fatman17
PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 32,563
- Reaction score
- 98
- Country
- Location
opinion : Pakistan and America Brian Cloughley
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told
The American General David Petraeus said last week that anti-US sentiment has been increasing in Pakistan, and that if more of the appalling photographs of torture of US-held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were released by the Pentagon to be seen by the world, then loathing would become even more intense.
He is right about the level of anti-American feeling, and acknowledged that 63 percent of Pakistanis still oppose cooperating with US counter-terror operations. It is doubtful, however, that release of another batch of pictures showing American soldiers subjecting people to the most hideous indignities would raise that percentage by much.
But nobody can blame anyone in Pakistan for objecting strongly to the fact that American counter-terror operations involve illegal attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan that have killed so many women and children.
US Predator or Reaper drones firing Hellfire missiles (what saliva-dribbling, wild-eyed, mentally warped whiz kid thinks up these names?) have eradicated a dozen or so militant leaders. Some of the hundreds killed were foot soldiers, and probably included some apprentice boy-bombers being instructed in the irreligious art of killing by committing suicide, and other people without whose presence the world will certainly benefit. But by far the greatest number killed were ordinary tribesmen and members of their families. Scores of women and children have died. Nobody can deny that America was responsible for their deaths.
Naturally, the indignation of the citizens of Pakistan has been increased by the manner in which their country is treated by Washington. Let us face the fact that the average educated Punjabi (or Sindhi, Kashmiri or Baloch) doesnt care greatly about the inhabitants of the tribal areas. And the average illiterate citizen, of whom there are far too many, doesnt care, either, because he or she has quite enough personal problems, involving day-to-day survival, to even think about affairs in the northwest of the country.
But both educated and illiterate citizens of Pakistan are now aware that Americans have been killing innocent Pakistanis.
Is it surprising that they disapprove of the fact that their fellow citizens are being blown to pieces by foreigners?
America was grief-stricken and furious following the death of some 3000 people in the terror attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001. This was understandable. It was reasonable that US citizens would be vehemently resentful of the brutal assault on their nation, and most other countries joined them in their anger, because they considered that such atrocities were horrific, and understood Americas reaction.
But the understanding stops there because Washington doesnt, wont or cant understand that when nationals of a country other than America are killed in attacks by a foreign power then there is valid reason for that nations citizens to detest the country that attacks them.
The author Steve Coll, writing in the New Yorker last week, pronounced that Pakistans government, although it apparently facilitates the drone attacks in private finds it necessary to vocally oppose them in public, knowing how unpopular they are.
Mr Coll then delivered a penetrating observation about this state of affairs, in that Opportunism and hypocrisy hardly seem the foundation for a sustainable political-military partnership [in Pakistan] that breaks with the unhappy past.
Quite so: if it is indeed a fact that the US has successfully pressured the government of Pakistan to accede without objection to Predator attacks and cross-border forays by US special forces in Afghanistan, then there are some points to be considered.
If the government of Pakistan has colluded with Washington in killing Pakistani citizens, this would raise the question of whether or not it can properly claim to be representative of the people. The Constitution, after all, states that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law. And it is clear that the killing of Pakistani citizens on their own soil by foreigners is illegal.
Not only that, but it is against the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, which is be regarded by some as a quaint and old-fashioned document but is, nevertheless, the nearest this horrible world has come to an international Constitution aimed at limiting conflict.
If India had attacked madrassas in eastern Pakistan with drone missiles or conventional air strikes, as appeared possible immediately after the Mumbai atrocities last year (and thank goodness Dr Manmohan Singh was prime minister; it might have been disastrous otherwise), there would have been furious reaction in Pakistan. There is little doubt that there would have been war. Pakistan could not have accepted an attack on its territory, no matter if the result had been eradication of some very nasty people.
Why accept attacks by US missiles when similar attacks by India would be regarded as supremely hostile action?
General Petraeus says that Pakistanis are angered by cross-border operations and reported drone strikes that they believe cause unacceptable civilian casualties. But if he considers this to be such a grave matter, why doesnt he say that the drone attacks must stop?
It is obvious to the general, and now to the US Congress to whom he was testifying, that severe damage has been done to US-Pakistan relations. If this is not to become even more counter-productive to the wars being waged by the US in Afghanistan and by Pakistan against fundamentalist loonies in its own country, then they must be stopped.
Make no mistake: the Pakistan Air Force is more than capable of shooting down drones, be they US or of any other nationality. The PAF has not been given orders to do so, although its radars automatically detect airspace violations. Is the government of Pakistan content to accept the continuing intrusion of drones that kill its citizens?
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told.
