iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Pakistan Helps U.S. Drones Campaign: Reuters

Drone

Posted: 01/22/2012 5:07 am

The death of a senior al Qaeda leader in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's tribal badlands, the first strike in almost two months, signaled that the U.S.-Pakistan intelligence partnership is still in operation despite political tensions.

The Jan 10 strike -- and its follow-up two days later -- were joint operations, a Pakistani security source based in the tribal areas told Reuters.

They made use of Pakistani "spotters" on the ground and demonstrated a level of coordination that both sides have sought to downplay since tensions erupted in January 2011 with the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore.

"Our working relationship is a bit different from our political relationship," the source told Reuters, requesting anonymity. "It's more productive."

U.S. and Pakistani sources told Reuters that the target of the Jan 10 attack was Aslam Awan, a Pakistani national from Abbottabad, the town where Osama bin Laden was killed last May by a U.S. commando team.

They said he was targeted in a strike by a U.S.-operated drone directed at what news reports said was a compound near the town of Miranshah in the border province of North Waziristan.

That strike broke an undeclared eight-week hiatus in attacks by the armed, unmanned drones that patrol the tribal areas and are a key weapon in U.S. President Barack Obama's counter-terrorism strategy.

The sources described Awan, also known by the nom-de-guerre Abdullah Khorasani, as a significant figure in the remaining core leadership of al Qaeda, which U.S. officials say has been sharply reduced by the drone campaign. Most of the drone attacks are conducted as part of a clandestine CIA operation.

The Pakistani source, who helped target Awan, could not confirm that he was killed, but the U.S. official said he was. European officials said Awan had spent time in London and had ties to British extremists before returning to Pakistan.

The source, who says he runs a network of spotters primarily in North and South Waziristan, described for the first time how U.S.-Pakistani cooperation on strikes works, with his Pakistani agents keeping close tabs on suspected militants and building a pattern of their movements and associations.

"We run a network of human intelligence sources," he said. "Separately, we monitor their cell and satellite phones.

"Thirdly, we run joint monitoring operations with our U.S. and UK friends," he added, noting that cooperation with British intelligence was also extensive.

Pakistani and U.S. intelligence officers, using their own sources, hash out a joint "priority of targets lists" in regular face-to-face meetings, he said.

"Al Qaeda is our top priority," he said.

He declined to say where the meetings take place.

Once a target is identified and "marked," his network coordinates with drone operators on the U.S. side. He said the United States bases drones outside Kabul, likely at Bagram airfield about 25 miles north of the capital.

From spotting to firing a missile "hardly takes about two to three hours," he said.

DRONE STRIKES A SORE POINT WITH PAKISTAN

It was impossible to verify the source's claims and American experts, who decline to discuss the drone program, say the Pakistanis' cooperation has been less helpful in the past.

U.S. officials have complained that when information on drone strikes was shared with the Pakistanis beforehand, the targets were often tipped off, allowing them to escape.

Drone strikes have been a sore point with the public and Pakistani politicians, who describe them as violations of sovereignty that produce unacceptable civilian casualties.

The last strike before January had been on Nov 16, 10 days before 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in what NATO says was an inadvertent cross-border attack on a Pakistani border post.

That incident sent U.S.-Pakistan relations into the deepest crisis since Islamabad joined the U.S.-led war on militancy following the Sept 11, 2001 attacks. On Thursday, Pakistani foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar said ties were "on hold" while Pakistan completes a review of the alliance.

The United States sees Pakistan as critical to its efforts to wind down the war in Afghanistan, where U.S.-led NATO forces are battling a Taliban insurgency.

Some U.S. and Pakistani officials say that both sides are trying to improve ties. As part of this process, a U.S. official said, it is possible that some permanent changes could be made in the drone program which could slow the pace of attacks.

The security source said very few innocent people had been killed in the strikes. When a militant takes shelter in a house or compound which is then bombed, "the ones who are harboring him, they are equally responsible," he said.

