Report: U.S. may target Taliban leadership in Quetta with drone strikes

posted at 8:04 pm on December 14, 2009 by Allahpundit

Consider this an unexpected benefit of The One’s eagerness to get out of Afghanistan. He has every incentive to do as much damage to the enemy as possible as quickly as possible, which may encourage him to make moves even Bush wasn’t daring enough to make. It’s been an open secret, and an international disgrace, for years that the Taliban leadership operates relatively freely in the Pakistani city of Quetta; I’ve written about it before but not until just recently did Pakistan itself admit the obvious. We know they’re in the city. The question is, what are we — and, more importantly, Pakistan — prepared to do about it?

Senior U.S. officials are pushing to expand CIA drone strikes beyond Pakistan’s tribal region and into a major city in an attempt to pressure the Pakistani government to pursue Taliban leaders based in Quetta.

The proposal has opened a contentious new front in the clandestine war. The prospect of Predator aircraft strikes in Quetta, a sprawling city, signals a new U.S. resolve to decapitate the Taliban. But it also risks rupturing Washington’s relationship with Islamabad.

The concern has created tension among Obama administration officials over whether unmanned aircraft strikes in a city of 850,000 are a realistic option. Proponents, including some military leaders, argue that attacking the Taliban in Quetta — or at least threatening to do so — is crucial to the success of the revised war strategy President Obama unveiled last week.

“If we don’t do this — at least have a real discussion of it — Pakistan might not think we are serious,” said a senior U.S. official involved in war planning. “What the Pakistanis have to do is tell the Taliban that there is too much pressure from the U.S.; we can’t allow you to have sanctuary inside Pakistan anymore.”…

Pakistan is working with the CIA to coax certain Taliban lieutenants in Omar’s fold to defect. U.S. officials said contacts have been handled primarily by the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services. The results of the effort are unclear.

The fear, of course, is that drone strikes in a place as crowded as a city will produce a catastrophic misfire and a similarly catastrophic public backlash. Which is why, I assume, this is mostly a bluff aimed at scaring the Pakistanis into sending people in and taking out the leadership itself. But how likely is that? Via Bill Roggio, a bit of insight into our “friends” in Pakistan’s intel service, the ISI:

Champagne popped open this week as Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) celebrated US President Barack Obama’s announcement that American troops would start withdrawing from Afghanistan in July 2011. Despite the extra 30,000 soldiers and the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA) expansion of its unmanned drone operations inside Pakistan’s tribal areas, Islamabad was jubilant. The ISI’s strategy of waiting for the Americans to leave was paying off. Soon, Islamabad would recapture Kabul after eight years of domination by New Delhi…

Clearly, the ISI runs circles around the CIA. The CIA knows it, but can do little except gnash its teeth, because it has no spies among the jihadists. The ISI doesn’t need spies; it created the Taliban.

The Americans ought to demand that the ISI demonstrate sincerity by handing over Mullah Omar, the Taliban chief. The one-eyed Mullah and his cohorts are said to have converted one of Quetta’s suburbs into a kind of mini-Taliban city; it is a place which neither Pakistani police nor journalists dare visit. Houses, shops and mosques have all been purchased by the Taliban (using ISI money, which is basically US military aid; yes, ironic). The ISI is in constant touch with the Taliban hierarchy. And even with expanded CIA drone operations, it will be difficult to get Mullah Omar; the drones have been hitting targets in the countryside and mountains, not in the cities, and even that has swelled anti-American sentiment, according to every Pakistani leader, civilian or military. Imagine what a strike in a crowded urban area would do.

ISI can tell us where they are — and it can also give us bogus information which would cause massive civilian casualties, a resulting PR nightmare, and a very rapid abandonment of the drone-strike strategy in Quetta. Which, I assume, explains why Bush never tried it: It’s likely too hard to get CIA people inside a Taliban citadel so we’re forced to rely on Pakistani intel to hand over their own proxy jihadi army, something they have little incentive to do. In fact, just today there’s a story at the Times about their refusal to crack down on Siraj Haqqani, another creation of ISI who’s been waging war on the U.S. inside Afghanistan from North Waziristan.

