Publicly, the army and the government have always condemned drone attacks as a violation of Pakistan's airspace and sovereignty. But now, secret internal US government cables reveal that Pakistan's top military brass supports US drone strikes in Pakistan, despite public posturing to the contrary. The cables allege that in January 2008, Army Chief General Kayani requested “continuous Predator coverage” in South Waziristan. In another cable in February 2009, US Ambassador Patterson asserts, “Kayani knows full well that the strikes have been precise.” The ISPR has denied these reports and said that it has only shared technical intelligence in some areas, The News writes in its editorial. Excerpts: It was in early March this year that Maj-Gen Ghayur Mehmood, in charge of the troops in North Waziristan, made a statement that most of those killed in drone strikes were Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists, and not civilians. But when a drone attack killed 40 in the North Waziristan Agency a few days later, Gen Kayani came out in a manner uncharacteristic of him and “strongly” condemned the attack, calling it “senseless, careless and callous”. On the other hand, as reported in Dec. 2010, WikiLeaks revealed that PM Gilani had allowed drone strikes in the tribal areas “as long as they get the right people”. “We'll protest in the National Assembly and then ignore it,” he had said. In an exclusive interview with Time just last week, PM Gilani, for the first time, publicly expressed support for drone strikes inside Pakistan – provided that Pakistan was in on the decision-making. But this week, he said during his China visit that Pakistan condemned drone strikes and its officials had repeatedly said that the strikes were counterproductive. The prime minister's comments left people wondering why he had publicly offered, only a few days ago, support for a program that his government thought counterproductive. The most important element all these contradictory, not to mention confusing, statements point to is a lack of clarity on Pakistan's drone policy, and the implications of the continuing ambiguity. Do we think the strikes are a useful and precise tactic in neutralizing identified militants? If so, military and political leaders should publicly change their stated position, openly seek greater cooperation with US forces to yield success in the long term, and move on. On the other hand, if the army and government really are against the strikes and think they do more harm than good, then they should stop bemoaning them in public and supporting them in private. The nod-and-wink approach to drone strikes is demeaning and self-defeating. The latest disclosures have finally sounded the bell on the need for political and military leaders in Pakistan, and their counterparts in the US, to stop holding the public hostage to this politics of ambiguity. This is all that the Pakistani public asks of the army and the government: come clean, lay your cards on the table, don't dissemble. __
