Almost all Pakistanis against drone strikes according to Pew poll.

The full Pew Research poll on global attitudes can be found here. The poll also shows a decline in confidence in Obama in many parts of the world. However most countries in Europe want to see him reelected.

There are many other interesting statistics in the poll. Putin for example is not viewed favorably as a leader except in Russia itself at 69 per cent and to some extent in China.

The Pakistan attitudes on drones show 97 per cent opposed and a majority believe that the drone strikes have a negative impact on the country. Ninety four per cent believe that the drones kill too many innocent people. Some of the statistics seem inconsistent but that is probably the result of people's attitudes! The number of people who see militant groups as a main problem to be addressed in Pakistan is dwindling although the popularity of militant groups is not increasing. A full 74 per cent do not think drone attacks are necessary to defend Pakistan from extremist groups. The survey also shows that the most popular party is the PTI led by Imran Khan. For more see this article.

CIA given go ahead to increase drone attacks in Pakistan

In response to Pakistani demands that drone attacks cease and in spite of the fact that Pakistan has made stopping them a condition of reopening supply routes, Obama has obviously given the go ahead not just to resume attacks to increase their frequency.The move is just one aspect of what is becoming more and more open criticism and impatience with Pakistan. The U.S. has not made any attempt to meet another demand of Pakistan an apology for the killing of 24 Pakistani troops in an incident on the border with Afghanistan last November. This was the original event that caused Pakistan to close the transit routes.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta spoke of the U.S. reaching the limits of its patience. Perhaps Pakistan is also already at the point where it has reached the limits of its patience and has no intention of reopening the supply routes. The Pakistanis have their own priorities and plans. No doubt some of the contingency plans involve insurgent linked groups. This is hardly a novel tactic. The U.S. used the same tactics in supporting Islamic radicals against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

But Pakistan is supposed to immediately act upon whatever the U.S. considers its own interests in spite of the fact that Pakistan has already suffered many losses through fighting terrorism and also subjected the tribal areas to terrible devastation and the displacement of thousands of people.

Panetta made it clear that drone strikes will continue. Panetta said:"It is difficult to achieve peace in Afghanistan as long as there is safe haven for terrorists in Pakistan," If the drone strikes are so successful how can there be safe havens in Pakistan?

The pace of attacks in increasing. Since the Chicago conference alone on May 20 21 there have been eight attacks. In the 5 and a half months before the conference the CIA logged only 14 strikes in Pakistan.

Javed Qazi a retired Pakistani intelligence head said:"They are trying to send a message: 'If you don't come around, we will continue with our plan, the way we want to do it,'" He continued this is "superpower arrogance being shown to a smaller state.... But this will only increase the feeling among Pakistanis that the Americans are bent on having their way through force and not negotiation."

Panetta levelled charges against Pakistan while speaking in India. To do this shows absolute arrogance and is apt to make Pakistan even more paranoid about developing close U.S. India ties. That Pakistan now seeks closer ties with China and better relations even with Iran should hardly come as a surprise. Panetta confirmed that the U.S. is not just targeting the remnants of Al Qaeda but any group it thinks may be attacking the U.S. in Afghanistan.

The Zardari government will soon face elections. Apparently the U.S. does not care that the result may be the defeat of the Zardari government and the election of a far more anti-American government. For more see this article.

UN human right head questions legality of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan

At the end of a fact finding visit to Pakistan Navi Pillay raised serious questions about their legality under international law. U.S. officials constantly praise the program and parade names of Al Qaeda leaders killed in the raids.

When human rights agencies try to seek information on the strikes the fact that they even exist becomes classified information but when there is propaganda value to be gained by releasing information there are names of leaders killed and the numbers of suspected militants eliminated.

The general mantra justifying the attacks is present by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta as defending the U.S. However the notion of self defense in this case is surely a stretch as there may be no immediate threat.

Pakistan summoned the U.S. ambassador to Pakistan to complain of the attacks. Pakistan complains the attacks violate its sovereignty. The parliament has demanded the attacks cease. However at the same time it would seem that Pakistani intelligence may help out with targeting. Recently the U.S. has stepped up attacks even in the face of the Pakistani demand that the drone attacks cease as a condition of reopening NATO supply routes. By deliberately snubbing their noses at the Pakistani demands the U.S. makes it politically difficult for the Pakistani government to compromise.

Pillay was concerned about several aspects of the attacks. Pillay noted:"Drone attacks do raise serious questions about compliance with international law, in particular the principle of distinction and proportionality," She continues:"Ensuring accountability for any failure to comply with international law is also difficult when drone attacks are conducted outside the military chain of command" Pillay argues that the attacks carried out by the CIA are"beyond effective and transparent mechanisms of civilian or military control". Of course somehow or other the New York times is able to get a lot of background information which shows that a committee assess who is to be on the kill list and the President of the U.S. makes the final decision. These are all the marvelous accountability provisions. Of course one knows only what is revealed by the New York Times from material fed to them by the U.S. administration. Pillay will no doubt rile the U.S.since she suggested that Pakistan should ask the UN Special Rapporteur on Summary or Arbitrary Executions to investigate some of the incidents. Many critics claim that significant numbers of innocent people are killed in the strikes. For more see this article.

Juan Cole on Obama's Afghan visit and policies

At his blog Juan Cole has a long entry on Obama's visit to Afghanistan and his policy in Afghanistan. As Cole remarks Obama had to enter secretly at night because of the security situation in Kabul. Almost as soon as he left there was a suicide attack.

The Strategic Partnership Agreement Cole claims is an executive order rather than a treaty. The agreement went neither to the U.S. congress nor to the Afghan parliament. Many press reports simply ignore this. The Afghan people have nothing to say through their parliament about the agreement. The American people have nothing to say through congrees about the billions of taxpayer dollars they commit to Afghanistan's defense after 2014. No doubt the agreement would pass with bipartisan support in the U.S. congress in spite of the U.S. debt and public distaste for the war but in the Afghan congress it might be different.

