AgNoStiC MuSliM
ADVISORS
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
- Messages
- 25,259
- Reaction score
- 87
- Country
- Location
Bad example - Pakistan had no knowledge of where OBL was hiding, and neither did the US, until PAKISTAN PROVIDED THAT LAST CRUCIAL BIT OF EVIDENCE THAT ALLOWED THE US TO CONNECT THE DOTS, AND THEN DECEIVE PAKISTAN BY NOT INFORMING HER OF OBL'S LOCATION.If the spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, a combatant and interested party in a conflict involving the US, lives in relative safety and freedom in sovereign Pakistan, and large swaths of Pakistani territory is being used in said conflict, then the other combatant and interested party in said conflict have the right to respond as it see fit in Pakistani territory. Article 1 is inviolable only if Articles 2-5 are enforced by Pakistan.
So is Pakistan a neutral party in this conflict or not?
Any wanted criminal in the US (at large) can also be said to be 'living in relative freedom and safety in Sovereign United States' - that does not make the community that the said criminal is hiding in complicit in sheltering him, nor does it make the law enforcement agencies of the US, who are responsible for tracking said criminal down, complicit in the duration of the time the said criminal is at large.
The argument that 'large swathes of territory are being used in said conflict' works both ways - since Afghan territory supposedly under the control of the US/ISAF is being used by the TTP, BLA/BRA and other terrorist organizations to attack Pakistani troops and civilians.
Heck, leaked US diplomatic cables clearly show that US/ISAF/Afghan authorities were aware of and sheltering one of the most wanted BLA terrorist leaders in 'safety and freedom' in Kabul, and then facilitated his exile to Europe for asylum - so if you want to talk about 'terrorist leaders living in relative safety and freedom', then the US needs to answer for its own crimes in sheltering the terrorist leader Brahamdegh Bugti first.
---------- Post added at 08:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:24 PM ----------
As the FO made clear, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, and therefore that is reason enough to change policy.Yes: Those advantages and disadvantages accrue asymmetrically, with Pakistan left holding the bag on consequences. But that is not enough to change the policy, is it?