Post by unlawflcombatnt on Jun 8, 2013 21:39:30 GMT -6
from Yahoo
Pakistan's Answer to U.S. Drone Defiance
by Connor Simpson
"Pakistan's newly-elect prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, announced the country would no longer permit U.S. drone strikes on his country's soil during his first speech earlier this week. So when the U.S. openly defied him with another drone strike late Friday, he called the U.S. envoy in Pakistan for a little chat. What happened behind those closed doors, or what was said during the ensuing conversation, is unknown at this time. We know Sharif was "protesting" the drone strike that killed nine people in north western Pakistan late Friday. All we can know is this sternly worded statement released by Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "It was conveyed to the U.S. charge d' affaires that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the drone strikes, which are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," they say. "The importance of bringing an immediate end to drone strikes was emphasized."
This all comes just days after Sharif assumed power in Pakistan and promised this end of the U.S. drone strikes in their country during his very first speech. "This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said before parliament. "This campaign should come to an end." The dirty agreement between the U.S. and Pakistan for drone-rights has long been broken. Pakistan said they stopped consenting to drone strikes in September.
Friday's drone strike was the first since Sharif declared Pakistan a drone-free zone. But, also, it was only ten days removed from the previous U.S. drone strike in Pakistan. These things happen fast. We raised questions about what Pakistan might do, or even could do, to stop the U.S. from carrying out drone strikes there when Sharif made his promise. This appears to be the initial answer."
RELATED: What the Toll of Drones Looks Like, in Just One Country
-----------------------------------
from the Atlantic.
Pakistan Really Doesn't Want to Be a U.S. Drone Target Anymore
Pakistan's just-elected new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, is officially the thorn in the side of President Obama's beloved Predator drones. In a speech just before getting sworn into office Wednesday, Sharif announced he would no longer allow the U.S. to execute drone strikes on Pakistani soil. "This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said before parliament. "We respect the sovereignty of others and they should also respect our sovereignty and independence. This campaign should come to an end." Whether it ever will come to an end, well, that's a tall order.
It took years for the U.S. and Pakistan to acknowledge their dirty agreement allowing the U.S. to begin and extend its targeted killing program over Pakistani airspace as militants proliferated across the country. As far back as mid-2004, the Pakistani government wouldn't acknowledge they were permitting C.I.A. strikes because it could be seen as Pakistan bending for the big, bad U.S., a challenge to their sovereignty. But the strikes quickly deepened the rift between American diplomats and Pakistan, an important American ally with a fast growing nuclear arsenal in one of the most pivotal regions on Earth. That rift deepened arguments within the Obama administration, leading to a standoff between then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. From Mark Mazetti's Way of the Knife:
This turf battle spread to Washington, and a month after Bin Laden was killed, President Obama’s top advisers were arguing in a National Security Council meeting over who really was in charge in Pakistan. At the June 2011 meeting, Munter, who participated via secure video link, began making his case that he should have veto power over specific drone strikes.
Panetta cut Munter off, telling him that the C.I.A. had the authority to do what it wanted in Pakistan. It didn’t need to get the ambassador’s approval for anything.
“I don’t work for you,” Panetta told Munter, according to several people at the meeting.
But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Munter’s defense. She turned to Panetta and told him that he was wrong to assume he could steamroll the ambassador and launch strikes against his approval.
“No, Hillary,” Panetta said, “it’s you who are flat wrong.”
Pakistan reportedly stopped consenting to U.S. drone strikes altogether back in September, and Obama's big drone speech last month represented a shift in policy that White House officials had long said was focused on smoothing over relations with Pakistan as unmanned targeting increasingly centered on terror havens like Yemen, but the first reported strike since the speech killed a Taliban commander in Pakistan. A poll released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News today shows 66 percent of Americans support drone strikes, with high approval from both political parties.
So now Sharif, facing huge financial and domestic problems, is using his new platform to posture up to the U.S. and taking a stand against the drone strike program. Whether or not he'll follow through on that promise — whether or not he even can — will be interesting to watch.
-----------------------------------------
www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/drone-strikes-pakistan-chart/63506/
What the Toll of Drones Looks Like,in Just one Country
by Esther Zuckerman
Mar 25, 2013
Drone attacks in countries like Pakistan have become an increasingly controversial (if accepted) and no less common (if transferred) reality — Pakistani officials reported another one by U.S. missile fire just this weekend. So what do all of the strikes look like broken down by the available data, even if many strikes in the U.S. targeted killing program go unreported? That's what Pitch Interactive attempts to represent with their new graphic, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind." Using data primarily from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the graphic charts every drone strike it can inside Pakistan since 2004. Within that chart Pitch highlights who was killed in the strike: how many children, civilians, high profile targets, and "others." Pitch defines the "other" category as such:
The category of victims we call “OTHER” is classified differently depending on the source. The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise. This is a very grey area for us. These could be neighbors of a target killed. They may all be militants and a threat.
Pitch Interactive says that the graphic is not designed "to speak for or against" the use of drones, but the data itself can be striking. Take for instance an attack in October 2006 that killed 69 children—represented in bright red.
