much opposition on the US side to take the process one step further and make the process transparent and official (in terms of joint operations)?

      Corollary - if the degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes has been (or is) to the extent alleged, then what does that say about allegations that 'Pakistan cannot be trusted to be involved in joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'?

      The reality (Pakistani opposition to US drone strikes and US allegations of Pakistani complicity) may be far more 'grey' than made out to be in the public sphere ...
      Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 24 Oct 13,, 12:45.
      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
        The reported degree of cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes, if consistent, appears to come close to meeting the Pakistani request for 'joint US-Pakistan drone operations', which raises the question of why there is so much opposition on the US side to take the process one step further and make the process transparent and official (in terms of joint operations)?
        US side? It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...

        BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now.
        Last edited by Firestorm; 24 Oct 13,, 18:10.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
          US side? It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...

          BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now.
          All I can say about AM is that I wish I had some of his stamina and aptitude for spinning for some highly litigious cases and I would be able to wear out and frustrate my opponents by now.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
            BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now.
            I made a prediction of AM's reaction about a similar (though hypothetical) situation: Secret documents revealing Pakistan's role in something long denied.

            Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
            All I can say about AM is that I wish I had some of his stamina and aptitude for spinning for some highly litigious cases and I would be able to wear out and frustrate my opponents by now.
            I actually have a case that I would love for him to represent me and my colleagues on. That kind of stamina would be priceless.
            “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by TopHatter View Post
              I made a prediction of AM's reaction about a similar (though hypothetical) situation: Secret documents revealing Pakistan's role in something long denied.

              I actually have a case that I would love for him to represent me and my colleagues on. That kind of stamina would be priceless.
              If the defence is strong, he would tire you to death. And in the afterlife you'd think, jail time was probably better.
              Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                US side?
                Yes - the proposals on 'official' joint US-Pakistan drone operations have primarily been made from the Pakistani side, with the US in opposition, as well as most of the members on this board, given their responses when I made similar suggestions.
                It is the GoP which has questions to answer. Like why they have been lying to their people all this time regarding the Drone strikes being without their permission...
                If the reports are true, the Pakistani government certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, the US Government needs to explain why it has been lying to its citizens and legislature about 'Pakistani complicity in terrorism', if indeed the reports about all this 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes' are correct.
                BTW, all your frothing at the mouth protests here about the Drone strikes being "illegal" look rather silly now.
                As does the strident opposition of many opposed to the idea of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistan undermining the program due to complicity'.
                Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 24 Oct 13,, 20:17.
                Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                  Yes - the proposals on 'official' joint US-Pakistan drone operations have primarily been made from the Pakistani side, with the US in opposition, as well as most of the members on this board, given their responses when I made similar suggestions.
                  These "proposals" are meaningless since it is clear that the Drone strikes are already joint US-Pakistani ones. Several people had argued in the old thread(s) as well that the GoP was indulging in equivocation and double-speak regarding this.

                  If the reports are true, the Pakistani government certainly has a lot to answer for. That said, the US Government needs to explain why it has been lying to its citizens and legislature about 'Pakistani complicity in terrorism', if indeed the reports about all this 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes' are correct.
                  Perhaps you missed this part of the article

                  Distrust amid cooperation
                  The records also expose the distrust and dysfunction that has afflicted U.S.-Pakistani relations even amid the undeclared collaboration on drone strikes.

                  Some files describe tense meetings in which senior U.S. officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, confront their Pakistani counterparts with U.S. intelligence purporting to show Pakistan’s ties to militant groups involved in attacks on American forces, a charge that Islamabad has consistently denied.