The writer can be found on the web at Brian Cloughley
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told
The American General David Petraeus said last week that anti-US sentiment has been increasing in Pakistan, and that if more of the appalling photographs of torture of US-held prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan were released by the Pentagon to be seen by the world, then loathing would become even more intense.
He is right about the level of anti-American feeling, and acknowledged that 63 percent of Pakistanis still oppose cooperating with US counter-terror operations. It is doubtful, however, that release of another batch of pictures showing American soldiers subjecting people to the most hideous indignities would raise that percentage by much.
But nobody can blame anyone in Pakistan for objecting strongly to the fact that American counter-terror operations involve illegal attacks on the sovereign territory of Pakistan that have killed so many women and children.
US Predator or Reaper drones firing Hellfire missiles (what saliva-dribbling, wild-eyed, mentally warped whiz kid thinks up these names?) have eradicated a dozen or so militant leaders. Some of the hundreds killed were foot soldiers, and probably included some apprentice boy-bombers being instructed in the irreligious art of killing by committing suicide, and other people without whose presence the world will certainly benefit. But by far the greatest number killed were ordinary tribesmen and members of their families. Scores of women and children have died. Nobody can deny that America was responsible for their deaths.
Naturally, the indignation of the citizens of Pakistan has been increased by the manner in which their country is treated by Washington. Let us face the fact that the average educated Punjabi (or Sindhi, Kashmiri or Baloch) doesnt care greatly about the inhabitants of the tribal areas. And the average illiterate citizen, of whom there are far too many, doesnt care, either, because he or she has quite enough personal problems, involving day-to-day survival, to even think about affairs in the northwest of the country.
But both educated and illiterate citizens of Pakistan are now aware that Americans have been killing innocent Pakistanis.
Is it surprising that they disapprove of the fact that their fellow citizens are being blown to pieces by foreigners?
America was grief-stricken and furious following the death of some 3000 people in the terror attacks in New York and Washington in September 2001. This was understandable. It was reasonable that US citizens would be vehemently resentful of the brutal assault on their nation, and most other countries joined them in their anger, because they considered that such atrocities were horrific, and understood Americas reaction.
But the understanding stops there because Washington doesnt, wont or cant understand that when nationals of a country other than America are killed in attacks by a foreign power then there is valid reason for that nations citizens to detest the country that attacks them.
The author Steve Coll, writing in the New Yorker last week, pronounced that Pakistans government, although it apparently facilitates the drone attacks in private finds it necessary to vocally oppose them in public, knowing how unpopular they are.
Mr Coll then delivered a penetrating observation about this state of affairs, in that Opportunism and hypocrisy hardly seem the foundation for a sustainable political-military partnership [in Pakistan] that breaks with the unhappy past.
Quite so: if it is indeed a fact that the US has successfully pressured the government of Pakistan to accede without objection to Predator attacks and cross-border forays by US special forces in Afghanistan, then there are some points to be considered.
If the government of Pakistan has colluded with Washington in killing Pakistani citizens, this would raise the question of whether or not it can properly claim to be representative of the people. The Constitution, after all, states that no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body, reputation or property of any person shall be taken except in accordance with the law. And it is clear that the killing of Pakistani citizens on their own soil by foreigners is illegal.
Not only that, but it is against the letter and spirit of the United Nations Charter, which is be regarded by some as a quaint and old-fashioned document but is, nevertheless, the nearest this horrible world has come to an international Constitution aimed at limiting conflict.
If India had attacked madrassas in eastern Pakistan with drone missiles or conventional air strikes, as appeared possible immediately after the Mumbai atrocities last year (and thank goodness Dr Manmohan Singh was prime minister; it might have been disastrous otherwise), there would have been furious reaction in Pakistan. There is little doubt that there would have been war. Pakistan could not have accepted an attack on its territory, no matter if the result had been eradication of some very nasty people.
Why accept attacks by US missiles when similar attacks by India would be regarded as supremely hostile action?
General Petraeus says that Pakistanis are angered by cross-border operations and reported drone strikes that they believe cause unacceptable civilian casualties. But if he considers this to be such a grave matter, why doesnt he say that the drone attacks must stop?
It is obvious to the general, and now to the US Congress to whom he was testifying, that severe damage has been done to US-Pakistan relations. If this is not to become even more counter-productive to the wars being waged by the US in Afghanistan and by Pakistan against fundamentalist loonies in its own country, then they must be stopped.
Make no mistake: the Pakistan Air Force is more than capable of shooting down drones, be they US or of any other nationality. The PAF has not been given orders to do so, although its radars automatically detect airspace violations. Is the government of Pakistan content to accept the continuing intrusion of drones that kill its citizens?
Pakistan and America have different problems concerning terrorism. And one of the greatest problems is the arrogant presumption by Washington that Islamabad must do as it is told.
The writer can be found on the web at Brian Cloughley