The core reason for Pakistan’s imperviousness is its scant faith in the Obama surge, and what Pakistan sees as the need to position itself for a major regional realignment in Afghanistan once American forces begin to leave…

Pakistan is particularly eager to counter the growing influence of its archenemy, India, which is pouring $1.2 billion in aid into Afghanistan. “If American walks away, Pakistan is very worried that it will have India on its eastern border and India on its western border in Afghanistan,” said Tariq Fatemi, a former Pakistani ambassador to the United States who is pro-American in his views.

For that reason, Mr. Fatemi said, the Pakistani Army was “very reluctant” to jettison Mr. Haqqani, Pakistan’s strong card in Afghanistan. Moreover, the Pakistanis do not want to alienate Mr. Haqqani because they consider him an important player in reconciliation efforts that they would like to see get under way in Afghanistan immediately, the officials said.

It’s a Catch-22: Obama’s eagerness to leave is aimed in part at pressuring Pakistan to help us succeed and get out, but Pakistan has less incentive to help us succeed and get out if it thinks we’re eager to leave. Which brings us back to the main question of how the U.S. can even credibly threaten to hit high-value targets in Quetta without ISI help and, indeed, with the ISI actively trying to thwart them. Presumably there have been defections to our side from inside the city giving us an intelligence presence there, or else there’s some sort of leverage we have over ISI which you and I don’t know about that would cause them to start ratting out big fish like Mullah Omar. Keep an eye out in your news-reading travails for reports of Taliban capos suddenly being arrested. It has, after all, happened before.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Obama’s air-raiding villages and killing civilians again..he’s a war criminal.

right4life on December 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM

War monger!!! Stop killing innocent brown people you racist.

Oh wait…

angryed on December 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM

B+

bluelightbrigade on December 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM

If the former male cheerleader hadn’t invaded the wrong country back in 2003 we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Oh well. Mission accomplished!

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Gay.

bluelightbrigade on December 14, 2009 at 8:11 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Oh good. You’re back…

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:11 PM

This isn’t going to turn out well. In fact, it’ll be a complete B+.

PS: I know, we’re killing that meme aren’t we?

AUINSC on December 14, 2009 at 8:11 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

If a former President gave the go-ahead for for a strike on Bin laden while he was gettin’ some in the Oval Office, then we wouldn’t be in this position today.

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Yeah, yeah, yeah…all Bush’s fault. It’s doing wonders for your Lord and Savior in the polls now, isn’t it?

AUINSC on December 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM

B+

bluelightbrigade on December 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Thread winner. Everyone go home.

Enoxo on December 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM

AUINSC on December 14, 2009 at 8:11 PM

I give your evaluation an A-…

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Pakistan is working with the CIA to coax certain Taliban lieutenants in Omar’s fold to defect. U.S. officials said contacts have been handled primarily by the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services. The results of the effort are unclear.

Now that this is public, results will no doubt be even more “unclear.”

Wethal on December 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Hey, don’t attack Pakistan, they might retaliate…those rocks could hurt.

right2bright on December 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

Enoxo on December 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM

Roger. I’m packing up right now.

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:14 PM

ISI can tell us where they are — and it can also give us bogus information which would cause massive civilian casualties, a resulting PR nightmare, and a very rapid abandonment of the drone-strike strategy in Quetta. Which, I assume, explains why Bush never tried it: It’s likely too hard to get CIA people inside a Taliban citadel so we’re forced to rely on Pakistani intel to hand over their own proxy jihadi army, something they have little incentive to do.

Which also explains why Obama let this lead balloon slip to the media. He’s interested in only appearing to be tough.

steveegg on December 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM

B+

bluelightbrigade on December 14, 2009 at 8:07 PM

Thread winner. Everyone go home.