                  In one case, Clinton cited “cell phones and written material from dead bodies that point all fingers” at a militant group based in Pakistan, according to a Pakistani diplomatic cable dated Sept. 20, 2011. “The U.S. had intelligence proving ISI was involved with these groups,” she is cited as saying, referring to Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency.
                  ...
                  There's more. Read the whole article please.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                    As does the strident opposition of many opposed to the idea of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistan undermining the program due to complicity'.
                    Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones. Sure, why don't you ask them for the F-22 while you're at it? It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know. The status quo is working perfectly well for the GoP and the CIA. Why fix it if it ain't broke?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                      These "proposals" are meaningless since it is clear that the Drone strikes are already joint US-Pakistani ones.
                      If they were 'already joint US-Pakistan drone strikes', then why the opposition to the proposal for 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'? Why not state that 'for all intents and purposes the strikes are joint strikes'?
                      Several people had argued in the old thread(s) as well that the GoP was indulging in equivocation and double-speak regarding this.
                      And they had also argued that 'Pakistan could not be trusted with joint US-Pakistan drone strikes', in response to which I had argued, as I have here, that IF the US and Pakistan were in fact cooperating on drone strikes, then allegations of 'complicity' were flawed and 'complicity' could not be used as an excuse for opposing the proposal for 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes'.
                      Perhaps you missed this part of the article
                      Well, if you believe the report, and the claims of 'extensive cooperation between the US and Pakistan on drone strikes', then the account attributed to Clinton does not appear to have constituted a major issue since 'there was extensive cooperation'. If that 'extensive cooperation' stopped at some point around that time, then that means the Pakistani government was no longer authorizing drone strikes or cooperating with the US on them, which means that the justifications of the legality of US drone strikes on the basis of 'GoP approval for drone strikes' are invalid.
                      There's more. Read the whole article please.
                      I did, before my first comment on this thread. Again, either the US and Pakistan were extensively cooperating on drone strikes, which calls into question the US media campaign arguing 'complicity', or the report is exaggerating the extent of the cooperation and Pakistani approval of the drone strikes, in which case my position on the legality of the strikes stands.
                      Last edited by Agnostic Muslim; 24 Oct 13,, 22:51.
                      Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                      https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                        Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones.
                        The Pakistani proposal involved either Pakistani operation of the drones or joint US-Pakistani controlled drone strikes. Neither one of the two proposals requires the sale of US drones to Pakistan (they could have been sold, leased, or remained in US control with Pakistani officials involved at the command centers for the drones). Your interpretation of my comments as 'demanding the US sell Pakistan armed drones' is inaccurate.
                        It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know.
                        And if you read those earlier threads I had argued that if that were indeed the case, then people should also accept the fact that the media circus around the 'complicity of Pakistan with terrorists' was also largely exaggerated. Whether the status quo was working or not for the GoP and US, the degree of opposition to my suggestions of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistani complicity' suggested that many posters here did not themselves believe that the US was cooperating with Pakistan on these strikes because that negated their own arguments of complicity. As I said on those threads, you can't have it both ways.
                        Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah
                        https://twitter.com/AgnosticMuslim

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          All I saw in the report was that Pakistan was being informed of the drone strikes post event, and a piece at the end where American officials outlayed their concerns over tailbunnies being tipped off if the US passed the intel to Pakistan prior to a strike.
                          Apart from Pakistan's repeated denials of no cooperation with the strikes being undermined, what's new?
                          In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                          Leibniz

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            The Pakistani proposal involved either Pakistani operation of the drones or joint US-Pakistani controlled drone strikes. Neither one of the two proposals requires the sale of US drones to Pakistan (they could have been sold, leased, or remained in US control with Pakistani officials involved at the command centers for the drones). Your interpretation of my comments as 'demanding the US sell Pakistan armed drones' is inaccurate.
                            None of the above scenarios are remotely possible. Even if the CIA was not convinced that someone in the Pakistani establishment was on the Talib side, these drones are state-of-the-art; there is absolutely no way the US would share their operations with Pakistan, especially since you guys are in bed with the Chinese.

                            Originally posted by Agnostic Muslim View Post
                            And if you read those earlier threads I had argued that if that were indeed the case, then people should also accept the fact that the media circus around the 'complicity of Pakistan with terrorists' was also largely exaggerated. Whether the status quo was working or not for the GoP and US, the degree of opposition to my suggestions of 'joint US-Pakistan drone strikes' on the basis of 'Pakistani complicity' suggested that many posters here did not themselves believe that the US was cooperating with Pakistan on these strikes because that negated their own arguments of complicity. As I said on those threads, you can't have it both ways.
                            I'm sure this topic has been done to death in the earlier threads, but there isn't a single power centre in Pakistan. You could have the PA cooperating with the CIA on drone strikes on one hand and the ISI feeding the Haqqanis on the other. So yeah, Pakistan IS having it both ways right now.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by cataphract View Post
                              Your idea of "joint" drone strikes went as far as demanding the US sell Pakistan the drones. Sure, why don't you ask them for the F-22 while you're at it? It was obvious from the outset that the strikes occurred with the connivance if not the complicity of the GoP, and the news item just confirms what we already know. The status quo is working perfectly well for the GoP and the CIA. Why fix it if it ain't broke?
                              Wonder what the going price for an operational US drone is in Beijing?
                              sigpic

                              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X