Droning On About Pakistan
POSTED BY: Kwicko
UPDATED: Friday, February 6, 2026 20:08
VIEWED: 1857
PAGE 1 of 3
Okay, there are some things going on in and around Pakistan that have been really bothering me, and I've been letting them percolate while I mull them over, but I think it's time we start having a discussion about these things.
In the last couple weeks, President Obama has been coming under pressure from some of his generals, who want him to expand unmanned drone attacks into more areas of Pakistan, including expanding those attacks into the city of Quetta, the largest city in the Balochistan province of western Pakistan, near the border with Afghanistan.
Quetta is a city of 850,000 people, which puts it roughly at the same population as Austin, Texas, where I live. And the generals and apparently the Joint Chiefs of Staff want the Administration to unleash more Predator attacks, putting Hellfire missiles inside the city.
Think about that. Launching missile attacks into civilian areas of a large city, in a country we're not only not at war with, but whom we CLAIM is our ally in the area. What does that say about us?
Things that trouble me about this aren't just the overt actions and the collateral damage and deaths that are certain to follow (horrific as those actions and deaths would be). Some of the things that worry me are philosophical.
1) How do we justify it? Specifically, how do we justify it not only to the government of Pakistan, which will surely be destabilized by this action if it is indeed carried out, but how do we justify it to the world at large? By what legal right do we launch attacks on civilian populations of our allies? How can we be trusted in anything we do, if this is how we treat our "allies"?
2) Is it an invasion? Some sources have claimed that it's not an "invasion", because we're not sending SOLDIERS into Pakistan, but rather unmanned aerial drones. Couldn't it be argued that we really weren't attacked militarily on 9/11, since Al Qaeda didn't send an invasion force of soldiers to hijack planes, but rather used civilians in civilian airliners? Do you think we'd buy that line of thinking if it were presented to us? And if not, why should anyone else buy what we're selling? Likewise, if Iran decided to launch a nuclear missile our direction, couldn't they claim it wasn't really an invasion, since there were no soldiers aboard? ;)
3) Are we doing it just because we can, and they can't (yet)? Think about it. We have unmanned drones capable of staying aloft for hours (days even), and capable of launching deadly attacks while being controlled hundreds - or even thousands - of miles away. As of now, we're the only nation with this capability, at least at this level. We feel we have an advantage, and we should damned well use it. As such, we seem to be writing the rules to favor US in this area, which might be all fine and good until Al Qaeda gets their hands on something similar. Think about that for a bit. Our "justification" for wanting to launch attacks into the city of Quetta is that we think there are Al Qaeda cells hiding out there and planning further attacks against us; therefore, we are completely justified in sending aerial drones to attack and kill them wherever they may be, collateral damage be damned. As one author put it recently, "If there is one Al Qaeda target in a building with 34 innocents, then 35 people are going to die that day." By that kind of thinking, wouldn't others be completely justified in firing missiles at CIA headquarters in Langley, or at Blackwater's headquarters nearby? After all, there is very good intelligence that much planning and logistical support for attacks on other nations went on in those places...
ETA: I got the title from Dan Carlin's wonderful "Common Sense" podcast of the same name. Download it here:
http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/csarchive
And if you like history, check out his Hardcore History podcasts as well.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'd like to add two op-ed pieces from my favorite foreign corespondent... who just happens to be a long time expert on the region in question
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/fed-up-with-karzai-
try-zardari.aspx
An analysis of past and current Pakistan politics
" Washington is finally getting some of the democracy it has long been calling for in Pakistan. The result is a disaster for US “Afpak” policy.
The Obama administration is fast discovering that its man in Islamabad, President Asif Ali Zardari, may be an even bigger ethical and managerial liability than its overseer in Kabul, President Hamid Karzai. "
My feel, from this piece and others... Pakistan will remove Zardari, either legally or through a miltary coup. This might not be bad, if not for the drone attacks and American intervention in the area, any new leader would have to take a stand...
Second,
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/some-things-we-lear
ned-in-.aspx
A look at where the US is involved world wide and what it costs
The interesting thing is the likely hood of anyone born in Afghanistan travelling to the US and taking the fight to the Americans is very remote... but Pakistan, Yemen, West Africa... all have groups of educated, English speaking people who will not be happy at how their country and their people are treated at the hands of US policy and would be recruited to do something about it.
