Tuesday, July 24, 2012

24 July 2012 Drone no nothing ‘bout history

Pakistan spy agency chief to tell CIA: End drone strikes; ID targets for us to attack
By Nasir Habib, CNN
updated 6:19 AM EDT, Tue July 24, 2012

“Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- The new chief of Pakistan's spy agency will urge the United States to end drone strikes on Pakistani soil and identify targets that the country's security forces can then attack, a senior intelligence official said.

“Lt. Gen. Zahirul Islam will deliver the message during a meeting with the head of the CIA on August 2, said the Pakistani intelligence official, who did not want to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media.

"You (the U.S.) develop a target and let us hit it," Islam will tell CIA Director David Petraeus, the official said. "It would be ideal if the U.S. provides drone technology to Pakistan."

Cassi Creek:  this is essential idiocy at the stage described above.  There is no valid reason to allot such targets to any segment of the Pakistani military. 
          The reason for striking such targets sung U.S. forces and assets is the historical refusal of the Pakistani military to strike and eliminate Taliban and other fundamentalist forces.  This leaves a safe haven on the Pakistani side of the border where both Afghan and Pakistani Taliban and irregular forces can hide and re-equip. 
          To provide intelligence information to the Pakistani military at any level is to provide that information to the forces we are fighting.  The bonds of religion appear to supersede those of military unit and nation in this geopolitical region.   Not only would Afghanistan be given intelligence collected by U.S. agents and assets, that same information would rapidly make its way to Iran. 
          If the .S. is foolish enough to provide access to drones and drone technology to Pakistan, the same transfer to Iran will rapidly damage our current technical superiority.  Iran is quite capable of reverse engineering many items of our military’s closely guarded technical weaponry. 
The only answer to this request must be a resounding, “No!”

No comments:

Post a Comment