Enoxo on December 14, 2009 at 8:13 PM

:) *blushes*

bluelightbrigade on December 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM

I need simplesimon to explain to me why we’re attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM

This is a trial balloon by the Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Quetta is a cesspit. They’re going to need more than Reapers to rid us of the Taliban if they are going to target that place.

elduende on December 14, 2009 at 8:16 PM

Still cleaning up the Clinton Administration’s mess, I see.

Obama has now declared war on an ally, apparently.

At least, that’s what the left told me Bush was doing when he launched drone attacks into Pakistan.

Good Lt on December 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM

Catch 22:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5bjBAez9cm4

lovingmyUSA on December 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Good one Mr. Creative ! Always fresh material.
/

One day Obama will be man enough to actually lead. Nah I doubt it.

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

44%

txag92 on December 14, 2009 at 8:18 PM

Where are the antiwar marches from you principled antiwarbots, simplesimon?

Good Lt on December 14, 2009 at 8:18 PM

great – another security leak… more US troops put at higher risk and odds of success lower.

Bradky on December 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM

Hey lets write news stories about our plansto bomb our enemy dumb and dumber. anyone or high interest in Quetta is long gone or massive civlians are now being bussed in to give them human shields.

these people are clueless

unseen on December 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM

“The ISI is in constant touch with the Taliban hierarchy.”

I wonder what drone attacks along with cutting off every single $0.10 of aid would do…?

Seven Percent Solution on December 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Sigh. We are imperialist Zionists who will sell our children for oil. Those of us in the military are either naive idiots who were duped into fighting this war by the military-industrial complex or murderous Nazi’s hell-bent on killing civilians and bathing in their blood.

That answer your question?

(/sarc btw)

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

So now you are pasting same replies to all the treads…thanks for supplying our comic relief for the night…

lovingmyUSA on December 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM

great – another security leak… more US troops put at higher risk and odds of success lower.

Bradky on December 14, 2009 at 8:19 PM

PRetty disgusting that Obama’s team leaked this so he could appear to be tough on terror.

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM

It’s close, but without an obligatory ‘blame Bush’ I can only give you a B+.

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM

So now you are pasting same replies to all the treads…thanks for supplying our comic relief for the night…

lovingmyUSA on December 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM

Copy/Paste is his friend

CWforFreedom on December 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:22 PM

Well as long as it’s a “good solid” B+ I’ve got no complaints.

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:23 PM

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:15 PM

Heh…

lovingmyUSA on December 14, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Well, so much for THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE!

GarandFan on December 14, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Barack W. Obaka

rogerb on December 14, 2009 at 8:25 PM

GarandFan on December 14, 2009 at 8:23 PM

Apparently he made a good sprech about it, too. Sad….

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM

And finally the underlying reason for Mumbai is revealed.

India messes around too much in Afghanistan and the Paki’s release the savages against them.

Bishop on December 14, 2009 at 8:26 PM

simplesimon on December 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

Why are we attacking a country that had nothing to do with 9/11?

NO WAR FOR COTTON !!!!11!!1!!!!!!1!!!11TY

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM

So now you are pasting same replies to all the treads…thanks for supplying our comic relief for the night…

lovingmyUSA on December 14, 2009 at 8:21 PM

I’m pretty sure there’s some kind of Self Loathing/LibTard/My Parents Drink Because They Hate Me flow chart involved somewhere in that ‘Simple’ mess.

BigWyo on December 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM

BadgerHawk on December 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM

We are air raiding goat pastures and killing sheep!

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:28 PM

I read how Nate Fick, who is now CEO of some liberal defense think tank was objecting to our use of drones which I find ridiculous. I remember a few years ago, some leftard was calling their use a war crime. I thought they had gotten over it. I was disappointed in Fick. But he spoke at the 2004 DNC and is east coast ivy league so, I shouldn’t be surprised that he is a lefty, too.