Hitting targets without good intel or even common sense has been going on longer than Obama, or Bush
remember Bill Clinton Bombs an Aspirin Factory
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/khartoumbomb.html
Reagans shelling of Lebanon
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19840209&id=SNUVAAAAIBA
J&sjid=OBIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5687,1690672
Hell, " If there is one Al Qaeda target in a building with 34 innocents, then 35 people are going to die that day." By that kind of thinking, wouldn't others be completely justified in firing missiles at CIA headquarters in Langley, or at Blackwater's headquarters nearby? After all, there is very good intelligence that much planning and logistical support for attacks on other nations went on in those places... "
Are US flagged airliners not a legitimate target?
After all, they could and have been called upon to carry troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet
Why not extend that to all US government agencys, all contractors, suppliers and logistics support. If they buy toilet paper from Home Depot put them on the list.
Hell, for that matter the tax payers who fund the whole mess ( mind you if they show restraint and simply blow up the IRS they may win some allies )
Military targets or Industrial Infrastructure targets you could justify alot using US targeting as a guide...
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists 
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike,
Sadly, I'm forced to conclude that the President is not as much of a victim of manipulation as it appears. He wants to play the good guy. It's an old democratic party trick that I'm only just beginning to understand:
The reason the Dems looked like spineless wimps during the Bush admin. was that they were playing a game that goes like this:
"Oh look, A policy, by the opposition, that we want, and it's evil. Ah. Let's oppose it loudly, but buckle just enough to let it pass. Then they'll look bad, we'll look good, and we'll get the evil policy that both parties want."
As a pattern, it's as plain as the GOP "shout everyone down" or "if one of your own votes against you, expose them as gay or something, and then throw them to the wolves of the media and support some other candidate against them. "you're either with us, or you're against us" right?
So, I'm starting to see Obama this way. I'm not 100% sure, but he *does* have the power remove people or to appoint decent ones, or to give orders. He *is* in control of the military and the executive.
His past seems to indicate a pretty solid connection to the whole globalist one world crowd, and his circle of friends aren't all that different from neocons.
I think he's just playing wounded puppy here. He knew damn well that there was no popular support for expanding a war in Afghanistan, and that it would get lots of people on both sides killed.
Obama weakly opposed it, asked McChrystal for a plan, and made himself look like the good guy, secretly planning to cave when McChrystal gave him a plan. But McChrystal gave him no plan, and he caved anyway. But he doesn't have to cave to McChrystal anyway. McChrystal has no power but what Obama gives him. It's like Gates and Rahm and Geitner and Bernanke and Summers: Obama caves to his own people. He sets them up as bad cop, so that people will sympathize with him when he actually does enact bad policy.
On the other points: watch for it to happen anyway, and get no level of media scrutiny.
And yes, we need a word for this sort of invasion. If you are able to get a local corrupt dictatorship to draft an army for your invasion, then it's like a proxy invasion anyway. Very similar to China re: Korea and Vietnam, and now Bhutan and Nepal. No real Chinese soldiers crossing borders, but de facto Chinese soldiers drafted from the local population to support a radical Maoist takeover.
I'm going to go with, yes, proxy invasion is an invasion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, and thank you Mike for the topic, it's bothered me a lot as well. And for the same reasons. I have no answers, and you guys have pretty well covered it, so all I can say is "me too" on that.
As to Pakistan itself, for me it's a double-edged sword. If the Pakistan government is unwilling (as it has been in the past) to do anything, part of me thinks it might be good to deal with the border problems ourseves. On the other hand, and much more so, I abhor the whole thing.
But to expand it, what about Yemen? Apparently we've been doing drone attacks there for years, and of course heard nothing about it. That most recent attempted terrorist attack was by someone who claims he was trained in Yemen, and apparently numerous things recently can be tied to Yemen.
Maddow last night was positing that it'll be "America's other other other war", and from the escalation I've heard about, that's becoming more a possibility as time goes on. The Yemenite (? don't know what term to use yet) government is SOLIDLY behind fighting the insurgents, and we're no doubt arming them, so even more than Pakistan, we're "invading" an ally.
I kind of agree with DT here, in that Obama had the power to choose what to do, and while I don't want to see us abandon Afghanistan, I recognize that's subjective and not necessarily in the best interests of our country.
Where I disagree is his motivation. I see it far more as his wanting to find a middle ground, as he has done so many times (with poor results). The American people want us out; the military wants us in, and in bigger numbers. And Bush was accused so often of "not listening to his military in the field". I think Obama is definitely trying to look like the good guy in contrast, but I think he's also trying to find some middle ground...which I"m getting right tired of.
Ergo: an increase in troops, but a deadline to get out. To me, while a nice concept, not a workable one. And Pakistan is bad business, as I kinda think Yemen is. Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen...if nothing else, it's just too much to ask of our military, drones or no drones.
