Former president Pervez Musharraf says strikes were allowed only two or three times. PHOTO: AFP/FILE
"Only on very few occasions where the target was absolutely isolated and had no chance of collateral damage," Musharraf told CNN’s Nic Robertson in an interview in Islamabad.
Musharraf though denied that a security agreement between Pakistani and US forces existed that gave a blanket cover to the strikes which have killed over 2000 people. However, for some instances when the army could not get to some targets or strike fast enough, then the strikes were allowed two or three times.
"One discussed at the military level and intelligence level to strike. And if at all there was no time for our own SoTF and military to act. That was very... two or three times only."
The civilian government that replaced Musharraf in 2008 has consistently called the strikes to be counterproductive causing greater animosity amongst the people, contributing in creating new militants than the good they do in killing militants. Additionally they violate Pakistan’s sovereignty.
The last five years have also seen the drone activity in Pakistan reach its peak.
COMMENTS (22)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
1714024018-0/ModiLara-(1)1714024018-0-270x192.webp)
@Seema:Yes read his book chapter Manhunt where he was trying the West that they were not being complacent but were serious in anti terrorism efforts and sited the examples of how many terrorists they caught and in some cases handed over. It was construed as he was catching Pakistanis and handing over. It was not what you are inferring from the book. If you read in the book what you imagine instead of reading what in fact he wrote what can one do. This is called pre=conceived notion based on hatred.
@Assad: Poor Assad military is responsible for defense policies.... so civilian govt silently took the burden of Mush and military.... Aafia and thousands of pakistani handed over to USA as terrorists for money.... plz read Mushruff's book he himself admitted proudly.
Ironic, Military Chief of a sovereign country invites another country to drop bombs within its territory. Then why to spend that much GDP for defense purpose, keep asking US to drop bombs and put our Fighter jet aircrafts to decorate Meusiams and parks.
@ Neil & VINDU: perhaps I do have insider information. Get over Kargil already it was part of a larger dispute in a disputed area (LOC is not a border). The operation was no different than what you guys did in Siachen.
Replying to Shahid Shah, no, I wasn't with Musharraf all the time, God Help!! One follows the news through the papers and forms opinions that are based on the same. There was a debate with opposition leaders, defense and foreign ministry officials held behind closed doors on this issue in parliament, at which time it was reported by all leading newspapers, and indeed debated on TV channels too...
FATA is militancy hit area.In the years 2002-2003,militancy was at its peak.To give relief to the people of the area it was essential to take out their leadership and active collaborators.From amongst available weapons armed drones is the most effective real time weapon which causes least collateral damage.If it was used two or three times with the then government's permission to take out terriorists,what is wrong with this policy?.Use of other weapons would have resulted in more damage and casulties.Total number of drones' attacks duting entire Musharraf era is seven or eight.The approach of Musharraf's government to permit its selective use was better.On the other hand the PPP led government took the approach of denying the wholesale use of armed drones officially/publicly,while at the same time secretly conniving with the US for the same.
Didn't he used to say on every interview that he allowed drones for surveillance purposes only?
How many lies must we continue bear? How easily they change their story...
@Shahid Shah: Sure , you know the best. You were all the time with Mush and have all the stats on the subject.
Musharraf set the precedent, the secret agreement at one stage was debated behind closed doors in parliament at the time the transport corridor to Afghanistan had been blocked temporarily. The military is responsible for many policies detrimental to Pakistan's sovereign status. Until foreign and interior policies are not taken out of their reach, we will continue to see such blunders....
Why even 2 or 3 times and then why did you not stop them on the completion of your tenure in 2007?And had you Musharraf forgotten that when when you will allow your enemies to start the harmful activities against your muslim brothers and sisters in your country then how can you expect that your enemies will not cross the limits and will not transgress??????
Two or Three times only he agreed to kill innocents..WoW he is so good :)
After or before you granted the refuge to Sheikh Osama in military garison town? This exposed your duplicy to CIA!
Rex Minor
Lying lying and more lying without any shame or remorse and when things get hot blame civilians.
The basic question to ask is, just like everything else that has been repealed because it was done under the Musharraf government, why has this policy not been changed by the current government? If Musharraf had a pact, which I very much doubt, why not trash it? Maybe because it serves the interests of both governments?
The reason is because while Americans target people of interest for themselves, they also target the hundreds of anti-Pakistani state elements sitting and hiding in the FATA. After each attack in Pakistan, these people run back to these areas and find refuge.
This illaqa-ghair is a hot spot for all sorts of criminals and shady characters who have suddenly put on the mantle of the TTP for-hire fighters when in reality, a great number of these folks are petty criminals.
Do not know whether to laugh or cry.
For so long USA was blamed for all the ‘innocent civilians’ being killed by the drones yet the establishment was not. Now to disguise them, they say that drones strikes have increased under Civilian Govt. Does the Civilian Govt. control security and foreign policy? Any guess who controls them?
I wonder why you guys not hate the choudhries, vaderas, sardars and warlords as much as you hate Musharraf. I have seen many good things Musharraf has done. What he didn't or did wrong is the only thing you care about. Have other rulers been good? No. They have been worst possible like BB, Nawaz Sharif and Zardari.
You do not have the guts to talk against them but take up your pen and arms against someone who does not use violence as his tool. You and the media does not have the guts to talk bad about the worst terrorists in history - the Taliban of Pakistan.
But they can lambast Quadri because he wields no gun. Are you guys cowards or lack simple judgement and brains. When you talk of what bad Musharraf did then have the decency also to highlight what good he did - if you are honest and without bias and not a racist.
@shahid.....What about Kargil ?...The civilian govt was responsible for that too???....please enlighten us . Oh I forgot they were freedom fighters ...stupid me ....thats why the great general left their bodies and the Indians had to bury them...shame on a man like this ...utter shame that a man responsible for the deaths of so many brave Pakistani soldiers is walking around thumping his chest ....he should be locked up and the key thrown in the Arabian sea...
He is in the habit of lying. Looks like he is a wee bit better than Gen Zia. When will someone in this country take up the courage to take these people to task ? Any honest blokes in this country???
Just like no soldiers Kargil, only freedom fighters; then only few soldiers dead; then few more.
The strikes quadrupled under the civilian government. The Zardari regime did not have any moral backbone to take any sort of stand with all the looting they were doing. The drone strikes during Musharraf's time were limited and done with joint intelligence.
Might be two or three times only every month...
Two or three times only...in a day?