Blake on December 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM

BigWyo on December 14, 2009 at 8:27 PM

Wow. You have a Psych degree, ’cause that was deep! :-)

Rightwingguy on December 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM

simplesimon, would the ISI have been any more or less in bed with the Taliban had we not invaded Iraq?

Iraq has nothing to do with what`s going on in the Afghan/Pakistan area.

ThePrez on December 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Consider this an unexpected benefit of The One’s eagerness to get out of Afghanistan.

Well I would certainly hope that he wouldn’t be eager to stay! I know that Afghanistan has great women and great beer for the troops. Oh wait, that’s a different country. Afghanistan is like a bad marriage. It has already been 8 miserable years. Who would want to stay till death do us part.

MB4 on December 14, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Already cleaned simplesimon’s mess up on another thread by citing some other Famous Former Male Cheerleaders.

Hint: all but 1 were/are Democrats, and include President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, far-Left actors Michael Douglas and Samuel L. Jackson, and some others.

And when you get to the Famous Former Female Cheerleaders, the Democrats pretty much own the cream of the crop. Ask Katie Couric or Meryl Streep.

Del Dolemonte on December 14, 2009 at 8:30 PM

Simplesimon told me that if I voted for McCain troop strength in Afghanistan would triple, and there would be an escalation in drone attacks in Pakistan, and he was RIGHT!

Meremortal on December 14, 2009 at 8:35 PM

Are we referring to the terrorists, or the California Taliban conservatives that are purging the party of pretenders?

SouthernGent on December 14, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Once again the Left gets humped by their guy…couldn’t happen to a better bunch of losers.

Asher on December 14, 2009 at 8:39 PM

Simplesimon told me that if I voted for McCain troop strength in Afghanistan would triple, and there would be an escalation in drone attacks in Pakistan, and he was RIGHT!

Meremortal on December 14, 2009 at 8:35 PM

lol. Like the guy said a generation ago, “They told me that if I voted for Goldwater there would be a big escalation in Vietnam and they were right. I voted for Goldwater and there was a big escalation I Vietnam.”

MB4 on December 14, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Doesn’t the Koran forbid Muslims from killing fellow Muslims? Shame on you Hussein, for shame.

angryed on December 14, 2009 at 8:44 PM

We have around 90 B-52s left, which if used in one strike, would drop 2430 tons of bombs in a matter of minutes.

Just saying.

Rebar on December 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM

U.S. officials said contacts have been handled primarily by the Saudi and Pakistani intelligence services. The results of the effort are unclear.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!

It is getting to the point of surreal silliness to still set up Pakistan as being the least bit trustworthy. And it is even more difficult to respect the people who do persist in trusting them. Chase your tail, tread water, stuck on stupid, after awhile you deserve what you get.

Islam has no intention or ability of trumping the west in open battle. They have drawn us into a shiny sensitive trap that is the most expensive place to be in the world. Focus on the impossible to win campaign in the middle of nowhere with no real benefit even with an indescribable “victory”.

Meanwhile Europe dissolves into helplessness and(Muslim) diversity trumps non Muslim life in America.

danse macabre

BL@KBIRD on December 14, 2009 at 8:58 PM

Blake on December 14, 2009 at 8:29 PM

Actualy, the Precedent this sets for both International Law, and the Laws of War… are troubling.

Its like when we decided, in order to get Noriega, that US courts had worldwide jurisdiction… the unintended consequence was other countries declared they had the same…

Now, legaly, we are assasinating Non Uniformed combatants without any legal finding of guilt… in a country we are not at War with.

How soon until some other country uses this as justification to come into America, and Kill civilians (oh wait… they already are).

We can’t kids ourselves about what we are doing… it may be neccesary… but it is going to have long term consequences.

Romeo13 on December 14, 2009 at 8:59 PM

This is Obozo’s version of Nixon’s Operation Linebacker. The idea is, if you’re going to bug out, do as much damage as possible before you go.

Cicero43 on December 14, 2009 at 9:07 PM

He funds his operations in part through kidnappings and other illicit activities. The Haqqani network held David Rohde, a correspondent for The New York Times, for seven months, seeking ransom until he escaped in June.

“escaped”, no way NYT, you paid to get him out.

the_nile on December 14, 2009 at 9:08 PM

Rebar on December 14, 2009 at 8:56 PM

me likey

cmsinaz on December 14, 2009 at 9:17 PM

Damn.Just think if that Clinton guy had taken his duties seriously.No al queada/bin laden >>>no 9/11>>no afghanistan war>>>no iraq war.

theTarCzar on December 14, 2009 at 9:36 PM

The price tag on Mullah Omar’s head was $25 mil last I saw. Surely someone in the ISI could use that kind of folding money.

GnuBreed on December 14, 2009 at 9:39 PM

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/29/zardari-gives-prime-minister-nuke-authority/

Is this a good or bad development? It relinquishes Zardari’s nuke authority and gives it to the Parliament and the Army- the same folks who don’t like Zardari because of his “working” with the US/US military and many of them have ties to the Taliban. And now we are going to strike Quetta? I think we are walking into a nuke trap. But if I am wrong please tell me because I would love for our military to take out the bad guys in Quetta.

journeyintothewhirlwind on December 14, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Actualy, the Precedent this sets for both International Law, and the Laws of War… are troubling.

Its like when we decided, in order to get Noriega, that US courts had worldwide jurisdiction… the unintended consequence was other countries declared they had the same…

Now, legaly, we are assasinating Non Uniformed combatants without any legal finding of guilt… in a country we are not at War with.

How soon until some other country uses this as justification to come into America, and Kill civilians (oh wait… they already are).

We can’t kids ourselves about what we are doing… it may be neccesary… but it is going to have long term consequences.

Romeo13 on December 14, 2009 at 8:59 PM

disagree, probably because I’m not sure of what you are sayiyng?

there’s LOTS of questions here. are you saying:

that using drones is bad?

or using drones against a non-state-army is bad?

or using drones against a non-state-army in the borders of country we ‘havent’ invaded is bad?

i dont see the “brave new world” part of this…. countries in the west have had “Expeditionary Forces” for 150 years, especially around WWI and WWII — look at the US, for example, and how we treated Mexico and Pancho Villa.

Pancho Villa invaded the US, raiding New Mexico and killing 50 people.

The US govt sent Black Jack pershing and the US Expeditionary force into mexico to get pancho and kill him. along the way we killed some armed mexicans. the caveat was that mexico was in the midst of like a decade long civil war, so mexico city was powerless to stop us (we actually occupied one of their ports during WWI).

i see the pancho villa thing as EXACTLY the same scenario, except now instead of sending flesh and blood men, we are sending unmanned drones. saves our lives. thus, is good.

this isn’t “new”. we also did this in the russian civil war in the 20s, we did a sort of this in cambodia in the 70s, heck, we bankrolled a failed invasion of cuba under jfk and even have “advisors” fighting (kiilling) maoist jihadis in the phillippines RIGHT NOW — when did we declare war on the philippines?!?!

i understand your concern, but it ain’t new, and no one’s going to do it to us. if they did, they’d have done it already (and come to think of it, it’s only happened once — the war of 1812)

battleoflepanto1571 on December 14, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Report: U.S. may target Taliban leadership in Quetta with drone strikes

Or they may not…who knows?

AUINSC on December 14, 2009 at 9:53 PM

What about one of those ‘paper’ bombs that leaves no evidence beheind? Then we deny any involvement.

AnotherOpinion on December 14, 2009 at 10:24 PM

battleoflepanto1571 on December 14, 2009 at 9:48 PM

We did not invade Mexico to Assasinate Pancho, but to try to capture him…

Command and Control has always been a viable target in Military Operations… but we are now mixing the Military with Civilian Law Enforcement… and are muddling Domestic law, International law, Military Law, and the Geneva Convention into one big disfunctional mess.