Cole points out that the document says that Afghanistan is committed to advancing democracy. However, the presidential election in Afghanistan and other elections were flawed. Also, this agreement itself is not treated democratically but as an executive order.

While the document promises that the U.S. will have no permanent bases in Afghanistan as Cole notes U.S. troops will be staying for at least another decade and even more under the agreement so the issue can be postponed for a decade or more while U.S. has access to Afghan bases as well. Special forces will remain to fight the Taliban. Most significantly there is a commitment to pay billions to keep the Afghan armed forces afloat..The U.S. is no doubt anxious to get NATO members to share this burden but this may be an uphill battle.

Cole concentrates on four failed aspects of Obama's Afghan strategy: 1) Trying to get someone more appropriate as president than Hamid Karzai. It has not worked. The U.S. is stuck with him so far. 2) Carrying out a counter-insurgency struggle to win the hearts and minds of Afghans and defeat the Taliban. While there may have been some local successes overall the struggle has been far from successful. 3) Training and equipping an Afghan National Army and police. This aim too is far from a success. Only one unit of the Army has been assessed as being able to operate independently. Of course it is also infiltrated by the Taliban at times. 4) Use drone strikes against Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in the Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Cole says this tactic has produced tremendous blowback and is probably counter productive. For the much more see the full article.

Pakistan's President Zardari calls for end to U.S. drone strikes

The leader of the Pakistan opposition pointed out that Pakistan has had two motions in parliament that the attacks cease. Now the parliamentary review group has demanded the attacks cease as a condition for renewing normal relations with the U.S. The first two motions the opposition leader noted have never been acted upon so it is simply embarassing to pass another one.

However, Zardari never seems to be fazed by inconsistency between his rhetoric and reality. The reality is that the U.S. has said it will not cease the attacks. In fact it may not even compromise by letting the Pakistanis have foreknowledge of when attacks are happening or a say in when and where they should happen. However, Zardari wiill probably go on saying one thing in public and tacitly agreeing with the U.S. in private.

Zardari said that the parliamentary review process shows that democracy has taken root in Pakistan. But it may be a root without fruit. Zardari also said that negotiations with the U.S. should work within the parameters set by parliament and not bypass it. However the drone issue will become a problem if Zardari is serious about this. But there are other demands as well.

A spokesperson for the president said that Zardari demanded greater transparency in the Pakistan U.S. relationship. Really? Does he want the public to know that there will probably be tacit agreements on issues such as drone attacks?

During talks with U.S. officials Zardari also suggested that there might be preferential tariffs for Pakistani goods entering the U.S. Zardari also expressed concern about the Afghan drug trade. He said that large amounts of drugs were entering Pakistan from Afghanistan.

Zardari said that money from the trade financed the Afghan insurgency and that it was important for the U.S. and NATO to intercept the drugs.

Zardari also told the U.S. officials that drone attacks were violations of Pakistan's sovereignty, and were counterproductive. He claimed that civilian casualties fueled militancy and should stop. This sort of rhetoric is nothing new but that Zardari is saying this within the context of renewing normal relations with the U.S. may mean that he is serious this time. Most likely he is serious in the sense that he will use the demand to get concessions from the U.S. on other issues. Zardari also defended Pakistan's decision to continue with a natural gas pipeline project from Iran. For more see this article

U.S. resumed drone strikes despite Pakistani objections

In spite of Pakistani criticism and a motion in the Pakistani parliament that drone strikes cease, the U.S. simply informed Pakistan that it was resuming the attacks without any agreement. '

Last month on Jan. 10th the attacks resumed after a pause of two months after relations were strained with Pakistan. A U.S. attack on the border of Pakistan killed 24 Pakistani soldiers.

Sources say that both vice-president Biden and Secty of State Clinton spoke with Pakistani officials. Rumours were that there were negotiations to limit attacks and co-ordinate with the Pakistanis but apparently this was not to be.

In public Pakistani politicians have always objected to the drone strikes as violations of sovereignty. However, there have never been any attempts to shoot the drones down although on occasion this has been threatened. Many analysts believe that privately there is tacit agreement to the attacks.

The Pakistani intelligence service even helps in targeting. U.S. officials say they are not likely to give Pakistan advance notice of attacks as they fear that militants might be given the information.

The drone attacks have fueled already strong anti-US sentiment in Pakistan. The Pakistani foreign minister Hina Khar is on a visit to the UK and is trying to convince the British to use their influence with the U.S. to stop the drone attacks. See this article. For more on the drone strikes see this article.

Obama has made expansion of drone and special forces attacks a center piece of his war policy making much more use of drones than his predecessor Bush. U.S. liberals on the whole remain silent about them.

Pakistan: 2nd drone strike in two days kills five

   Of course the five killed are described as militants. At least that is Yahoo's compliant version of events. Sometimes the claims are more moderately describes as suspected militants. Of course reporters are not allowed in to the areas to verify any official or unofficial reports.
  The Pakistan parliament long ago passed a motion that the drone attacks stop. They did for almost two months. There are reports that there has been negotiating with the Pakistani government and new rules have been agreed to. However, the Pakistani government has always denied there is any agreement on the attacks.    The U.S. for its part does not even officially admit they exist. The lame-stream media as in this Yahoo report
go along with the official idiotic verbiage:"" The suspected U.S. drone fired two missiles at two cars in the Dogga area of North Waziristan tribal region, killing five""" Ho hum. A SUSPECTED U.S. drone.
   Usually the government protests the strikes. There have even been threats to shoot down the drones. Of course the threat is never carried out.