WikiLeaks: FATA official wanted US to follow-up drone strikes

High ranking Fata officer wanted US to target terrorists immediately after first drone strike.


Express May 20, 2011
WikiLeaks: FATA official wanted US to follow-up drone strikes

A high-ranking FATA secretariat officer had urged the United States to follow-up on drone strikes right after the first strike, insisting that the only people in the area after the first one were terrorists.

A  sent from the US consulate in Peshawar on October 2, 2009 revealed that a high ranking official had told the consulate’s Principal Office Candace Putnam that terrorists would seal off the area after a drone strike to collect the bodies of those killed. He mentioned that the only people in the area 10-24 hours after the strike were the terrorists, wrote Putnam.

The officer insisted that the US “hit them again” as there were no innocent people in the area after a drone strike.

The two also discussed a military operation in South Waziristan, to which the Fata officer responded by stating that the Pakistan Army “thought they had the capability” to carry out the operation and that “the US could assist with continued strikes.”

Cable Referenced: WikiLeaks #227969

The full text of the cables can be read on Dawn.com, The Hindu and NDTV. WikiLeaks has previously released cables to other media organisations including Guardian and the New York Times.

COMMENTS (1)

Maulana Diesel | 13 years ago | Reply Ha Ha...this is absolutely Hilarious. I fail to understand why our government and our army does not want to come out in the open and say what they are saying to the americans behind close doors. This is the height of hypocrisy! --- No wonder the Americans don't trust us; we say one thing to them and say something else to Pakistani media and finally do something completely different. I am sure everyone is going to say that Wikileaks is a CIA conspiracy and Assange is a CIA agent.
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