Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama May Launch Drone Attacks on Major Pakistani City

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
FourScore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:40 PM
Original message
Obama May Launch Drone Attacks on Major Pakistani City
Obama May Launch Drone Attacks on Major Pakistani City
U.S. officials seek to push CIA drone strikes into the major city of Quetta to try to pressure Pakistan into pursuing Taliban leaders based there

by Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes

Senior U.S. officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond Pakistan's tribal region and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in Quetta.

Quetta, Pakistan at night.
The proposal has opened a contentious new front in the clandestine war. The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new U.S. resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington's relationship with Islamabad.

The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option. Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta -- or at least threatening to do so -- is crucial to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week.

"If we don't do this -- at least have a real discussion of it -- Pakistan might not think we are serious," said a senior U.S. official involved in war planning. "What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the U.S.; we can't allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore."

But others, including high-ranking U.S. intelligence officials, have been more skeptical of employing drone attacks in a place that Pakistanis see as part of their country's core. Pakistani officials have warned that the fallout would be severe.

"We are not a banana republic," said a senior Pakistani official involved in discussions of security issues with the Obama administration. If the United States follows through, the official said, "this might be the end of the road."

The CIA in recent years has stepped up a campaign against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, much of it with drone strikes in the rural tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. The operations have been conducted with the consent of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has proved a reliable ally to America in his first 15 months in office.

Zardari, however, is facing mounting political woes, and the CIA airstrikes are highly unpopular among the Pakistani public, because of concerns over national sovereignty and civilian casualties. If drone attacks now confined to small villages were to be mounted in a sizable city, the death rate of innocent bystanders would probably increase.

Obama has endorsed an expansion of CIA operations in the country, approving the deployment of more spies and resources in a clandestine counterpart to the 30,000 additional U.S. troops being sent into Afghanistan...

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/12/14-12
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Richard D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:41 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oy veh
Not good, imho.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nikki Stone1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. Not unexpected.
..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MUAD_DIB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:43 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Nope. Not at all. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
roamer65 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
2. This area is where World War III is going to start.
Mark my words.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:42 PM
Response to Original message
3. I wonder how this approach is going to help track down those 100 bad ones
that are left in Afghanistan?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lwcon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 10:44 PM
Response to Original message
6. But they're going to be...
... historically historic, transformative, 11-dimensional drones of peace!

Yay!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jbnow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:15 PM
Response to Original message
7. No one here is douting that this will happen? You assume
Obama will give the okay to strikes inside a city?

I saw more questioning when we'd get reports that bush/cheney were planning to bomb Iran.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:26 PM
Response to Original message
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
rug Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
9. That's insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
10. Somebody needs to smudge the Oval Office
because this is irrational.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
G_j Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. bad medicine
indeed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
anarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:39 PM
Response to Original message
12. the hell? no he may not!
that's gotta be against the rules or something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pinniped Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:48 PM
Response to Original message
13. I guess these al-Qaeda dudes will run to either North Korea, Cuba, Iran, or....
somewhere in South America.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ahpook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-14-09 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
14. Why are all these tactics described openly?
As if we can't question this whole bullshit "War on Terror" anymore, all their so called strategies are in front of anyone to read about?

It simply stinks of the hoax we know this to be, or am I wrong?


I just feel America is one big fucking hoax!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
15. How's sending explosive misiles into a city of 850,000 different than the 9/11 attack in NYC?
How is that terror different than this terror?

There's no difference. None.

And if Americans can't see that, rest assured that the rest of the world will see it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
16. Misleading title
Is misleading. Obama May Launch Drone Attacks on Major Pakistani City. makes it sound like President Obama is seriously considering it. Here's the title of the LA Times article this was taken from: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-us-pakistan14-2009dec14,0,119787,print.story">Drone attacks may be expanded in Pakistan

Just because "Senior U.S. officials are pushing" doesn't mean he's taking them seriously. "The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option." Could also be interpreted as Obama saying, "Thanks for your suggestion but that's totally unrealistic."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. Senior officials pushed for 30,000 more troops, too. And they go them.
The real question is this:

Why does a city of 850,000 make some squeamish, while a village of 1,000 doesn't?

At what point in a civilian population is such murderous OK? 100 civilians? 850,000?

We have no business raining missiles down on people, where we continue to "miss" our targets again and again and thereby kill innocent children and civilians or wound them horrifically and cause great psychological harm to innocents.

850,000 civilians and we have to pause a moment before we attempt to kill there. 1,000 and, well, we are already used to that, aren't we?

Therein lies the incremental nature of warfare which generals depend on as they slowly get their own country comfortable with the collateral damage they inflict on innocents.

This is sick. It is vile that it is going on in this nation's name.

The rest of the world is coming to a conclusion that nothing changed here in the last election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Turborama Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 01:33 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Why does a city of 850,000 make some squeamish, while a village of 1,000 doesn't?
Edited on Tue Dec-15-09 01:54 AM by Turborama
Good question and you make some valid points.

Also, how come Zardari has been consenting the drone attacks on villages and compounds up until now but wouldn't allow the bombing of a city?

From further into the article:

The CIA in recent years has stepped up a campaign against the death cult of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, much of it with drone strikes in the rural tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan. The operations have been conducted with the consent of the government of President Asif Ali Zardari, who has proved a reliable ally to America in his first 15 months in office.

Zardari, however, is facing mounting political woes, and the CIA airstrikes are highly unpopular among the Pakistani public, because of concerns over national sovereignty and civilian casualties. If drone attacks now confined to small villages were to be mounted in a sizable city, the death rate of innocent bystanders would probably increase.


=snip=

The CIA has carried out dozens of Predator strikes in Pakistan's tribal belt over the last two years, relying extensively on information provided by informant networks run by Pakistan's spy service, Inter-Services Intelligence. The campaign is credited with killing at least 10 senior Al Qaeda operatives since the pace of the strikes was accelerated in August 2008, but has enraged many Pakistanis because of civilian casualties.

IMO the best way to steer vulnerable Pakistanis and Afghans from the clutches of the Al Qaeda and Taliban death cults is to improve their standard of living and provide them with education.


"The rest of the world is coming to a conclusion that nothing changed here in the last election." Got any sources you can cite for this?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lydia Leftcoast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 12:46 AM
Response to Original message
18. OK, so does this mean that Mexico can bomb El Paso to get at
members of the drug cartels?

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-15-09 01:35 AM
Response to Original message
20. Not good. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Dec 26th 2024, 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC