An embassy asks, Drones or diplomacy?

[Benjamin Parish]

An embassy asks, Drones or diplomacy?

As America’s relationship with Pakistan has unraveled over the past 18 months, an important debate has been going on within the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad over the proper scope of CIA covert actions and their effect on diplomatic interests.

The principals in this policy debate have been Cameron Munter, the U.S. ambassador since October 2010, and several CIA station chiefs who served with him. The technical issue was whether the ambassador, as chief of mission, had the authority to veto CIA operations he thought would harm long-term relations. Munter appears to have lost this fight.

The larger issue is the intersection of drone warfare and diplomacy. It’s a crucial question for the Obama administration, which has sharply increased the CIA’s use of these unmanned aircraft to strike at al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. But there has been relatively little public examination of how these covert weapons should coexist with the goals of statecraft.

Washington Post

[DumbAss Tanker]

It's a legitimate question.  Use of armed drones over a country is still a deployment and use of military force by an alien sovereign, the fact that we draw some sort of mystical distinction between killing people with AGMs launched from remotely-piloted drones and just sending in manned fighter-bombers to do the same thing does not mean the country where the explosions happen has to view it the same way.  Killing people with armed drones on foreign territory, without the knowledge and consent of that foreign government, is fundamentally contrary to carrying on diplomatic relations with them in a 'Business as usual' fashion.

[Mr Mannn]

Pakistan willingly gives shelter to al queda. They gave safe haven to Ossama Bin Laden.
every time we coordinate with their security on a joint raid, they call up the terrorists and warn them to move.

It should be pretty obvious by now that diplomacy has failed. Pakistan is a terrorist state.

that leave drones. question answered. thank me later. or thank me now.
But when it comes to terrorist rag-heads, the correct is always to blow them up. No safe havens.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Pakistan willingly gives shelter to al queda. They gave safe haven to Ossama Bin Laden.
every time we coordinate with their security on a joint raid, they call up the terrorists and warn them to move.

It should be pretty obvious by now that diplomacy has failed. Pakistan is a terrorist state.

that leave drones. question answered. thank me later. or thank me now.
But when it comes to terrorist rag-heads, the correct is always to blow them up. No safe havens.

Sometimes things have more than one moving part, alien as that concept may be to some of us.  Piss off the Pakis bad enough, and you find out how much more expensive it is to fly in every last ounce of shit we use up in Afghanistan every day vs. running it overland, even with all the bribes, pilferage, and crap that involves now.  Blowing up random assholes and anyone who happens to be standing near them at the time needs to take a back seat to supporting an engaged army in the field.

[Mr Mannn]

Sometimes things have more than one moving part, alien as that concept may be to some of us.  Piss off the Pakis bad enough, and you find out how much more expensive it is to fly in every last ounce of shit we use up in Afghanistan every day vs. running it overland, even with all the bribes, pilferage, and crap that involves now.  Blowing up random assholes and anyone who happens to be standing near them at the time needs to take a back seat to supporting an engaged army in the field.

Stop being so right. I was an a roll. Now everyone's gonna agree with you. wah.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Sorry.

 

[Bad Dog]

Anybody else noticed Ben Jammin has two distinctly different posting styles? One is cut & paste with little or no comment.  The other is whiny, misspelled and lol every other word.

[JohnnyReb]

Drones...for those times when you really want to reach out and touch someone.