The days following President Barack Obama’s inauguration have been filled with debate over Mr John O Brennan, who is currently the chief counterterrorism advisor to the American President, is now a nominee and will most likely be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Brennan’s nomination is important because he supports the use of drones in Pakistan and feels the need to have more widespread attacks in Pakistan. Although many Americans are outraged by Brennan’s nomination, in Pakistan it seems that everyone is furious over the newly proposed guidelines for American drone strikes that the CIA is drafting. This anger is without the realisation that the so-called ‘playbook’ — a manual for drone warfare that has been designed to institutionalise drone strikes — has nothing to do with Pakistan. The playbook, which President Obama is expected to sign within weeks, will define guidelines for when it is or is not appropriate to use drones. This new manual for drone warfare will restrict the use of drones by the CIA and the US Military Special Forces Command. It will not give a free hand for the use of drones, like many in Pakistan think it will. In fact, the so-called playbook had a hard time being drafted because it restricts the use of drones around the world. Now here is the best part. Brennan plans to sign-off on the playbook as long as Pakistan is exempt from the circumstances in which drone strikes can take place as described in the manual. This is because Brennan as well as the Obama administration believe that wider attacks are needed to eliminate the al Qaeda and Taliban operatives from Pakistan’s tribal belt. That is nothing new. Since the first drone strike in 2004, there have been no restrictions on the use of drones in Pakistan. People should be enraged, but not because the US is taking steps to validate the use of drones; they should be furious because the new playbook does not apply to Pakistan. If Pakistan were made part of the new regulations in drone warfare, the number of strikes would drastically decrease to the level they were at before 2008. That is because the ‘signature strikes’ that currently make up the bulk of all drone strikes in Pakistan would be abolished. Signature strikes are those that are made when a group of people congregate with weapons or are seen travelling in large numbers. There does not have to be an identifiable target; the justification is that the individuals congregating resemble ‘signature’ terrorism activity. The new proposed playbook restricts the use of drones when there are no recognisable terrorists. Therefore, the CIA demanded that Pakistan be exempt because the tribal belt in Pakistan is crawling with al Qaeda and Taliban foot soldiers who cannot be clearly identified as ‘leaders’ or as persons of importance. There is nothing wrong with fighting terrorism with drone strikes. Instead of the government and military in Pakistan condemning the strikes as illegal, they should take ownership of them. The strikes are inevitable. There has been plenty of intelligence in the past to indicate that there are a large number of terrorists living in the areas being targeted. If the Pakistani government and military want the US to cooperate with them, they should use the same policy as General (Retd) Pervez Musharraf. He showed ownership and willingness to cooperate with the Americans and he succeeded at keeping the number of strikes and loss of life to a minimum. During his tenure, between 2004 to 2008, there were less than 40 strikes. In the first year of this current government there were up to 130 strikes. You can do the math. The sole reason for this drastic change was that after Musharraf left office, the CIA and the US Military Special Forces Command, the two organisations responsible for carrying out drone strikes, stopped asking the president of the United States before targeting a site in Pakistan. The fact of the matter is that we cannot risk the lives of our troops by sending them into these remote areas that are being occupied by the bad guys. We have to rely on drone technology if we want to get rid of terrorist elements from within Pakistan’s borders. Musharraf was a stubborn man and he would not let the US carry out a strike without his approval. He ensured that each strike was carried out against an important al Qaeda or Taliban leader. Although Baitullah Mehsud died in 2009, it was Musharraf’s relentless efforts that forced the US to target and eliminate him. Mehsud was never a US target and was responsible for ordering hundreds of terrorist attacks throughout Pakistan. I believe if we approve instead of condemning the US strikes, both sides could benefit and it will improve our foreign relations. The writer teaches at NUST in Islamabad and tweets @umarwrites