Bombing Pakistan
War on terror limitless and lawless
The claim now, played up by the Bush administration, is that the U.S. bombing raid on a Pakistani village last week, where 13 civilians were killed, most of them women and children, also killed two senior members of al-Qaida and the son-in-law of its No. 2 leader. Is that supposed to justify an American attack on a sovereign nation, a violation of its air space -- and an act of war, so far as residents of the bombed Pakistani village of Damadola are concerned?
If al-Qaida leaders are hiding out in Latin America's notorious Triple Frontier region, a known haven of lawlessness and terrorist activity where the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet, would that justify a U.S. assassination raid on any of those countries' territories? Would the killing of 13 innocent bystanders in Daytona Beach be acceptable as the collateral consequence of a major al-Qaida kill or capture here? Are Pakistani civilians somehow more expendable than Floridian?
The reaction to the bombing in the United States has been literally and figuratively a world apart from the reaction in Pakistan. In Pakistan, demonstrators and rioters have taken to the street in fury at both the United States and their own government. The fallout has reached such proportions that Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, whose hold on power is shaky, felt compelled to say that "national interests" would not be jeopardized by the war on terror.
And in the United States? The story was barely a headline after the raid was announced. But Sen. John McCain sent his regrets: "We understand the anger that people feel, but the United States priorities are to get rid of al-Qaida, and this was an effort to do so we apologize, but I can't tell you that we won't do it again." To which Kamran Shafi, a retired Pakistani army officer and columnist for the Pakistani Daily Times, responded with the kind of outrage unheard of here: "Now, what sort of apology is that?" Shafi wrote. "How about saying 'We are sorry for the needless loss of innocent life; we will make every effort to avoid a recurrence in the future?' And what in the world did he mean when he said, 'I can't tell you we wouldn't do the same again?' Do what again, Senator? Kill innocents again? I ask you."
There's more disbelief in Pakistan than in the United States over the latest claims being made. No actual bodies of al-Qaida members have been identified, because none have been recovered. Yet the claim that two or perhaps more members of the organization were killed is still being made as fact, and accepted -- and peddled -- as such in the United States. Still, even if the claims are true, they should not deflect from the greater issue: the latest American disregard for international law, for civilian lives, and for cooperative counter-terrorism operations.
The Pakistani government is looking like a hapless bystander in the scandal even though the United States has been granting Pakistan military aid in the billions since 2001 and hailing Musharraf, once a sponsor of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, as a crucial ally in the war on terror. Pakistani intelligence has, in fact, played a key role in finding and catching al-Qaida members, including Khalid Mohammed, the suspected Sept. 11 mastermind now in a secret U.S. prison. Pakistani security forces don't lack for brutality, but even they know the value in capturing live al-Qaida operatives. They could carpet-bomb areas of Pakistan's northwest frontier and be sure to kill numerous al-Qaida members known to be hiding there. But the collateral damage would be indefensible, as it was in the U.S. raid last week.
All this stems from the directive President Bush signed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks giving U.S. forces, including the CIA, carte blanche in the manner in which they were to track down and kill al-Qaida operatives. The approach elicits matter-of-fact approval from the American public, which also explains the muted response to the attack on Pakistan. But it's still state-sponsored assassination. It still entails violating other countries' sovereignty. It's still more lawless than justified. And for 13 civilians in the remote Pakistani village of Damadola, it's all immaterial anymore.
Source: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...OPN10012106.htm
War on terror limitless and lawless
The claim now, played up by the Bush administration, is that the U.S. bombing raid on a Pakistani village last week, where 13 civilians were killed, most of them women and children, also killed two senior members of al-Qaida and the son-in-law of its No. 2 leader. Is that supposed to justify an American attack on a sovereign nation, a violation of its air space -- and an act of war, so far as residents of the bombed Pakistani village of Damadola are concerned?
If al-Qaida leaders are hiding out in Latin America's notorious Triple Frontier region, a known haven of lawlessness and terrorist activity where the borders of Brazil, Argentina and Paraguay meet, would that justify a U.S. assassination raid on any of those countries' territories? Would the killing of 13 innocent bystanders in Daytona Beach be acceptable as the collateral consequence of a major al-Qaida kill or capture here? Are Pakistani civilians somehow more expendable than Floridian?
The reaction to the bombing in the United States has been literally and figuratively a world apart from the reaction in Pakistan. In Pakistan, demonstrators and rioters have taken to the street in fury at both the United States and their own government. The fallout has reached such proportions that Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, whose hold on power is shaky, felt compelled to say that "national interests" would not be jeopardized by the war on terror.
And in the United States? The story was barely a headline after the raid was announced. But Sen. John McCain sent his regrets: "We understand the anger that people feel, but the United States priorities are to get rid of al-Qaida, and this was an effort to do so we apologize, but I can't tell you that we won't do it again." To which Kamran Shafi, a retired Pakistani army officer and columnist for the Pakistani Daily Times, responded with the kind of outrage unheard of here: "Now, what sort of apology is that?" Shafi wrote. "How about saying 'We are sorry for the needless loss of innocent life; we will make every effort to avoid a recurrence in the future?' And what in the world did he mean when he said, 'I can't tell you we wouldn't do the same again?' Do what again, Senator? Kill innocents again? I ask you."
There's more disbelief in Pakistan than in the United States over the latest claims being made. No actual bodies of al-Qaida members have been identified, because none have been recovered. Yet the claim that two or perhaps more members of the organization were killed is still being made as fact, and accepted -- and peddled -- as such in the United States. Still, even if the claims are true, they should not deflect from the greater issue: the latest American disregard for international law, for civilian lives, and for cooperative counter-terrorism operations.
The Pakistani government is looking like a hapless bystander in the scandal even though the United States has been granting Pakistan military aid in the billions since 2001 and hailing Musharraf, once a sponsor of the former Taliban regime in Afghanistan, as a crucial ally in the war on terror. Pakistani intelligence has, in fact, played a key role in finding and catching al-Qaida members, including Khalid Mohammed, the suspected Sept. 11 mastermind now in a secret U.S. prison. Pakistani security forces don't lack for brutality, but even they know the value in capturing live al-Qaida operatives. They could carpet-bomb areas of Pakistan's northwest frontier and be sure to kill numerous al-Qaida members known to be hiding there. But the collateral damage would be indefensible, as it was in the U.S. raid last week.
All this stems from the directive President Bush signed in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks giving U.S. forces, including the CIA, carte blanche in the manner in which they were to track down and kill al-Qaida operatives. The approach elicits matter-of-fact approval from the American public, which also explains the muted response to the attack on Pakistan. But it's still state-sponsored assassination. It still entails violating other countries' sovereignty. It's still more lawless than justified. And for 13 civilians in the remote Pakistani village of Damadola, it's all immaterial anymore.
Source: http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJour...OPN10012106.htm