Are we at war with Pakistan? Well… not technicly… but we are killing their citizens with Military strikes…

I’m trying to wrap my mind about the Legal Framework to do so… because it WILL come back to bite us in the future… when ANOTHER country uses our precedent, against us or our allies.

Romeo13 on December 14, 2009 at 11:14 PM

With “friends” like Pah-kee-stahn, who needs enemies.

Mojave Mark on December 14, 2009 at 11:26 PM

Report: U.S. may target Taliban leadership in Quetta with drone strikes

Good
Now all we need are the dates, times and locations of the strikes being planned, with a 20-60 day advance notice and we’re all set to eliminate the evil taliban
/s

macncheez on December 14, 2009 at 11:29 PM

Well that hope was short lived…

http://www.newsweek.com/id/226522

The great O has already stamped denial on that idea. Of course I am sure its probably actually a Yes but with ROE that makes it impossible so resulting in a NO. Pansie PR tactics. Either way the leak is pitiful if we really are considering such and will just make the targets go to ground for a time until this blows over AGAIN.

Sad thing is what we should do if we were serous about this war would be to get as many HVT’s handouts located as possible send a top delegation to Pakiland. As they met (AQ would think this low risk time) we go balls to the wall and hit all targets with maximum effect fully accepting the collateral damage. Hit all know points of interest for each HVT at the same general time, not just predators either pull the real deal out and use the predators as follow up damage assessment.

While in country announce that the Paki gov forced our hand and where they could have captured these guys with a exacto knife style all we Americans have is a big sledge hammer to operate with. We deeply apologize and regret the collateral damage but our hand was forced and as your government should protect your civilians from evil men who bring death with them like the terrorist we do and will protect ours.

We don’t wish to nor want to police your nation but if forced to do so we will.

The idea of pulling off a hit in a single day that may cut say just the half the upper echelon and maybe even pull a trump card like Mullah Omar, Zarwahiri etc… is something that we should make special risk for.

C-Low on December 15, 2009 at 12:28 AM

Drones aren’t really required, guys. Remember just a few months back, during the last days of the Bush Administration, that helicopter raid into Syria? SOF guys got out, gunned down their targets, then got the Hell out. Using Reaper-class drones for real-time intel/recon/air support would make strikes in crowded cities a lot more feasible.

Then, let’s not forget the stories of Air Force gunships armed with high powered, high accuracy lasers.

It an be done.

Virus-X on December 15, 2009 at 1:01 AM

“It CAN be done.”

Virus-X on December 15, 2009 at 1:02 AM

I think its only a matter of time until OBL and Zawahiri (sp?) are killed. The sooner the better. Drone strikes are fine by me as they seem to be able to stay on station long enough to collect intel and ice the bad guys.

matthew26 on December 15, 2009 at 9:42 AM

Why the hell would you announce something like that? Just DO it, then announce the names of the dead – afterward! Putz.

mojo on December 15, 2009 at 10:22 AM

Right. The pantywaist who is closing Gitmo, granting constitutional rights to terrorists, dithering on troop levels, is now threatening to expand air strikes into civilian population areas of a sovereign nation.

Uh huh.

bloviator on December 15, 2009 at 10:54 AM

We don’t need to do drone strikes inside a city, what we need to do is start playing hard-ball with the upper echelons of the ISI. They know where the people we want are, they know what they are doing, what they are planning, etc.

What we need to do is apply pressure – LOTS of pressure to individuals in the ISI. Tell them there is no use in trying to “wait” us out, because they won’t be around to enjoy our absence. Instruct the CIA to make it clear that they hand over the people we want, or their lives will be miserable, we will bankrupt them as individuals, we will take away their prestige, their positions, their security, etc.

It can be done and it can be successful, if only we have the will.

Fatal on December 15, 2009 at 12:48 PM