A few thoughts on the use of airstrikes in Pakistan...
According to an article in today's NYTimes, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/09/world/asia/09pstan.html?_r=1&ref=global-home,
“Any operation that is seen to have some kind of United States assistance becomes deeply unpopular here,” said Mehmood Shah, a retired brigadier general and former administrator of Pakistan’s tribal areas.
"Publicly, Pakistani officials have been critical of the drone strikes, calling them a breach of the country’s sovereignty. But privately, Pakistani officials acknowledge that the attacks are useful if they avoid civilian casualties and strike militants. The Pakistani government has repeatedly asked the United States to supply Pakistan with drones to conduct attacks on its own. But opposition politicians depict the drone attacks as a major cause of public dissatisfaction with the United States."
It is interesting that now the Pakistani government seems trapped in the paradox of airstrikes. The US/ISAF has been dealing with the inherent problems of aerial bombing for years, but still has not found a way to consistently kill "the enemy" without killing "civilians." Thus, it remains unclear how effective airstrikes are in the aggregate. Although killing high level Al Qaeda leaders may be useful, killing women and children is not.
Beyond the ethical implications of civilian casualties, there also are strategic concerns. It is almost cliche to ask, "are we creating more enemies than we are killing," but the problem is that no one seems to have adequately answered the question.
In Afghanistan, there seems to be widespread condemnation of airstrikes. According to a recent article, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/world/asia/03helmand.htm,
"The mood of the Afghan people has tipped into a popular revolt in some parts of southern Afghanistan, presenting incoming American forces with an even harder job than expected in reversing military losses to the Taliban and winning over the population. Villagers in some districts have taken up arms against foreign troops to protect their homes or in anger after losing relatives in airstrikes, several community representatives interviewed said."
It is interesting, therefore, that the Pakistani government is pushing for more airstrikes, because they realize all too well the consequences of civilian casualties. They seem willing to suffer the potential long-term consequences (inspiring more militants), in order to try and prevent the short-term problem (suicide attacks that kill innocents). This seems to be the strategic dilemma: how to weigh short-term gains against potential long-term losses.
Although any parent would have a difficult time risking their child's safety today, what about next year? The strategy seems to be eliminating enough of the threat today, so that it can no longer pose a threat tomorrow. Yet, the problem remains that we have limited means of measuring the current threat, and almost no way of knowing the future threat.
Any thoughts on this problem?
The US has lost sight of the fact that Afghanistan never posed a threat to it. Blowback is hype. Naive airline security was the threat, as much as allowing a rental truck to park outside a federal building for hours. The Taliban want to be world players. How else can one explain their insistence on proof of Osama's guilt before handing him over? They were posturing to their supporters. The truth is they were ready to sell their nation's resources and access to the US at any price. what they didn't know was the US didn't care about truth or international law.
ReplyDelete