Loud Thinking August 03, 2013 at 01:48PM

Will the US Secretary of State Senator John Kerry consider an honourable action after his categorical statement on PTV about ending drone attacks in Pakistan was rubbished by State Dept?

Please read the full story reported by the daily “Dawn” as below:

US NOT TO GIVE UP DRONE ATTACKS

WASHINGTON: “In no way would we ever deprive ourselves of a tool that would help us fight a threat if it arises,” says the US State Department while explaining Secretary of State John Kerry’s statement that US drone strikes in Pakistan will end soon.

Mr Kerry declared in an interview with Pakistan Television on Thursday the drone strikes in the country would soon come to an end.

“I think the programme will end as we have eliminated most of the threat and continue to eliminate it,” the secretary said.

Asked if there was a timeline for ending the drone strikes, Mr Kerry said: “I think the President (Obama) has a very real timeline, and we hope it’s going to be very, very soon.”

The two quotes were read out at a news briefing at the State Department and spokesperson Marie Harf was asked to give a timetable for ending the drone programme.

The official referred to President Barack Obama’s policy speech in May this year when he said the US had made significant progress against core Al Qaeda by using the drones and as it made more progress, the need to use the drones would also reduce.

Ms Harf said that in his interview to Pakistan Television, Secretary Kerry only “reinforced the changes” that the US expected to take place in the drone programme over time, “but there is no exact timeline to provide. Obviously, a lot of this is driven by the situation on the ground”.

She added: “The goal…is as we have success against Al Qaeda…we need to use this tactic less going forward, and that’s what the secretary was referencing.”

She was reminded that Secretary Kerry talked about ending the strikes, not reducing them.

“Well, clearly the goal of counter-terrorism operations, broadly speaking, is to get to a place where we don’t have to use them because the threat goes away. Now, we’re all realistic about the fact that there is a threat that remains and that we have to keep up the fight in this and other places around the world,” Ms Harf responded.

The secretary’s statement, she said, was “in no way indicating a change in policy”.

The State Department official pointed out that US drone strikes had eliminated a number of key Al Qaeda leaders but “nobody is naive about the threat, certainly, which is why we remain very focused on it, there and elsewhere”.

Asked why the secretary was then talking about ending the use of a tool which the administration regards as so highly effective, she said: “We would all like to get to a place where there is no threat. Now, nobody’s naive about the fact that one still exists, and that we’re going to keep up the pressure.”

If the US will not deprive itself of an effective tool like the drone, will it start using it again even if it was stopped, a journalist asked.

“In no way would we ever deprive ourselves of a tool to fight a threat if it arises,” she responded. “That’s a point I’d like to make very clear.”

The United States, however, would continue to discuss a broad range of counter-terrorism issues with the Pakistani government going forward, she said.

Reminded that keeping the option available meant using it when needed, Ms Harf said: “I would not want to further expand on what it means when I say, ‘We would not deprive ourselves of a tool’. There’s a very different thing between saying we would keep tools that we think help us achieve our goals, and saying we reserve a certain right to do a certain thing in a certain place. I’m not going to commit to the specific hypothetical that you have raised.”

Tags: My Views