Pakistan's Answer to U.S. Drone Defiance
by Connor Simpson
"Pakistan's newly-elect prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, announced the country would no longer permit U.S. drone strikes on his country's soil during his first speech earlier this week. So when the U.S. openly defied him with another drone strike late Friday, he called the U.S. envoy in Pakistan for a little chat. What happened behind those closed doors, or what was said during the ensuing conversation, is unknown at this time. We know Sharif was "protesting" the drone strike that killed nine people in north western Pakistan late Friday. All we can know is this sternly worded statement released by Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. "It was conveyed to the U.S. charge d' affaires that the government of Pakistan strongly condemns the drone strikes, which are a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty and territorial integrity," they say. "The importance of bringing an immediate end to drone strikes was emphasized."
This all comes just days after Sharif assumed power in Pakistan and promised this end of the U.S. drone strikes in their country during his very first speech. "This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said before parliament. "This campaign should come to an end." The dirty agreement between the U.S. and Pakistan for drone-rights has long been broken. Pakistan said they stopped consenting to drone strikes in September.
Friday's drone strike was the first since Sharif declared Pakistan a drone-free zone. But, also, it was only ten days removed from the previous U.S. drone strike in Pakistan. These things happen fast. We raised questions about what Pakistan might do, or even could do, to stop the U.S. from carrying out drone strikes there when Sharif made his promise. This appears to be the initial answer."
RELATED: What the Toll of Drones Looks Like, in Just One Country
-----------------------------------
from the Atlantic.
Pakistan Really Doesn't Want to Be a U.S. Drone Target Anymore
Pakistan's just-elected new prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, is officially the thorn in the side of President Obama's beloved Predator drones. In a speech just before getting sworn into office Wednesday, Sharif announced he would no longer allow the U.S. to execute drone strikes on Pakistani soil. "This daily routine of drone attacks, this chapter shall now be closed," Sharif said before parliament. "We respect the sovereignty of others and they should also respect our sovereignty and independence. This campaign should come to an end." Whether it ever will come to an end, well, that's a tall order.
It took years for the U.S. and Pakistan to acknowledge their dirty agreement allowing the U.S. to begin and extend its targeted killing program over Pakistani airspace as militants proliferated across the country. As far back as mid-2004, the Pakistani government wouldn't acknowledge they were permitting C.I.A. strikes because it could be seen as Pakistan bending for the big, bad U.S., a challenge to their sovereignty. But the strikes quickly deepened the rift between American diplomats and Pakistan, an important American ally with a fast growing nuclear arsenal in one of the most pivotal regions on Earth. That rift deepened arguments within the Obama administration, leading to a standoff between then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. From Mark Mazetti's Way of the Knife:
This turf battle spread to Washington, and a month after Bin Laden was killed, President Obama’s top advisers were arguing in a National Security Council meeting over who really was in charge in Pakistan. At the June 2011 meeting, Munter, who participated via secure video link, began making his case that he should have veto power over specific drone strikes.
Panetta cut Munter off, telling him that the C.I.A. had the authority to do what it wanted in Pakistan. It didn’t need to get the ambassador’s approval for anything.
“I don’t work for you,” Panetta told Munter, according to several people at the meeting.
But Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came to Munter’s defense. She turned to Panetta and told him that he was wrong to assume he could steamroll the ambassador and launch strikes against his approval.
“No, Hillary,” Panetta said, “it’s you who are flat wrong.”
Pakistan reportedly stopped consenting to U.S. drone strikes altogether back in September, and Obama's big drone speech last month represented a shift in policy that White House officials had long said was focused on smoothing over relations with Pakistan as unmanned targeting increasingly centered on terror havens like Yemen, but the first reported strike since the speech killed a Taliban commander in Pakistan. A poll released by the Wall Street Journal and NBC News today shows 66 percent of Americans support drone strikes, with high approval from both political parties.
So now Sharif, facing huge financial and domestic problems, is using his new platform to posture up to the U.S. and taking a stand against the drone strike program. Whether or not he'll follow through on that promise — whether or not he even can — will be interesting to watch.
-----------------------------------------
www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/03/drone-strikes-pakistan-chart/63506/
What the Toll of Drones Looks Like,in Just one Country
by Esther Zuckerman
Mar 25, 2013
Drone attacks in countries like Pakistan have become an increasingly controversial (if accepted) and no less common (if transferred) reality — Pakistani officials reported another one by U.S. missile fire just this weekend. So what do all of the strikes look like broken down by the available data, even if many strikes in the U.S. targeted killing program go unreported? That's what Pitch Interactive attempts to represent with their new graphic, "Out of Sight, Out of Mind." Using data primarily from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the graphic charts every drone strike it can inside Pakistan since 2004. Within that chart Pitch highlights who was killed in the strike: how many children, civilians, high profile targets, and "others." Pitch defines the "other" category as such:
The category of victims we call “OTHER” is classified differently depending on the source. The Obama administration classifies any able-bodied male a military combatant unless evidence is brought forward to prove otherwise. This is a very grey area for us. These could be neighbors of a target killed. They may all be militants and a threat.
Pitch Interactive says that the graphic is not designed "to speak for or against" the use of drones, but the data itself can be striking. Take for instance an attack in October 2006 that killed 69 children—represented in bright red.