Just curious here; I thought McChrystal DID give Obama a "plan" of sorts: 40,000 troops. Is that wrong?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Throw more money and personnel at the problem" is not a plan. It's also the only suggestion any of the generals could have given, because NO ONE has any idea what the crap we're doing over there any more. Well, besides pulling out, but the military high ups aren't going to suggest that, they have their Christian American pride to think of.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Sigh.
How did we get ourselves in such a mess ?
The US needs to take a lesson from Britain and the IRA, or even Israel and the Palestinians.
If you are getting attacked on your home soil (9-11) or having attempted attacks due to your polices, rather than fight the atackers, it might be wiser to change your policies. Because frankly, you will NEVER win a war of that kind, you will only create more attackers - unless you exterminate each and every one and then each and every one who might side with them on principle and then those who might side with them ...
And even if you could do such a thing, do you really want to spend the resources and the time, and every bit of credibility and moral standing you might have left ?
But, in for a penny, in for a pound it seems.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Just curious here; I thought McChrystal DID give Obama a "plan" of sorts: 40,000 troops. Is that wrong?
My apologies if this was sarcasm, but answering seriously:
That was the request to which Obama said "I will need a plan"
My understanding was that the exchange went something like this:
McChrystal: I need 40k more troops
Obama: Not so fast, you don't get more troops until you submit a workable plan
[jeopardy theme plays]
Obama: Okay, you can have your troops.
I'll admit it's an improvement over the last administrations logic:
Bush: How many troops are needed to secure Iraq?
Generals: 500,000
Bush: But the bible says 144,000
Everyone else: Maybe 2,000 years ago, but looks like 1/2 a million.
Bush: I like the bible. It stopped me drinking. I'm sending 144,000
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The US needs to take a lesson from Britain and the IRA, or even Israel and the Palestinians.
If you are getting attacked on your home soil (9-11) or having attempted attacks due to your polices, rather than fight the atackers, it might be wiser to change your policies.
OK, I'm not hostile to your Point of View, like some here, and I agree with you to a degree, BUT...
Expound please. Which policies should the USA change? In which direction? Bring all the boys home from Iraq & Afghanistan? from Everywhere? quit supporting Israel? or go the other way? Massive retaliation? Summary draconian punishment for opposing foreigners? Legalized assassination of foreign leadership figures by the CIA or Army? Congressionally approved Crusade? Negotiate a peaceful co-existence?Adopt an international isolationist position, backed with violent response to attacks on American citizens and business interests?
My snarky tone of voice aside, what should we change, and how will those changes cause a change in the folks who oppose us?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This article caught my attention, mostly because it makes my head hurt just trying to decipher what the fuck we're even TRYING to do in "the AfPak"...
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/column?oid=oid%3A930023
Here's an excerpt. Try to follow the Byzantine Rube-Goldbergian logic, if you dare.
Quote:
Our government's objective: "The United States should focus on diminishing the Taliban insurgency but not destroying it" (The New York Times, Dec. 6, p.1). What exactly is the Taliban? According to the CIA ( www.cia.gov), the Taliban is "a hardline Pakistani-sponsored movement that emerged in 1994 to end [Afghanistan's] civil war and anarchy." Pakistan is our ally, but we're fighting a Pakistani-sponsored movement, which Pakistan itself fought a few months ago when the Taliban made a run at taking over that country. "For years ... Pakistani intelligence has played a double game with Islamist extremists, nurturing them as a force to use against Pakistan's archrival India in the disputed territory of Kashmir and helping create the Taliban as a buffer against Indian influence in Afghanistan" (The New York Times, Dec. 6, p.WK1). India is our ally. So is Pakistan. The Taliban is Pakistan's ally, except when it's not, and fights India in Kashmir, while in Afghanistan the Taliban fights the Afghan government and us. We intend to diminish but not destroy the Taliban, which can please neither India nor the Afghan government.
I am being as clear as the facts permit.
So, are we all clear? ;)
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
"Throw more money and personnel at the problem" is not a plan. It's also the only suggestion any of the generals could have given, because NO ONE has any idea what the crap we're doing over there any more. Well, besides pulling out, but the military high ups aren't going to suggest that, they have their Christian American pride to think of.
Byte wins for the most succinct summation of the problem.
Only one problem, though. "Throw more money and personnel at the problem" IS the plan. That's the entire plan, as far as anyone can tell.
Mike
Work is the curse of the Drinking Class.
- Oscar Wilde
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME