Tacit Approval Scenario: Confirmed

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about the strong tactical and operational indicators for the idea that Pakistan was tacitly endorsing (while publicly denouncing) American airstrikes in its own territory. However, I wasn't thinking creatively enough. Turns out the tacit endorsement extended to direct operational support (basing) of those CIA operations inside Pakistan:

Information Dissemination was the first blog on my radar to ping this explosive Chicago Tribune story:

At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise at Pakistani opposition to the ongoing campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Al Qaeda targets along Pakistan's northwest border.

"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said of the planes.

The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counterterrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.

Feinstein's spokesman claims that she was referring to this article from the Washington Post last March:

Musharraf, who controls the country's military forces, has long approved U.S. military strikes on his own. But senior officials in Pakistan's leading parties are now warning that such unilateral attacks -- including the Predator strikes launched from bases near Islamabad and Jacobabad in Pakistan -- could be curtailed.

A further article appeared last November that suggested, on background from "senior officials in both countries," that Pakistan had a secret deal with the US to continue the airstrikes. That speaks of a purposeful, approved leak to the press designed to deflate domestic political doubt and opposition, and to send a signal internationally (ie, NATO allies) to avoid loud protestations. The article is quick to point out that the airstrikes have been "a success":

Two former senior intelligence officials familiar with the use of the Predator in Pakistan said the rift between Islamabad and Washington over the unilateral attacks was always less than it seemed.

"By killing al-Qaeda, you're helping Pakistan's military and you're disrupting attacks that could be carried out in Karachi and elsewhere," said one official, speaking on the condition of anonymity. Pakistan's new acquiescence coincided with the new government there and a sharp increase in domestic terrorist attacks, including the September bombing of the Marriott hotel in Islamabad.

"The attacks inside Pakistan have changed minds," the official said. "These guys are worried, as they should be."

The assertion that the strikes have been strategically effective has been disputed by many in the COIN community:

"Sometimes we might have to [attack with drones] -- but only where larger interests (say, stopping another 9/11) are directly affected," he tells Danger Room. "We need to be extremely careful about undermining the longer-term objective -- a stable Pakistan, where elected politicians control their own national-security establishment, and extremism is diminishing -- for the sake of collecting scalps."

Kilcullen's premise is that the airstrikes have been "destabilizing" to the Pakistani government. That government may have concluded that that such tactical pressure is worth the risk of internal upheaval. As I wrote in "The Tacit Approval Scenario:"

In short, the Reaper can do the kind of reconnaissance and surveillance that makes the missile strikes it launches possible in the first place: it represents a tactical capability that the Pakistanis simply don't possess.

Remember: Pakistan is fighting a civil war. Their leadership may feel, rightly or wrongly, that they should use whatever tactical advantage they can (particularly one that, first and foremost, gives them the initiative).

Update: David Axe weighs in:

The advent of killer drones has enabled the U.S. military and CIA to run lethal air campaigns without a lot of people noticing.

That’s bad. It’s all too easy to push ethical boundaries when nobody’s watching.

So open up those verbal floodgates, Senator, and shine some sunlight on our secretive air wars.

A dramatization of my job woes

And the reason I haven't posted lately. Fucking time vampires.

Obama at Townhall meeting in Elkhart

Part 1:



Part 2:



I concur with David Neiwert at C&L:

Anyone remember the Potemkin Village quality of George W. Bush's "town hall" appearances? How everyone was prescreened, and uncomfortable or difficult questions -- let alone questions posed by someone from the other side of the political aisle -- were never ever EVER asked?

Take the inspirational rhetoric with a grain of salt. First Obama needs to throw post-partisanship under the bus already. Jane Hamsher, most valuable for her seemingly rare ability to actually recognize that people act to further their own interests, has been beating that drum as long as anyone:

The administration assumed that Obama's overwhelming popularity, combined with a rapidly worsening economic crisis and a welcome mat for the GOP would be enough to push Republicans into a collaborative mode. It wasn't. They belatedly began calling the act the Economic Recovery Act, but it never caught on. The White House hailed the Nelson/Collins compromise because it creates "jobs jobs jobs," yet Krugman and others maintain that the changes they made significantly reduced job creation, with estimates ranging between 600,000 and 1.25 million jobs over the next two years. When Larry Summers was confronted with that charge on This Week he would not dispute it. Apologists like Claire McCaskill are left to tilt at straw men.