"When they stay at a host house, they (the hosts) obviously have sympathies for these guys."

He denied that Pakistan helped target civilians.

"If ... others say innocents have been targeted, it's not true," he said. "We never target civilians or innocents."

The New America Foundation policy institute says that of 283 reported strikes from 2004 to Nov 16, 2011, between 1,717 and 2,680 people were killed. Between 293 and 471 were thought to be civilians -- approximately 17 percent of those killed.

The Brookings Institution, however, says civilian deaths are high, reporting in 2009 that "for every militant killed, 10 or more civilians also died." Pakistan's interior minister, Rehman Malik, also said in April 2011 that "the majority of victims are innocent civilians."

Still, despite its public stance, Pakistan has quietly supported the drone program since Obama ramped up air strikes when he took office in 2009 and even asked for more flights.

According to a U.S. State Department cable published by anti-secrecy organization WikiLeaks, Pakistan's chief of army staff General Ashfaq Kayani in February 2008 asked Admiral William J. Fallon, then-commander of U.S. Central Command, for increased surveillance and round-the-clock drone coverage over North and South Waziristan.

The security source said Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, also was supportive of the strikes, albeit privately.

(Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball in Washington; Editing by Ron Popeski)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST WORLD

Filed by Alana Horowitz  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 136
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:46 PM on 01/22/2012
god help us for what we have done in the name of freedom
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:17 PM on 01/22/2012
First, Pakistan is not all that critical to the US winding down operations in Afghanistan. Pakistan must decide whether they are going to help eliminate Al Qeada and the Taliban, or if they are going to reject our aid and kick us out of their country.
Second, those that provide safe harbor to people that have declared themselves to be our enemies and at war with us cannot be considered innocent, although they may be civilians and/or non-combatants.
Finally, this game of secretly support hostile acts while publicly condemning them has been played out time and time again throughout history. The Pakistan government has agreed with the drone attacks, but must publicly denounce them in order to placate their civilian population that is not unlike the Afghans in that they do not want foreigners, especially those from the west, in their country.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
watching you...
01:49 AM on 01/25/2012
except, if the afghani taliban are being supported by the Pakistani ISI, then how come the Pakistanis have their own problems with the taliban in their own country.
I saw a programme called "Secret Pakistan" which is also available on youtube and they try to say the Pakistanis are two faced. Yet the simple equation of how can they foster people to cause problems in another country yet cannot control them in their own doesn't make sense.
photo
Intrepid09
How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?
05:46 PM on 01/22/2012
I work with two patients who were recently in Afghanistan: one was in special forces and the other was a combat engineer. Both said that they know for a fact that elements of the Pakistani military routinely supply insurgents with weapons and explosive devices for use against our troops. With allies like this who needs enemies?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
watching you...
01:50 AM on 01/25/2012
except the pakistanis have their own problems with taliban in pakistan so how come they can control them in afghanistan but not in pakistan?
photo
Intrepid09
How did OUR oil get under THEIR sand?
06:41 PM on 01/25/2012
Remember that Pakistan was one of the few countries to recognize the Taliban when they were in power. While the entire Pakistani government probably doesn't endorse arming Taliban fighters elements within the military and intelligence agency certainly do, making them a less than reliable partner in the war on terror, to say the least.
photo
planetjeffy
On the other hand, you have different fingers.
05:38 PM on 01/22/2012
Billions of dollars talks...
photo
7dr361
USAF VETERAN Older Than Dirt
05:30 PM on 01/22/2012
I wish the USA would get out of Afghanistan and just use Drones, its safer for our troops and very deadly hits......
05:23 PM on 01/22/2012
CHICKENS ARE COMING HOME TO ROOST AMERICA! THIS TIME IT WILL MAKE 911 LOOK LIKE A NORMAL DAY.

