the tacit approval scenario

Cross-border airstrikes into Pakistan have been riding high in the news cycle again lately, if for no other reason than that Obama did not call a stop to them (as he swiftly did re: Guantanamo, rendition, and torture). The stories follow a familiar arc. The strikes are carried out by CIA unmanned drones launched from Afghanistan. The casualties are either civilians or militants (in reality it is, of course, both), depending on whether you believe the "local officials" or the Americans. The Americans will drop dark hints of "High Value Targets," The Pakistani government will offer a public rebuke, and the Pakistani public will produce a cry of protest.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

Critics are quick to point out the obvious geopolitical risks:

And that leads to the broader point. The Obama administration hopes strikes like these send the message to Islamabad that more of this is on the way if the Pakistanis don't get their shit together and hunt down al-Qaeda itself. If you were President Zardari, how would you react to that message? Would you believe that the U.S. really understood, or cared, about the pressures you face; and was actually willing to assist you in dealing with them? Or would you think you were getting an insulting series of ultimatums, purchased in people's lives?

Such criticism is predicated on the idea that the Pakistani government is truly as opposed to the airstrikes as they say they are in public. However, news stories like the most recent WashPo article linked to above hint at a "tacit agreement" scenario:

The Pakistani government, which has loudly protested some earlier strikes, was quiet yesterday. In September, U.S. and Pakistani officials reached a tacit agreement to allow such attacks to continue without Pakistani involvement, according to senior officials in both countries.

To understand how this might be the case, it is useful to look at the airstrikes in an operational context.

Pakistan is fighting a long, grinding, internal counterinsurgency for the same swath of territory that the CIA is hitting. To get a clear picture of what these battles look like, I strongly recommend this series by Al Jazeera: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4.

Also, be sure to watch this amazing video, taken straight from the heart of the area that the Pakistani government seeks to assert control over:


VICE Travel: Darra, Pakistan

While Pakistan is engaged in what amounts to a fierce civil war for control of the tribal territories, they also feel existentially threatened by their southern neighbors. The Mumbai attacks very nearly escalated into all out war. Given Pakistan's limited resources, they have, quite rationally, focused their military power primarily on deterring and potentially defending against a conventional Indian attack.

This means that Pakistan's F-16s are "pointed" at India. They have to patrol the borders, they have to remain on alert for Indian fighters; in short, they have to maintain a posture relevant to defending against the existential threat of India, not launching strikes deep into internal tribal territory.

I mention Pakistan's F-16s only because they are the closest analogue to the "Reaper" UAVs that the CIA is flying over the Afghan border: they are both strike aircraft. However, they are radically different in terms of capability. Fighter jets like the F-16 are fast, fly high, and carry lots of weapons. However their logistical burden is daunting. They can only carry enough fuel to stay in the air for a few hours. Even with unlimited aerial refueling available, their endurance is limited by that of their human pilots.

An unmanned drone like the Reaper can also fly high, although it can only carry a handful of weapons and move about as fast a Cessna. But the key is persistence. Pilots, working in shifts, control the aircraft remotely from the United States. Their lives are not on the line if their aircraft is targeted. The Reaper can stay in the air for up to a whole day, and its prop driven propeller is orders of magnitude more fuel efficient than a jet engine. 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.

Beyond the added tactical capability, the CIA strikes allow the Pakistani government plausible deniability. A tacit approval scenario does not hinge on whether or not anyone within the Pakistani government, intelligence, or military is supplying the Americans with targets. That said, some of the people allegedly targeted in these airstrikes almost certainly enjoyed some kind of relationship with the Pakistani ISI in the past.

It was only recently that the Pakistani government was pressured by the US into asserting sovereign control over its tribal areas. The Taliban, the ISI's proxy in Afghanistan, were founded here. Those ties run deep, and third party interference from the CIA in those relationships cannot be entirely unwelcome to a new civilian government in Islamabad, particularly one that wishes to exercise control over its own intelligence services. Mumbai, for example, was the result of an ISI proxy in Kashmir run amok. When your intelligence assets have become a liability, better to have someone else clean up the mess.

Whether or not the CIA is (wittingly or not) cleaning the ISI's dirty laundry, it is likely that first and foremost they are developing their own targets. A suitcase full of dollars, a set of plane tickets for the family, and a cell phone can go a long way.

The next time there is an American air strike in Pakistan in the news, keep all of this in mind. As the US prepares to double its troop presence in Afghanistan in the coming months, such strikes will only increase.