Pakistani CIA Informant: 'Drone Attacks Are the Right Thing to Do'

[ډګروال]

A Pakistani who works as an operative for the CIA spoke to SPIEGEL about his
motives for helping the Americans, the civilian casualties of drone attacks and
his fear of the Taliban.

Intelligence operative Mohammed Hassan (*) cancelled prearranged meetings several
times. He called us from a different phone each time, never offering a reason, merely
saying: "I unfortunately can't make it." But then he suddenly turned up in a small,
inconspicuous hotel in Karachi. A short man with a salt-and-pepper beard, Hassan arrived
wearing a white turban and a white shalwar kameez, a knee-length shirt and cotton pants.
Hassan works for the CIA.

He provides data and information for the Americans' drone missions in the Pakistani tribal
regions along the border with Afghanistan. He lives there and is of Pashtun ethnicity. He
says that he has decided to talk because if he didn't, he would drive himself crazy, and
because the whole world is critical of the drone attacks -- and in his perception, this makes
the world critical of his actions, too. "However, I feel that this weapon is the right tool in
the fight against extremists," he says.

He is opposed to talks with the Taliban, which the Pakistani government supports. "What
can you talk about with these kinds of people? About their share of power?" According to
Hassan, the Taliban want an Islamic state according to their convictions, one with no roads,
no schools, no music, no art and no enjoyment of life. "Nothing but pray, pray, pray. It has
nothing to do with modern Islam." He fears that chaos will ensue if the Americans end their
drone missions in Pakistan, because it will descend into a dog-eat-dog struggle for power.

But he is also plagued by the fear of being discovered and murdered by the Taliban. He's asked
us not to print his real name or his real profession, or even identify the part of the tribal regions
where he lives. He says that he can only speak openly under these conditions. He has brought
along photos of meetings with Taliban commanders, as well as documents that he says serve as
proof of his access to important information.

SPIEGEL: You don't exactly look like a US spy.

Hassan: What did you expect? We Pashtuns look like Pashtuns. Just because I have a beard and
dress the way we tribal people happen to dress doesn't mean that we're Taliban. There are also
reasonable people among us.

SPIEGEL: You pass on information to the American intelligence agency, the CIA, which it uses to
kill your countrymen with drones. You call that reasonable?

Hassan: We are at war, and I am part of this war. When does a war make sense? To be honest, I
think the US drone missions are the right thing to do. Believe me, no weapon is more effective in
fighting extremists. Hakimullah Mehsud, the head of the Taliban for many years, was killed on Nov.
1. Many other more or less high-ranking extremists were killed before that. From a military standpoint,
it's a success for the United States. And I contribute to that success.

SPIEGEL: The Pakistani government and the army complain that the US attacks are a violation of
Pakistani sovereignty.

Hassan: What sovereignty? The nation of Pakistan has had no control over the tribal regions for
decades. The military has a few barracks there. They are well-guarded fortresses, and the soldiers
hardly dare to step outside. Pakistani law doesn't apply in the tribal regions, neither the constitution
nor any other law.
Tribal rules are all that counts. The Taliban claim that they are very effective. But I think they're
more primitive than anything else. However, I understand that Pakistani politicians and generals
have to make a public show of being opposed to the drone attacks.

SPIEGEL: You are alluding to the idea that the government secretly endorsed the missions, as
indicated by the US embassy reports published by WikiLeaks.

Hassan: Pakistan is a conservative society. The majority do not accept the US's drone war.
They believe the protestations of the government in Islamabad, that the Americans are violating
our sovereignty. For them, it is also unacceptable that Washington is killing Muslims in Pakistan,
that is, their sisters and brothers in the faith. That's why those who are in charge in Pakistan have
no choice but to publicly distance themselves from the drone attacks.

SPIEGEL: How do you respond to accusations that the attacks are primarily killing civilians?

Hassan: That's nonsense, pure propaganda. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism in London
estimates that a total of 2,534 to 3,657 people have been killed in 379 drone attacks since 2004,
including between 416 and 948 civilians. What's this supposed to be, a guessing game? It seems
to me that these imprecise figures are made up out of thin air. Most of the estimates are based
on Pakistani newspaper articles, which in turn are based on information from people in the tribal
regions that cannot be verified. From my own experience on the ground, I can say that yes, there
are civilian casualties, and unfortunately they include women and children. But they make up a
very small share of the total. I have no concrete figures. Does anyone seriously believe that America
would wager a costly, politically sensitive war in Pakistan to kill civilians? Most of the victims are
enemies of the United States and enemies of Pakistan.

SPIEGEL: Are you to blame when there are civilian casualties, because you have passed on incorrect
information?

Hassan: There is of course the risk that mistakes are made. And it has apparently been the case
that people have tried to denounce their enemies -- in the hope that the Americans will kill them
with drones. But those are exceptions, which I am only aware of from hearsay. The fact is that
when a target is selected and there are people in the immediate vicinity, they die as well. After all,
a drone doesn't select a single person from a group. For instance, when a Taliban commander goes
to a village, people are curious and come out to greet him. If a drone strikes at that moment, it
also hits people who have nothing to do with the Taliban. At least the constant threat of drones
has led to the extremists becoming more and more socially isolated. And that's a success.

SPIEGEL: Do you have a guilty conscience?

Hassan: No. What would be the alternative to a drone war? A military operation by the Pakistani
army or, God forbid, an invasion by the Americans. Then there would be many, many more deaths.

SPIEGEL: Do you do this work for the money?

Hassan: Of course, to some extent. But I am also deeply convinced that I'm doing the right thing.

SPIEGEL: Exactly how much are you paid? And what kind of information do you provide?

Hassan: An average of $200 (€147) a month. That's a lot of money in my part of the world. It isn't
my primary occupation. I provide information about everything I see and believe is worth reporting.
Information about foreigners who turn up here, about places where meetings are held, things like
that.

SPIEGEL: To whom do you provide the information?

Hassan: To middlemen. Pakistanis. Let me put it this way: The Pakistani side is also involved.

SPIEGEL: Are you afraid of being caught?

Hassan: Yes, I am afraid. The Taliban know that someone has to be passing on information. There is
a special unit whose job is to expose spies and punish them. Even someone who is suspected of being
an informant has a problem. When a spy is exposed, he is shot to death or blown up. The last few
minutes before the execution are filmed. When they pull out the video camera, you know that it's
the end. And then these people turn up as corpses along the side of the road, along with the DVD
of the execution and a note stating that this is the fate all spies can expect.

SPIEGEL: And why are you telling us about it, if it's that dangerous?

Hassan: Because I feel the need to talk. Sometimes I have the feeling that I'm going crazy. There is
more support for the drone attacks in the tribal regions than people out there in the world think. But
no one dares to speak up. Everyone is afraid. Anyone who says anything good about the drones is
finished. No one knows who is on which side. And human rights organizations have recently been
increasingly spreading the notion that the drone war is happening against our will. Perhaps it's true
that a majority oppose the drone war. But the mood certainly isn't that clear-cut. We want to live in
peace, and that's only possible without these backward extremists.

Interview: Pakistani CIA Informant on Drone Warfare and Taliban - SPIEGEL ONLINE

[Badlun]

Most of the times perception is larger than reality. The rightfulness of opposition to drones attacks in Pakistan is a perception but the reality is that drones are the most effective tool against terrorism and is a blessing not a curse.

All the arguments given above by the informant are 100% valid. I will add that if anti-terror forces with the consent of Afghan government are killing many Taliban terrorists on land in Afghanistan then why such a huge hue and cry against the un-manned drone attacks in Pakistan?

Is sovereignty of Pakistan is more important than the sovereignty of Afghanistan?

The Taliban in Pakistan are worse than those of Afghanistan because Afghan Taliban have at least the lame excuse of fighting against foreigners but what excuse have Pakistani Taliban, fighting against their own people and their own government. Case of Pakistani Taliban is the classic example of Islamism.

I am totally in favor of drones attacks against Taliban terrorists with maximum care to minimize collateral damage.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There is generally no way to confirm anything this individual provided - such as is identity, etc. If he had done with Snowden had done and provided a clear cut example that would allow other sources to prove he has some link to dropping the honing chips then this article might be worth taking seriously to some degree.

Likely he works in cahoots with Farhat Taj Anderson and other like minded propagandists. Mr. Karzai has confirmed civilian deaths on the Afghan side as has the Los Angelas Times recently, and REPRIEVE has confirmed and written on civilian casualties on FATA.

This small vocal minority group feels the heat now that the world is paying a bit more attention and now that organized groups run by outsiders, like REPRIEVE, are doing a strong job of illuminating civilian casualty events with rapidity.

The recent testimony of the Waziri girl Nabila to congress, with evidences provided by the lawyer, gives a clear case where a whole family without any militant presence lost a grandmother working in the fields.

Irrespective of that, the decade long use of drones has not done much to diminish the presence or number of these groups or to deal with the fact that they have a leadership heirarchy. Each time they kill one guy a new guy rises to replace him. Each time they say that a particular group is fractured - new evidences are published showing they are operating in cahoots.

What it generally boils down to is that land wars cannot be purely won from the air.

Does this mean that these drone attacks will be halted? Not so long as these governments are dependent on the US or NATO. Additionally, in the history of war it is unheard of, except with the case of the nuclear weapon, where mutually assured destruction was the driving catalyst, that new technology is given up on or not utilized.

Back in the prior eras, Winston Churchill and others took a similar approach to the tribal areas when aeroplanes were becoming weaponized. They actually went above and beyond and carpet bombed Waziristan. What happened was a truce became negotiated, but the classic Pashtun guerilla tactic of feigning submission and then waiting till the right moment to revolt again happened. With this historical example in mind, it is unlikely that the drones do much else than restrict easy cross border maneuvering. Thinking even on this though, its not such a big advantage since Satellite monitoring has been in place even since the 1980s.

In essence, the tangible factors appear to come down to:

1) What the said nation government permits (Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan etc)
2) How organized the resistance group was

Otherwise, no nation that uses this technology will ever cede its use.

The fascinating thing about this article for those of us on the outside, is that the person in question makes it apparent the resistance groups are MORE organized, not less. They have squadrons committed to finding people like him. His fear may relate to some successes they have had in the past.

The other equally important thing is that he indicates he feels the public perception pressure - meaning that the propaganda arms of these groups perhaps, and the outside groups advocating for civilians like Nabila and Tarik (the boy killed by the drone a while back) are causing these people consternation.

That is the take away point for this article.

[Badlun]

There is always a trend of opposing the rulers, the ones in power by the ruled and those who do not share the power.

How the government of US is exercising its power and punishing the terrorists may not be popular amongst the general masses but all this is going on and we do not see any effective reaction from the treasury in Pakistan and US. Only opposition is doing its job: to oppose.

If you can fight against Taliban on the land, why not kill them by a drone? collateral damage is found in both the cases.

[Badlun]

PPP senator terms drone hits effective, beneficial

ISLAMABAD: The Senate on Monday expressed that the drone strikes had been very effective as these attacks had targeted scores of leading terrorists over the years. Also, the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) came under fire in the upper House for indirectly furthering the agenda of the militants by halting the Nato supplies and opposing drones.

The senators exchanged strong arguments as they urged the government to revisit the current political narrative on drone hits, as it only supported the militants and their backers.

The senators criticised the superior judiciary for not sharing with the House whether or not any judge holds dual nationality. After failing to get the information through several attempts previously, Senator Farhatullah Babar moved a resolution, asking the government to publish the names of those judges of the superior judiciary who had dual nationality.

However, on the request of Federal Minister for Information and Broadcasting Pervaiz Rashid, who now also holds the charge of the Ministry of Law, that the Supreme Court registrar would again be approached for sharing the information, Senate Chairman Syed Nayyar Hussain Bokhari deferred the Bokhari deferred the adoption or otherwise of the resolution.

The government was asked to adopt a clear policy with regard to the drones to rid the nation of confusion thereon.The House held debate on the motion moved by Mian Raza Rabbani of PPP on December 11 on foreign policy, drone strikes and stopping Nato supply route. In his speech, Senator Farhatullah Babar traced the history of drones inside Pakistan and contended how useful these had been in targeting the terrorists.

Babar said that the current political narrative on drones should be revisited for it only supported the militants, seeking to link militancy to it to promote their objective of taking over the state by force.

“We must admit that drones have been an effective weapon against militants but we have to find how to make it lawful by seeking drone technology and using it ourselves,” he maintained.

He pointed out the first mysterious drone strike took place in June 2004 that took out Nek Muhammad, which was promptly owned by the government that claimed Nek Muhammad was killed in an army operation. Later it turned out that the mysterious strike was a drone attack, he noted.

Similarly, he said, when Baitullah Mehsud was killed in a drone strike, the US president, appreciating the Pakistan Army said, “We took out Baitullah in a missile strike by a US drone. You have got the Pakistan Army for the first time fighting in a very aggressive way and that is how we took out Baitullah Mehsud,” clearly indicating that the attacks were carried out with the help of Pak security establishment.

On March 26, 2009, he said, the chairperson of US Senate Intelligence Committee Dianne Feinstein said: “Drones have been taking off from airbases in Pakistan with the consent and approval of the military authorities.”

Referring to media reports in October last year, he said that the defence secretary admitted before the Senate’s defence committee that drones operated from Shamsi airbase when it was under their use and that the launches were made with the knowledge and approval of the authorities.

He recalled on way back from the US visit Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said in London on October 24 that the issue was not of drones. The issue, he said, “was to set our own house in order”.

The drones, he said, had killed many of Pakistan’s worst enemies. He added that Pakistan was obligated under the UN resolutions to drive out foreign militants from its territory. “Neither in the past nor in the future blocking Nato supply route will stop drone attacks,” he said.

Babar asked for making a clean admission that drone attacks had been taking place with the express permission of the security establishment, that these attacks had taken out some of the most dangerous militants and enemies of Pakistan and that these strikes would not end as long as foreign militants were tolerated on Pak soil. “We must revisit our political narrative and find ways to make the drone strikes lawful,” he said.

Syed Tahir Hussain Mashhadi of MQM said that Pakistan government could raise its voice for halt to the drones only if first the terrorists, hiding in the tribal areas were driven out and terrorist acts stopped.

He opposed talks with Taliban until they accepted the writ of the government and readied themselves to talk under the Pakistani Constitution. Mashhadi said militants were rebels, who had taken arms against the state and killed innocent people, the police and the armed forces.

The senator cautioned that the weak position adopted by the government would only strengthen the militants and the banned extremist groups having close links with them.

Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party’s (PkMAP) Abdul Rauf alleged that the foreign policy was always given by the military and it hardly reflected the wishes of the masses. As a result, he said, Pakistan did not enjoy good relations even with its neighbours and many planks of the policy, given by military ruler Ziaul Haq, were still being followed.

The House unanimously adopted a resolution tabled by Senator Mashhadi on thrashing out a master plan on construction of dams, reservoirs and efficient use of water.

Senators regretted that for the last so many years, no major dam had been built, and today Pakistan was declared a water-stressed nation. Zahid Khan, Farhatullah Babar, M Hamza, Mohsin Leghari, Khalida Parveen and Abdul Rauf also spoke on the subject.

Another resolution unanimously adopted was on the increasing incidents of rape, particularly of minor girls. Tabled by Mian Raza Rabbani of PPP, the resolution condemned in the strongest possible termed these heinous acts and called upon the civil society, intellectuals, Ulema and media to launch a social campaign against the perpetrators of this crime and urged the federal and provincial governments to amend the law to provide severe punishment to the guilty.

The Senate also passed a bill - The Civil Servants (Amendment) Act, 2013 - unanimously. Moved by Senator Ilyas Bilour of Awami National Party, the bill provides that a civil servant holding dual nationality or citizenship of any foreign country shall not be entitled to promotion to grade-20 or equivalent and above.

The bill needs to be adopted by the National Assembly to become an act and will come into force at once.
PPP senator terms drone hits effective, beneficial - thenews.com.pk