WHEN YOU ACT IN AN .EVIL WAY, YOU ATTRACT E.VIL ACTIONS.
05:22 PM on 01/22/2012
DRONES ARE WAR CRIMES
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctor pangloss
the best of all possible worlds
08:22 PM on 01/23/2012
Little boys who never wore the military uniform of the U.S.militarty in times of war are usually the biggest phony patriots of the whole bunch of cowards.Especially little boys who say good night when it is only 8 ''clock and mommy wants them to go to bed.
Little boys who post mostly in the upper case and display lousy grammar and diction as well as miserable punctuation should spend more time in the English class at school.
Little boys who address their comments as if they were little girls had better check out their gender identification.
08:59 PM on 01/23/2012
1) I am older than you I am sure.
2) You do not need to be in the military to criticize it. You believe otherwise? move to Russia or China!
3) The war crimes are very detailed and this for the last 50 years.
4) I do not spend time on punctuation or grammar or typos because people like you do not deserve the extra time.
5) you are a little boy and my initial post remains true!
This comment has been removed due to violations of our [Guidelines]
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hello All
04:35 PM on 01/22/2012
"The security source said very few innocent people had been killed in the strikes."

Few means tens, hundreds or thousands?

"When a militant takes shelter in a house or compound which is then bombed, "the ones who are harboring him, they are equally responsible," he said."

How is this guy sure that the militant are not holding these people hostage? They may be in their home on gun point and threatening them to kill if they don't allow to stay.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Pablo Gonzales
05:03 PM on 01/22/2012
If that is the case you abort the Op and wait for a 2nd chance You dont go bomb a Town for 1 person We are not Israel
05:14 PM on 01/22/2012
I wish you were right, but most of the time like gangs in this country, people in the neighborhood cover for their own. While I am sure there re instances of of forced occupation, it is hard to accept when the sme places are used on a regular enough basis that intelligence operatives know where they are.
04:25 PM on 01/22/2012
how do we know if these people that are being targeted are al qaeda.they could just be people that are opposed to something that our govt wants to do in pakistan or afganistan.we will never know as long as its done in secret.what if the secret is a lie like the provision in the national defence authorization act to detain us citizens with out trial hearing or charge to make us safer from terrorism.some times i wonder who the real terrorists are.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:04 PM on 01/22/2012
So the US military subverts Pakistani sovereignty and its political leadership via its own network inside Pakistan's military and calls it "cooperation". Stop these illegal targeted executions and the War on Islam NOW.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
watching you...
01:53 AM on 01/25/2012
interesting point. especially in light of Raymond Davis.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:01 PM on 01/22/2012
If you are reporting it, it isn't "secret"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
doctor pangloss
the best of all possible worlds
02:55 PM on 01/22/2012
The U.S. should bypass the Pakistani ISI and proceed with it's mission without dealing or trusting that anti-Western radical islamist agency.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Beans22
03:18 PM on 01/22/2012
That would be great if it weren't for the fact the drones are parked IN Pakistan.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Susan Shaffer
watching you...
01:54 AM on 01/25/2012
not any more.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David01
texan Badges, I don't got no badges. I don't need
04:25 PM on 01/22/2012
There are members of Pakistani military and intelligence who are helping the West and there are some who are still directing the terrorist groups. There are probably some who are working both sides. If we don't have penetration into this viper's nest, we have no chance of defeating al Qaeda. That means we or sources we work with have to rub elbows with both sides.
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
01:52 PM on 01/22/2012
The security source said Pakistan's powerful spy agency, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, also was supportive of the strikes, albeit privately. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Is this not the very same intelligence agency that was secretly providing information to the Taliban and even giving them support. I am very surprised that our Government continues down this particular road.
03:26 PM on 01/22/2012
Read the rest of the article. The aim right now is to let the ISI now of certain strikes but only when a few hours are to go for the strike so the ISI agents if they are working with the Taliban do not have time enough. Plus they are trying to find who in the ISI is working with the terrorists.

