Bombing Pakistan for Bin Laden
By Rafia Zakaria
The chilling tableau that the Democratic presidential candidates presented in raising their hands was one that illustrated this very message: we would do it again, in another country, if we thought we could win
On June 3, 2007 the eight Democratic candidates for the 2007 US Presidential race took the stage at a small college in New Hampshire. Revved up for debate, the six Senators, one Congressman and one Governor stood before their podiums ready for a war of words, dominance in which would mean greater coverage in the US media and a successful presidential bid.
Predictably, the third place candidate in the polls Senator John Edwards took on a combative stance confronting the two front-runners Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton on what he described as a lack of leadership in the Democratic Party over the Iraq issue. In the ensuing melee, nearly all the Democratic candidates sparred on the best way to extricate American troops from the increasingly troubling mess in Iraq.
For a Pakistani watching the debate, one question posed to the candidates, loomed above all others. A professor of history seated in the audience asked how the candidates reconciled American security interests in Pakistan to the fact that Pakistan is not a democratic country. The particular question, representing perhaps the biggest hole in the current Bush Administrations democracy promotion agenda would have seemed a great opportunity for the Democratic candidates to distinguish themselves ideologically from the ruling Bush Administration. However, the responses did far from that.
Senator Hilary Clinton, the initial candidate who fielded the question made it painfully clear exactly how aware she was of the situation in Pakistan, saying it is clear that he [General Musharraf] has not moved towards democracy but has solidified his rule and become quite anti-democratic with his removal of the chief justice and many of the other moves that hes taken. Having said this, however, she ended with the same self-serving pronouncement that characterises the Bush Administrations stance: At the same time, we depend upon him to try to control the tribal areas, out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters who cross the border into Afghanistan.
To add to the disappointment of those watching, the remaining candidates completely ducked the question.
Perhaps equally frustrated by the candidates lack of engagement with the question, the news anchor reformulated it in a more incendiary way. Addressing all the candidates he inquired if you agree that the US had intelligence that could take out Osama bin Laden and kill him, even though some innocent civilians would die in the process, would you, as president, authorise such an operation? The same candidates, who had been so hesitant to respond to how Pakistan fits into Americas scheme of promoting democracy, now raised their hands!
This glaring discrepancy, in which the same group of candidates vehemently denounced the Iraq war at the beginning of the debate and then minutes later raised their hands in favour of striking Pakistan illustrates the naivety of anyone who believes that US military expansionism is likely to come to an end with the culmination of the Bush Administration. Democratic candidates trying to defeat their Republican counterparts may pretend that a Democratic Administration is likely to abandon the military expansionism promoted by the Bush Administration and concentrate more on diplomatic solutions and the like, these distinctions may not be much more than rhetoric. While the anti-war American Left, increasingly giddy at the thought of a troop withdrawal from Iraq may like to believe that their candidates will be harbingers of an era of peace where military incursions are a thing of the past, the positions of the Democratic candidates provide little if any credence to such a belief.
From the Pakistani perspective, the ease with which nearly all the Democratic candidates raised their hands, and the general abstraction with which the question of innocent civilians that may die in such an attack was considered, illustrated the undiminished arrogance of a super-power that sees maintaining dominance as its pre-eminent goal. Foreign policy realists would defend this stance arguing that each nation, regardless of moral concerns must make such calculations; that when faced with decisions involving national security, lofty ideals must be discarded for realistic considerations of survival; power and dominance must inevitably govern what states do in situations where their national interests are at stake.
All this may be well and true, and indeed provides powerful war-mongering nations with convenient arguments for why the weak must be vanquished without remorse. But the reprehensible aspect of the Democratic candidates readiness to bomb Pakistan for Bin Laden comes not from whether such an act could be justified (for they would surely come up with a way) but rather whether it should be? In the wake of a 70,000 body count in Iraq, is it really so ludicrous to suggest that perhaps considerations other than power and dominance be used to evaluate whether other countries should be bombed to achieve military objectives?
The disparity between the Democratic candidates denunciation of the Iraq war at the outset of the debate and their alacrity in jumping to bomb Pakistan for Bin Laden merely minutes later suggest an unwillingness to look at this very question. Is the war in Iraq wrong because it represents the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation or simply because it is a losing battle where American is unlikely to obtain a glorious victory?
While all the Democratic candidates put in considerable effort in detailing exactly how the Bush Administration has botched the war in Iraq, their response to the Pakistan question indicates that their ire is based on the fact that America is losing the war rather than an ideological difference on errors of pre-emptive wars in general.
This inability to apply the lesson of Iraq, to other cases suggests the reality that even under a Democratic president, there may be future Iraqs. The chilling tableau that the Democratic presidential candidates presented in raising their hands was one that illustrated this very message: we would do it again, in another country, if we thought we could win.
