Predator Drones vs. US Troops in Pakistan

A few days ago, I reviewed the positions of Barack Obama, John McCain, and George Bush on the question of whether or not US troops should cross the border into Pakistan -- against the wishes of the Pakistani government -- to pursue high-level al Qaeda operatives if intelligence reports indicated that such a raid might succeed. Obama clearly endorsed the idea, whereas McCain declared it to be naive. Bush once seemed to briefly endorse the idea as well, but his actual policy over the last few years has been to rely almost exclusively on attacks by pilotless drones (an approach that seems to have the tacit approval of Pakistan). The only exception that I am aware of is the recent special forces operation into Pakistan that has elicited loud objections from Pakistan, and that raid was not even designed to target al Qaeda leaders so far as I can tell:

The presidential order, first reported by the New York Times, was issued over the summer to give new authority to U.S. special operations forces to target suspected terrorists in the dangerous area along the Afghanistan border, a former intelligence official said. More recently, the administration secretly gave conventional ground troops new authority to pursue militants across the Afghan border into Pakistan, the former official said.

The "rules of engagement" have been loosened, allowing troops to conduct border attacks without being fired on first if they witness attacks coming from the region, the former official said. That would include artillery, rockets and mortar fire from the Pakistan side of the border.

A U.S. official familiar with South Asia said the new rules were adopted in response to increasing frustration with Pakistani counterterrorism cooperation.

Engaging militants inside Pakistan who are firing from just across the border is not the same as pursuing high-value al Qaeda operatives based on intelligence reports identifying their location inside Pakistan. The distinction might not be critical from Pakistan's point of view (they oppose US troops crossing the border, period), but it does matter with respect to the policy that Obama advocated and that McCain criticized. Should we act on such intelligence using US troops? That's the question.

Pakistan now says that its army will fire on US soldiers if they cross the border again:

Pakistan: GIs on cross-border raids will be shot

Zardari says he doubts U.S. will attempt any more special-forces operations

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan's military has ordered its forces to open fire if U.S. troops launch another air or ground raid across the Afghan border, an army spokesman said Tuesday.

In light of this development, a reporter (or a moderator at one of the upcoming presidential debates) should ask Barack Obama is he still supports the idea of sending US troops into Pakistan if intelligence reports identify the possible location of Osama bin Laden. That is, would he support a commando raid knowing that the Pakistani army might inflict casualties on those US forces or that US forces might have to inflict casualties on the Pakistani army in self defense? Would he take the risk of alienating a crucial ally in the war on terror knowing full well that actionable intelligence often turns out to be wrong (even when intelligence officials have high confidence that they are right)?

Nothing good will come from armed conflict between US forces and Pakistani forces, and the need for US troops is reduced to the extent that Pakistan is seriously confronting militants in the border region:

300,000 flee as jihadis attacked

Bruce Loudon, South Asia correspondent | August 18, 2008

ISLAMABAD: A human tide of more than 300,000 civilians has fled the al-Qa'ida badlands, amid indications that the fighting there has reached unprecedented levels, with the Pakistani army using massive firepower to attack jihadi militant strongholds.

Helicopter gunships, fixed-wing strike aircraft, tanks and heavy artillery have been used in the onslaught that followed the visit last month by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to Washington, where he was berated for Pakistan's failure to wipe out the militants.

The offensive runs counter to perceptions that Pakistan's new civilian Government is "soft" on Islamic extremism.
...
Pakistani television showed thousands of civilians caught in the crossfire streaming out of the Bajaur, Mohmand and Kurrum agencies during the fighting estimated to have killed more than 500 militants. Tens of thousands of people are camping on the perimeter of Peshawar, the capital of the North West Frontier Province, and some have reached Rawalpindi, the garrison city adjoining Islamabad.

New security tsar Rehman Malik, the architect of the get-tough policy against the militants who have over-run the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, said at least 220,000 civilians had been displaced. But welfare agencies said the figure was probably well in excess of 300,000.
...
In a speech to the National Assembly on Saturday, Mr Gilani declared the Government was determined to re-establish control in the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan. "We will establish the writ of the Government at all costs (as) a parallel government cannot be tolerated," he said.

This recent development has been coupled with an accelerated schedule of attacks by Predator drones:

Higher-tech Predators targeting Pakistan

The U.S. drone aircraft involved in strikes against Taliban and Al Qaeda militants across the border have enhanced tracking ability.

By Greg Miller and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
September 12, 2008

WASHINGTON -- As part of an escalating offensive against extremist targets in Pakistan, the United States is deploying Predator aircraft equipped with sophisticated new surveillance systems that were instrumental in crippling the insurgency in Iraq, according to U.S. military and intelligence officials.

The use of the specially equipped drones comes amid a fundamental shift in U.S. strategy in the area. After years of deferring to Pakistani authorities, the Bush administration is turning toward unilateral American military operations -- a gambit that could increase pressure on Islamic militants but risks alienating a country that has been a key counter-terrorism ally.

In an indication of the priority being given to the Pakistan campaign, U.S. officials said the specially equipped aircraft were being pulled from other theaters to augment aerial patrols above the tribal belt along Afghanistan's eastern border.

Pakistan's government has found itself caught between Washington's demands for action and the unpopularity of the U.S. campaign, which has included half a dozen Predator strikes and a ground raid in the last few weeks.

And this story links the Pakistani offensive with the increased use of attacks by Predator drones:

America ramps up the hunt for bin Laden

Peter Goodspeed, National Post

Thursday, September 11, 2008

The hunt for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda's top terrorists has gone into overdrive in Pakistan's wild and desolate northwest frontier.

On Monday, two U. S. Predator drone aircraft attacked the base of a top Taliban commander in the North Waziristan tribal area. They killed between 14 and 20 people, four of whom have been identified as mid-level al-Qaeda operatives.
...
The attack, the fourth this month inside Pakistan by unmanned American drones and U. S. Special Forces, may mark an aggressive new U. S. strategy.
...
The latest U. S. raids and attacks inside Pakistan may, in fact, be an attempt to follow up on new opportunities presented by last month's Pakistani military offensive against the Taliban in the Bajaur region, where bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, are believed to have been hiding since 2002.

More than 300,000 people fled the tribal area north of Peshawar last month when Pakistan's army attacked jihadi militant strongholds using helicopter gunships, fixed-wing aircraft, tanks and heavy artillery.

The United States could be attempting to track al-Qaeda leaders who were displaced from Bajaur by the fighting.

With the Pakistani army apparently engaged in a full-scale offensive against Taliban and al Qaeda militants in the border region, and with the Predator drone attacks becoming increasingly frequent (and increasingly effective), the value added from commando raids by US forces that will be met with armed resistance by the Pakistani army is not at all clear to me. But perhaps someone will think to ask Obama to clarify his position on the matter. So long as Pakistan is cooperating in other ways (by launching an offensive and giving tacit approval for attacks from pilotless drones), then I'd keep US forces inside Afghanistan until such time as the Pakistani government signs on to cross-border raids.

UPDATE: Yet another drone strike today:

Pakistan: Suspected U.S. missile strike kills 6

Attack targets militant stronghold near Afghan border, officials say

Wed., Sept. 17, 2008

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan - A suspected U.S. missile strike killed at least six people Wednesday, hours after the top U.S. military officer told Pakistani leaders that America respected Pakistan's sovereignty amid a furor over American strikes into Pakistan's northwest.

Two Pakistani intelligence officials told The Associated Press that several missiles hit a compound in the South Waziristan tribal region early Wednesday evening. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak openly to the media.

The officials said the target was a base for Taliban militants and Hezb-i-Islami, another group fighting U.S. and government troops in neighboring Afghanistan.

They said informants in the area had reported that six people were dead and three more injured. Their identities were not immediately clear.

The officials said an unmanned drone of the type used by the CIA and U.S. forces in Afghanistan was heard in the area shortly before the attack.

My guess is that the the top U.S. military officer who told Pakistani leaders that America respected Pakistan's sovereignty was referring to the fact that US forces would no longer cross the border to conduct attacks against the Taliban. My further guess is that everyone (except the Taliban and al Qaeda) agrees that attacks by pilotless drones are OK.