It least there is a small glimmer of hope that he may get banks right yet. One word: nationalize.

Obama followed up his speech at Elkhart with a press conference. His prepared remarks follow:

Recession Reality

Two quick clips worth watching from TP:

Kentucky:



South Carolina:

USS Cole Repercussions Continue...

...and Larry Johnson lays them squarely at the feet of... who else?

This is one of the many fuck ups by George Bush. Al-Nashiri was captured back October 2002 and, despite having him in custody for more than six years, the Bushies could not figure out what to do with him. This one ain’t on Barack.

And while we are at it, we would not be in this dilemma if the Commander of the U.S.S. cole, Kirk Lippold, had done his job in the first place. That clown failed to implement his ship’s security plan and created an opening that allowed the terrorists to attack the Cole. Instead of doing the decent thing and keeping his yap shut, Lippold is back seeking public attention.

LJ's not exaggerating:





It's not the failure itself that is the rot here, it's the failure to take responsibility, from the top down.

Republican Levity

First there's the news that Bush and Cheney are wanted men in Vermont:



Then, word comes out that Ann Coulter is being probed for voter fraud:

Ann Coulter lives in New York where she owns an apartment but votes in Connecticut using her father's address. And that's illegal. So following a formal complaint filed by coulterwatch.com's Dan Borchers and a report in the NY Daily News, Connecticut's Elections Enforcement Commission is probing the faux-comedienne/brassy blonde author.

Cheney and Coulter facing jail in the same week? If only we enjoyed a justice system that truly applies the law equally...

The Navy's ongoing Identity Crisis

The Navy has suffered from a general lack of direction in recent years. It can't decide what to pursue in terms of a coherent procurement plan:

“If you stop building DDG 1000s and you have a DDG 51 that really doesn’t have that X-band and isn’t intended to operate close to the shoreline and in that cluttered environment, it’s not clear how you provide air protection for the littoral combat ship (LCS).

“So there, you’ve got to ask yourself what the strategy is that has us wanting to buy 55 LCSs, which don’t have any air self-defense capability, and I don’t really have a ship that helps provide the air cover for that ship. Because when [the LCS] was envisioned by [former Chief of Naval Operations] Adm. [Vern] Clark and others, that was the strategy, the way it would hang together.”

That's John Young speaking in his capacity as "Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics." He's in the difficult position of having to explain the high dollar amount attached to the Navy's version of the F-22 or FCS, the DDG-1000 Zumwalt Destroyer. All are, in some way or another, gold-plated poster children of a completely dysfunctional procurement process.

The Navy also can't decide how to pursue its new missions:

The same day, McKnight transferred his staff to the cruiser Vella Gulf and San Antonio turned back to the United States [and away from its role as flagship of CTF-151]. The Navy said the rotation was routine, but it’s worth pointing out that San Antonio has suffered severe mechanical problems as a result of shoddy construction.

Just a week earlier, McKnight had praised San Antonio as the perfect pirate-fighting warship.

...

Trading San Antonio ship for a cruiser will have some knock-on effects. The cruiser has less aviation deck space and fewer helicopters, potentially fewer small boats and definitely less space for staff, extra boarding teams and captured pirates. A deal-breaker for the Navy’s first dedicated counter-pirate force? Certainly not. But it’s not good news.

My guess is, the Navy simply realized that it was never going to go amphibious on the pirates.

Finally, the Navy's having trouble doing some basic things right:

The USS Port Royal (CG 73), the youngest cruiser in the fleet, went aground just outside Pearl Harbor Thursday night

.

Galrahn has more:

Normally I wouldn't bother posting about a grounding here, but PORT ROYAL is one of just three BMD cruisers in the fleet and she looks to be well in the shoal water on Runway Reef and parallel to the beach, to boot.

Luckily, no one was hurt, and it is apparently not leaking anything.