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney living in the United States where she teaches courses on Constitutional Law and Political Philosophy. She can be contacted at [email protected]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\06\09\story_9-6-2007_pg3_3
By Rafia Zakaria
The chilling tableau that the Democratic presidential candidates presented in raising their hands was one that illustrated this very message: we would do it again, in another country, if we thought we could win
On June 3, 2007 the eight Democratic candidates for the 2007 US Presidential race took the stage at a small college in New Hampshire. Revved up for debate, the six Senators, one Congressman and one Governor stood before their podiums ready for a war of words, dominance in which would mean greater coverage in the US media and a successful presidential bid.
Predictably, the third place candidate in the polls Senator John Edwards took on a combative stance confronting the two front-runners Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton on what he described as a lack of leadership in the Democratic Party over the Iraq issue. In the ensuing melee, nearly all the Democratic candidates sparred on the best way to extricate American troops from the increasingly troubling mess in Iraq.
For a Pakistani watching the debate, one question posed to the candidates, loomed above all others. A professor of history seated in the audience asked how the candidates reconciled American security interests in Pakistan to the fact that Pakistan is not a democratic country. The particular question, representing perhaps the biggest hole in the current Bush Administrations democracy promotion agenda would have seemed a great opportunity for the Democratic candidates to distinguish themselves ideologically from the ruling Bush Administration. However, the responses did far from that.
Senator Hilary Clinton, the initial candidate who fielded the question made it painfully clear exactly how aware she was of the situation in Pakistan, saying it is clear that he [General Musharraf] has not moved towards democracy but has solidified his rule and become quite anti-democratic with his removal of the chief justice and many of the other moves that hes taken. Having said this, however, she ended with the same self-serving pronouncement that characterises the Bush Administrations stance: At the same time, we depend upon him to try to control the tribal areas, out of which come the resurgent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters who cross the border into Afghanistan.
To add to the disappointment of those watching, the remaining candidates completely ducked the question.
Perhaps equally frustrated by the candidates lack of engagement with the question, the news anchor reformulated it in a more incendiary way. Addressing all the candidates he inquired if you agree that the US had intelligence that could take out Osama bin Laden and kill him, even though some innocent civilians would die in the process, would you, as president, authorise such an operation? The same candidates, who had been so hesitant to respond to how Pakistan fits into Americas scheme of promoting democracy, now raised their hands!
This glaring discrepancy, in which the same group of candidates vehemently denounced the Iraq war at the beginning of the debate and then minutes later raised their hands in favour of striking Pakistan illustrates the naivety of anyone who believes that US military expansionism is likely to come to an end with the culmination of the Bush Administration. Democratic candidates trying to defeat their Republican counterparts may pretend that a Democratic Administration is likely to abandon the military expansionism promoted by the Bush Administration and concentrate more on diplomatic solutions and the like, these distinctions may not be much more than rhetoric. While the anti-war American Left, increasingly giddy at the thought of a troop withdrawal from Iraq may like to believe that their candidates will be harbingers of an era of peace where military incursions are a thing of the past, the positions of the Democratic candidates provide little if any credence to such a belief.
From the Pakistani perspective, the ease with which nearly all the Democratic candidates raised their hands, and the general abstraction with which the question of innocent civilians that may die in such an attack was considered, illustrated the undiminished arrogance of a super-power that sees maintaining dominance as its pre-eminent goal. Foreign policy realists would defend this stance arguing that each nation, regardless of moral concerns must make such calculations; that when faced with decisions involving national security, lofty ideals must be discarded for realistic considerations of survival; power and dominance must inevitably govern what states do in situations where their national interests are at stake.
All this may be well and true, and indeed provides powerful war-mongering nations with convenient arguments for why the weak must be vanquished without remorse. But the reprehensible aspect of the Democratic candidates readiness to bomb Pakistan for Bin Laden comes not from whether such an act could be justified (for they would surely come up with a way) but rather whether it should be? In the wake of a 70,000 body count in Iraq, is it really so ludicrous to suggest that perhaps considerations other than power and dominance be used to evaluate whether other countries should be bombed to achieve military objectives?
The disparity between the Democratic candidates denunciation of the Iraq war at the outset of the debate and their alacrity in jumping to bomb Pakistan for Bin Laden merely minutes later suggest an unwillingness to look at this very question. Is the war in Iraq wrong because it represents the pre-emptive invasion of a sovereign nation or simply because it is a losing battle where American is unlikely to obtain a glorious victory?
While all the Democratic candidates put in considerable effort in detailing exactly how the Bush Administration has botched the war in Iraq, their response to the Pakistan question indicates that their ire is based on the fact that America is losing the war rather than an ideological difference on errors of pre-emptive wars in general.
This inability to apply the lesson of Iraq, to other cases suggests the reality that even under a Democratic president, there may be future Iraqs. The chilling tableau that the Democratic presidential candidates presented in raising their hands was one that illustrated this very message: we would do it again, in another country, if we thought we could win.
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney living in the United States where she teaches courses on Constitutional Law and Political Philosophy. She can be contacted at [email protected]
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007\06\09\story_9-6-2007_pg3_3
