The ISI and the CIA agreed that all drone flights in Pakistan would operate under the CIA’s covert action authority — meaning that the United States would never acknowledge the missile strikes and Pakistan would either take credit for the individual killings or remain silent.
Musharraf did not think that it would be difficult to keep up the ruse. As he told one CIA officer: “In Pakistan, things fall out of the sky all the time.”
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/national/2004-secret-deal-with-pakistan-on-drones-shifted-c/nXFLs/
I really don’t want to carry water for other writers, nor click-share-click-share-click-share all the live-long day on Facebook. However, the link fits the BackChannel’s “Fast News Share” category, and the issue is one I’ve been tracking.
My view: drone programs tie to remote “dark space”, i.e., remote regions with sub-grade communications and transportation capabilities with which to serve general military, police, and state security operations. For Pakistan in particular, forces opposed to state control have repeatedly demonstrated their ability to kidnap and murder civilians and police with near impunity.
For security forces, the ability to reinforce troops in response to attacks on their positions may influence tactical decisions.
I’ve conversed at length with a source in Central America with regard to the ability of states to produce security outside of major cities and away from major highways, and similar things — but with completely different motivations, albeit with exception made for drug cartel — take place.
So drones go where boots, with good reason, fear to tread. That drones are remarkably “inexact” — there are no good euphemisms for what actually happens — forms the greater basis for protest revolving around the slaughter of innocents plus not-so-innocent but less targeted associates,
Protesting the drone programs will not end civil or sectarian conflicts and their violence against innocents and state or other military forces; more likely, the same will urge consideration of greater military invasion of remote areas with the purpose of establishing or affirming the state’s monopoly on violence.
Reference
This is a spotty section, this time, but easily filled out if one cares to search for raids on police barracks, buses (carrying Shiites, generally), and various other attacks that in essential ways come out of the mountains. I’ve highlighted one piece by way of suggesting that while the drone business presents plenty for protest, it also serves the interests of Pakistanis who would themselves be the targets of Taliban-sponsored violence.
BBC. “Drones in Pakistan traumatise civilians, US report says.” September 25, 2012.
Ahmed, Qanta. “Drones propel hate in Pakistan for the U.S.” Haaretz, December 11, 2012.
Aljazeera. “US strikes ‘Taliban compound’ in Pakistan.” January 6, 2013.
Dunya News. “Peshawar: 21 abducted Levies officials shot dead.” December 30, 2012.
BackChannels 