Sometimes if you figure out whom is feeding info to the other side you can use them for disinformation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David01
texan Badges, I don't got no badges. I don't need
04:32 PM on 01/22/2012
You're right. They've been playing these games for centuries, even before the "Great Game" between the Russian Empire and the British Empire.
It will go on like this until there is a generational change that reduces tensions between India and Pakistan. There are doubtless Iranian agents and forces who are plotting, trying to buy people, etc. in an effort to defeat the Western effort.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:27 PM on 01/22/2012
It's the only road we've got except immediate pullout, and the administration is desperate.
photo
Artos
Down with Tyrants
06:12 PM on 01/22/2012
Why cannot America for once represent itself as a Nation that can do things in an honest and straightforward manner. We claim to be a Nation with all these big Ideals, I used to believe honesty, integrity and ethical behavior were among those ideals. Then I had to witness our Marines, of which I was proud to be one once, take a whizz on dead Taliban. What more do we need to do to totally destroy everything that I was taught to believe in. When George Bush invaded Iraq he went in on the pretense that America is a nation of Action, one that when it sees a wrong we do our best to right it immediately. Well that war was a lie. All we proved is that we will invade without provocation if we feel we have any kind of justification whatsoever. Why don't we now show the world that we know how to make a graceful exit from Afghanistan before we end up totally destroying whatever is left of our honor. Wouldn't that be nice for once. Why do more innocent people and troops need to die first. What are we really proving here?
01:41 PM on 01/22/2012
This was a well-done article by Reuters. In my opinion, the most revealing passage was this:

"The security source said very few innocent people had been killed in the strikes. When a militant takes shelter in a house or compound which is then bombed, 'the ones who are harboring him, they are equally responsible,' he said.

"'When they stay at a host house, they (the hosts) obviously have sympathies for these guys.'"

"He denied that Pakistan helped target civilians."

This explains how the USA has been sanitizing its statistics. Everybody in a house is guilty if a target is in the house. Of course, that includes children - even babes in arms - as well as women and elderly who effectively have no control over who is or is not admitted into the home.

It was bad enough when the rhetoric was "collateral damage", but this kind of thinking is an abomination. It is "doublespeak" worthy of George Orwell. It is also the same logic which the Spanish government engaged in when it unleashed German air forces on Gernika, Spain in the lead up to World War II. To think that the USA, under the command of President Obama, perpetuates these kind of atrocities is disgusting. History will not judge the USA kindly for what will eventually become recognized as war crimes..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Suntio
Amat victoria curam.
03:02 PM on 01/22/2012
Do you have any proof of what you're alleging here?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
hello All
04:23 PM on 01/22/2012
http://www.salon.com/2010/10/14/pakistan_civilian_deaths/
http://www.salon.com/2011/08/12/pakistan_drones_children/

Do you have any proof that those who killed in drone strikes are all terrorist?
08:50 PM on 01/22/2012
The "proof" is in the post and as quoted in my comment. The US sources say that anyone in a house where a target enters is considered guilty and it is therefore okay to blow up the house with a drone. By defining everyone within a "zone" around a target as not being an innocent civilian then, by the twisted logic of the US no civilians are killed. A positively Orwellian point of view. This is not a mere allegation. Rather, it is an admission by the perpetrators.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
David01
texan Badges, I don't got no badges. I don't need
09:22 PM on 01/22/2012
Have you considered the carnage that would be directed almost exclusively at civilians if these folks were left to do their dirty work? It's a very ugly, painful thought, but the fact is that this is saving innocent lives. I'm ready for it to be over but I seriously believe Pres. Obama is trying to chart the speediest path to wind this down and return to a "law enforcement model" of dealing with terrorism.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
omobob
left coast, usa
01:32 PM on 01/22/2012
> "Our working relationship is a bit different from our political relationship," the source told Reuters, requesting anonymity. "It's more productive."

The Pakistanis understand that their survival chances are better if they are in communication with the CIA as to who and where they are killing people in the AfPak. It’s better than getting shot at yourself.

Example: use of Pakistani "spotters" on the ground, demonstrated a level of coordination that both sides have sought to downplay since tensions erupted in January 2011 with the killing of two Pakistanis by a CIA contractor in Lahore.