Drones VS NATO Strikes



  • Okay I feel completely ignorant about this.

    How are drone strikes within Pakistan different from the recent NATO strikes within the territory. Why does one stir 'response' and talks of 'sovereignty' and the other does not?

    Is the 'secret' pact restricted to 'unmanned' drones only? If yes then why because it doesn't make sense - both lead to territorial violations.



  • Drones are different legally and in terms of collateral damage because the operator is not on the sovereign soil unlike NATO strikes, who entered the territory with manned choppers. Further, the drones incur no loss of life of the attacker. It is, however, possible that drones take off from a Pakistani base, of course there is approval of Pakistani authorities too, who have asked for the control of vehicles. The NATO attack was premeditated and preemptive, so the next time NATO would inform the Pakistanis off hand, minutes earlier, and that would mean joint operation.



  • Thank you for your response barackosama.

    I found this -

    ...But there are also reports of a secret agreement between Pakistan and the US that allows "hot pursuit" across the lawless border up to 10 kilometres into Pakistani territory.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/30/pakistan-blocks-nato-route-afghanistan

    which makes things even more confusing. If indeed there is a secret agreement of that sort , what's with this hullabaloo I wonder.



  • NATO is not US. Pakistan has more leeway for US, they give us aid and all, so 10 km in not so well-defined, rugged area is good enough to bury the hatchet for a public show. This allowance is for US only. NATO does not give us aid or anything, we already let their supplies pass through the whole country. It must hurt like hell to Kiyani that a Polish, Spanish or Italian pilot fires into Pakistan. Of course, when the operator is American the govt has to think and rethink before it responds. Politically, it is also wise that GoP distinguishes between US and NATO.



  • //Pakistan has more leeway for US//

    That sums up everything I guess.

    Thanks.



  • Please note how the war criminal Zionist thug Carl Levin is talking about Pakistan's role.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10/01/levin.pakistan/index.html?hpt=T1

    Washington (CNN) -- A top senator slammed Pakistan's government Friday, urging more action against terrorists and less complaining about American drone strikes.

    "They have gone after some terrorist targets inside Pakistan but the ones they go after are the ones that threaten the Pakistan government," Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Michigan, said.

    http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/10/02/world/asia/international-uk-pakista

    MIRANSHAH, Pakistan (Reuters) - Two U.S. drone attacks killed 18 militants in Pakistan on Saturday, intelligence officials said, after recent NATO incursions raised tensions with an ally Washington needs in efforts to stabilise Afghanistan.

    The United States has widened pilotless drone aircraft missile strikes against al Qaeda-linked militants in Pakistan's northwest, with 21 attacks in September alone, the highest number in a single month on record.n-violence.html?_r=1&hp



  • Levin said ""It is legitimate to target the people who are targeting you," Levin said in a question and answer session the speech."

    The same rhetoric must be reflected back to the US. Unfortunately, the kind of individuals we have Zardari, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Gilani - non are statesmen enough to be heard seriously by the US or anyone else for that matter.



  • both are the same... both acts compromise the sovereignty of the country, which amounts to treachery of our civilian military leadership! their empty protests are just an eyewash. they dont even have the guts to cut the NATO supply line - they only closed one route for a few days b/c of public pressure. this also goes to show that NATO cannot even handle the supply line blockade for a few days, that is why only one route was closed and the supply line is still pretty much intact.



  • Only difference is that NATO Heli Strikes lead to security forces(FC) personnel's death,otherwise both drones and NATO strikes equally comprise and transgress our sovereignty . Had only 'militant' died in hot pursuit all this hue and cry wouldn't have been made..

    This is not the first time,in past too West have been regularly killing our troops inside pakistani territory.

    **

    Tensions rise after Pakistan soldiers are killed in US bombing raid

    **

    Relations between the United States and Pakistan were dealt a severe blow yesterday when American bombs killed 11 Pakistani soldiers.

    ..coalition air support provided to the Afghans targeted a nearby post housing members of the Pakistani paramilitary Frontier Corps..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/2111326/Tensions-rise-after-Pakistan-soldiers-are-killed-in-US-bombing-raid.html

    Since that time there had been resentment in FC troops against US and coalition forces,so it wasn't surprising when FC troops shot warning shots at the choppers that tried to penetrate inside Pakistani territory,NATO chopper retaliated and bombed the clearly marked FC check posts..



  • @change_is_close

    From the Pakistan perspective they are definitely same, for it does not matter whether the strike is from within the border or outside of it, manned or remotely automated.

    But from the shooter's perspective, there is a huge difference, in terms of them constituting an act of war or self defense, defying sovereignty of a nation, whether the partner is a friend or a foe, and mostly in terms of seeking the approvals. The level of approval sought makes the things more complicated for their own legal frame of work because they need to sell the war to their people represented by the congress and the house. The approval from the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Director of CIA, the US Central Command or Armed Services Committee - each sets a different ball game.

    So when the drone operator sits on a hanger way out in the Persian Gulf and strikes some 'would be militants,' is too different when an Apache enters Pakistan and a pilot fires on a post of uniformed men who are declared partners of NATO. In this case, the complications come from the EU parliament and the parliaments of the NATO member countries.