Pakistan Tells U.S. to Halt Drones...
 

So, about this whole the World loves Obama thing we were told was going to happen..

I rather be feared then loved, but I guess this is what Love gets you...

_______

Pakistan Tells U.S. to Halt Drones .

Pakistan has privately demanded the Central Intelligence Agency suspend drone strikes against militants on its territory, one of the U.S.'s most effective weapons against al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, officials said.

Protesters in Peshawar, Pakistan in March condemned U.S. drone strikes.
.Pakistan has also asked the U.S. to reduce the number of U.S. intelligence and Special Operations personnel in the country, according to U.S. and Pakistani officials.

Pakistan Tells CIA to Halt Drone Strikes - WSJ.com


-------

US-Pakistan relations facing biggest crisis since 9/11, officials sayDrone attacks, CIA activities and lack of progress in Afghanistan are fuelling a rift between the US and Pakistan

Bitter disputes over covert CIA activities and drone attacks inside Pakistan, lack of progress over peace talks in Afghanistan, and rising Islamist-led opposition to the presence of foreign forces in the region are fuelling the biggest crisis in US-Pakistan relations since the 9/11 attacks, Pakistani politicians, army sources and intelligence officers say.

Pakistan is seen by Washington and London as a vital ally in the "war on terror", while the Pakistani government and army say they remain committed partners 10 years after the Afghan conflict began.

But harsh US criticism of Islamabad's counter-terrorism campaigns in Pakistan's western tribal areas, repeated in a White House report last week, and "blowback" from the US military surge in Afghanistan are testing the relationship to breaking point, officials warn.

US-Pakistan relations facing biggest crisis since 9/11, officials say | World news | The Guardian

---------------------------

I'm sure a lot of past leaders preferred being feared over being loved or liked, but most of them weren't too pleasant to live under.

That being said, I doubt Obama had much influence over this anymore than McCain or any other possible president would have.

Hmm.

Mubarak was feared, not loved.
Ben Ali was feared not loved.
Ali Abdullah Saleh is feared, not loved.
King Fahd is feared, not loved.
Bashar al-Assad is feared, not loved.
Qaddafi? Feared, not loved.

Mubarak is out. Ben Ali is out. Saleh is teetering. Assad is questionable. Qaddaffi is teetering.

I'd rather not have to watch my back all the time.

We should just comply & stop using drones. Instead, use B2's & carpet bomb the talibunnies back into the 7th century world they desire. That's all. Dresden, anyone?

When did we declare war on Pakistan? Since when has using drones been a legal law enforcement measure? Does Obama the President remember anything Obama the Candidate or Senator ever said?

As far as I remember, Obama the Candidate wanted to start the war with Pakistan...

then you remember wrong, he may drone bombed the hell outta them, but he never advocated war with them. The leaders in Pakistan can't even control their bowels, let alone their people. I am sure the CIA has plan "B" somewhere, as we all knew this was coming.

They sense weakness. They see that we will not stand with those who stand with us, and are unwilling to further antagonize that portion of their population.

Wanting to protect their civilians from being slaughtered is "sensing weakness?"


the fuck?

They are trying to appease the populations in the ungoverned tribal regions. Who kill just as many Pakistanis in Pakistan as they do Afghans in Afghanistan.

It's not a law enforcement operation in the first place.

Authorization for Use of Military Force- Sept. 18, 2001 SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons. Basically we declared war on AQ and anyone who harbored them such as the Taliban. And they are known to be in Pakistan. And congress has continued it's authorization every year since 2001 by continuing to fund the war via special appropriations bills.

The Pentagon tried that in Vietnam and it didn't work, despite killing millions of Vietnamese. Air power doesn't seem to be doing much against Khaddaphy, either. Maybe the Pentagon should carpet bomb itself, and throw in Washington, DC, too, and see how that works out.

7th century? Some would say even further.

I read 'In the Line of Fire', the book former Pakistani president Musharraf wrote a while back. In the book Musharraf said that soon after 9/11 Rich Armitage threatened to bomb Pakistan all the way back to the stone age if they didn't co-operate with the US.

Of course, bombing a sovereign country and sending ground troops there is not an act of war because it is US -- a great force for good, that is doing it. If it was the other way round: Pakistan started bombing US, then it would've been an outragious military agression! http://www.uspoliticsonline.net/images/smilies/lol.gif

YouTube - Obama= WAR in Pakistan

Obama did, in fact, advocate invading Pakistan - without their permission - to wage war on the terrorists:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.

Obama Says He Would Take Fight To Pakistan - washingtonpost.com Of course, that was Candidate Obama, and there's little evidence President Obama ever met him.....

Does dropping bombs indiscriminately from a height, often killing and maiming civilians not constitute terrorism anyway?

What the U.S. labels terror being fought via terrorism.

Call it whatever you like, but if you fuck with the bull, you get the horns.

I don't exactly like the fact that we get so involved with Pakistan's affairs, but the lack of control their government has over the remote regions is what makes these areas prime targets.

It's not like we're doing this unprovoked.

I don't recall Middle Eastern innocent civilians fucking with any bull.

The fundamental problem here are two fold.

1. The Obama administration's position is that it can conduct a war on terror by only using drone air strikes, rather than boos on the ground. The challenge is that in order to confirm an air strike target, you need good intelligence as to what, where and when to target.
2. The Obama administration's position is that any people taken into custody are to be treated by the Army field manual, with no harsh interrogations to obtain intelligence, nor rendition to the person's country of origin for further interrogation and intelligence gathering

The two positions are valid positions, however, they compromise each other's effectiveness.

So the administration ends up using drone air strikes and sometimes they have bad intelligence and some civilians are killed.

If you want to change that, you'll need better intelligence, but you are prevented from obtaining the needed intelligence. Pakistan intelligence service is riddled with Al Qaeda moles, so no useful intelligence is coming from there.

Other administrations have chosen other solutions to this problem, much to the ridicule by many who are not charged with making the tough decisions.

This administration has chosen this solution, and is also being ridiculed by others, who are also not charged with making the tough decisions.

I'm sure that from administration's perspective this is 'no-win' scenario, with no good solutions. I attribute this to how unconventional this particular conflict is.

Yes, but some of the extremists living in these areas have been attacking Afghanis and running back across the Pakistan border for refuge.

This requires that we attack in response.