My underlying feeling on hearing this on NPR this morning could be summed up as "Oh, boy." Or, substitute the appropriate profanity for "boy".
With luck, this is an isolated incident. But with the increasing political turbulence in Pakistan and our continued, active military presence in two other countries in the region, I have a sinking feeling about this.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How would they know it's a drone launched missile?
I don't really have a specific doubt one way or the other that it's a US missile, but there are several types of weapons with various launch forms that can kill 11 or more people.
Besides, this isn't an isolated incident. Assuming it's us, we've been doing stuff like this for months, and will continue to do so in the future. I will however keep an eye out to see if McCain or someone else makes a comment about making attacks inside Pakistan.
It's inopportune in the timing, since Zardari is struggling to assert some sort of control over an entrenched military establishment, but I'm not sure we can wait however long it takes for him to do so. Musharraf wouldn't do anything about these regions, and he was basically on our payroll. Our next treaty with Pakistan is going to involve big amounts of cash, just like in previous deals, but hopefully Congress will keep a much closer eye on where it is going, since only a tiny fraction of funds earmarked for terrorism fighting have actually been spent for that purpose. The rest have gone to bolster forces along the Indian or Kashmir border to prepare for an Indian attack or for that matter for an attack on India, which isn't even close to the intended purpose of those funds.
In a perfect world, we would have gotten Pakistan to help police these regions before we went in, or, we would have gotten Musharraf, and/or Zardari to do so afterward, but that appears unlikely in the near term, and in the meantime, I don't think we can allow the Pakistani border to be a shield for enemies in the region.
Our justification for invading Afghanistan was that it was a country harboring the terrorists that attacked us. Well, if Pakistan is willing to allow those same people safe haven, then they put themselves into the same category as we put Afghanistan. I don't by any stretch think we should declare war on Pakistan obviously, but I also think we should stop fooling ourselves into think we can treat them with kid gloves and still achieve our goals.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Drone missle attacks have been going on for the last several months. They've been incredibly effective at eliminating al Qaida and limiting civilian casualties. Usually they are provided intel from Pakistani spotters, who call in coordinates. The drones circle long enough to visually verify the target, then the missles are launched.
Also, as noted in the article the drones are not operated by the US military. Rather they are run by the CIA. The military maintains a willful ignorance with regards to their operation, providing diplomatic cover I suppose.
Pakistan's government generally issues outraged statements after such attacks, but there is evidence they are tacitly, if not actively, supporting the missions. The most recent interesting news about the drone attacks is not that they're still occuring (in fact with increasing frequency), but the revelation (due to updated commercial imagery on Google Earth) that they weren't being launched over the border from Afghanistan as had been assumed, but were evidently being staged from a base in Pakistan. Which means US personnel on the ground in Pakistan, which is a pretty big incursion into state sovereignty unless you have explicit authorization from the government. If such authorization exists, it remains unreported.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Pakistan's government generally issues outraged statements after such attacks, but there is evidence they are tacitly, if not actively, supporting the missions.
Which shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Not being supportive means losing billions in aid from the US and means a very unfriendly ear in Washington. But at the same time they can't openly support the attacks or they anger their own population so much that it would create even more dangerous instability. Zardari is walking a fine line between what it takes to not piss off the people and what it takes to not piss off Washington.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: It could have been an attack by the Protoss
That's not much of an issue, then. The probe's base 5 attack is not enhanced by the ground weapon upgrade.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, if Pakistan is willing to allow those same people safe haven, then they put themselves into the same category as we put Afghanistan.
There is a difference between active obstruction, as in the case of the Taliban and extraditing OBL, and just being unable to exert control over a given region, as with Pakistan. A weak ally is still an ally. Although you'd think that there would be a strong case for giving their government a few thousand soldiers and some air support, if their own military is so incompetent/unwilling.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Their military would perform a coup if they thought the US was exercising undue influence in internal affairs. Treading with a certain amount of care is necessary if there's any hope of their government continuing its slow reform.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you can make an argument that Pakistan doesn't actually have the ability to combat the people in Waziristan and other places with terrorist influence, they have the manpower and the weapons (that we've sold them for years) to do so, but they don't. When it comes to fighting I don't think their military is incompetent, I think they are unwilling, for a number of reasons.
So when a nation has the ability to do something about it but chooses not to, where does that leave them? The currently government under Zardari would probably like to do something about it, but he can't, both because of his weak hold over the military and because of a large number of people in his constituency that would riot if he tried (to say nothing of what the military would do). I think on the other hand, some of the actual people in these torn regions would probably welcome some government interference.
quote:Although you'd think that there would be a strong case for giving their government a few thousand soldiers and some air support, if their own military is so incompetent/unwilling.
Give them the troops and air support? They wouldn't do anything with it. Operate in their air space and on the ground with their permission? Sure. I'm willing to send in troops to do a job that they won't, but I wouldn't give troops and materiel to a government that has shown a steadfast unwillingness to use them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Their military would perform a coup if they thought the US was exercising undue influence in internal affairs. Treading with a certain amount of care is necessary if there's any hope of their government continuing its slow reform.
Do you truly call what's currently happening in Pakistan a "slow reform"? I'd be more inclined to call it a "slow cluster#*&@".
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh, that might be closer. But they do finally have a civilian gov't, and a military coup would virtually certainly be a bigger step backwards than the current ones.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the combination of the attack with the relatively new government, the movement towards latter Sharia law (and the possible attempt to placate the more radical Islamic factions that it may indicate), and the civil unrest in the face of the new leadership's unwillingness to follow through with its campaign promise to reinstate the chief justice of the Supreme court that I found disturbing. Apparently said leadership just turned 180 on the latter ; hopefully, a good sign. Pakistan, and Obama's apparent willingness to wield military force there if he believes it necessary, still has me uneasy.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
An Irani developed spy drone was shot down by the US military somewhere between 10 and 80 miles over the Irani border into Iraq.
It's been known for awhile that Iran had drone technology, but the capabilities have been somewhat opaque (Iran claims to have drones with a 600 mile flight radius; the ones shot down so far, including the one just shot down over Iraq, have about a 100 mile radius). I have not yet seen any reports of weaponized drones (like the ones the CIA is flying in Pakistan) but I can't imagine they're far behind.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
