What's new

Is Obama's drone doctrine counter-productive?

Americans do not believe so.. Just like ISI keeps dropping comments about how their intel led to OBL while CIA keeps rejecting the same. Do understand that Pakistan may talk all she wants about how it has noble intentions, but unless the other side believes the same, it has no value. And in this case, Pakistan really has zero trust of the western world..Personally I dont believe that trust is even deserved..But then that's just me...
This is not a matter of 'not believing' - the arrests of KSM and killing of Libbi by Pakistan are documented high profile cases, and even US officials admit that Pakistan has done more than any other nation in neutralizing AQ members, leaving aside the disagreement over intel provided in the OBL case.
The suspect can not tell the other side on how to remove the suspicion. Its the suspecting side which decides what will put their suspicions to rest.. And Pakistan hasnt been able to deliver on that..
The suspecting side has no basis to cast suspicion on Pakistan - Pakistan is not responsible for US paranoia and hubris, and has a far more legally valid legitimate position in setting the terms for how military action will be conducted on Pakistani soil.

They were doing that weren't they? I think after the OBL and Salala incident Pk refused intelligence inputs to the CIA plus closed down the base in Balochistan from where the drones operated as well. The CIA also complained that Pakistani intelligence used to inform the targets of the drone strike before the attack wasn't it?
No, Pakistan has never been involved in operating the drones - Pakistan may have occasionally passed on intelligence to the US that the US used to carry out a drone attack, but Pakistan was not involved in the vetting of targets and the actual targetting and operations of drones.
 
Well, killing of any kind leaves a bad taste in the mouth..

A most innovative choice of words, in a most unusual context. I agree with you that the death of innocents is a matter for mourning. I also agree partially when you say that with Pakistani terrorists, it is kill or be killed. I would agree wholly if you had said 'terrorists'; it is not clear why you qualified that with an adjective.

But then just like war, one needs to make best of a bad situation.

But then, it is war or it is not war. There cannot be a semi-virgin. There cannot be a state, legally, in terms of international treaties and agreements, when it is just like war.

Even in the case of war, armed assaults on a civilian, unarmed non-combatant population are crimes against humanity. This is true whether it is the bombing of Dresden, or of London, or the slaughter of Lidice, or the Rape of Nanking, or the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is not even war. This is an outrageous act outside the permissible limit of any international law.

You have knowledge of terrorists in a given area. You know they are going to come after your citizens. The country where these terrorists are based is not willing to move against them.

The answer is to declare war, and put a military solution to it, NOT to slaughter civilians.

Willing to wound, and yet afraid to strike,
Just hint a fault, and hesitate dislike;


You cant send your ground troops as they will be slaughtered before they reach the terrorist safe havens. The only option left is air attack thru drones.

And we are asked to believe that this minor detail has restrained the US ever before, anywhere?

It has its risks of collateral damage, but then with Pakistani terrorists, its down to kill or be killed.

This is a strange thought. In order to preserve the lives of your soldiers, in order to punish the enemy, without stopping him or even stopping his growth, it is now permissible to kill innocent men, women and children?

Please explain to me, in what way does this differ from 9/11?

And how will US wipe out terrorist if the country they are in does not act on them?


Two wrongs do not make a right.

If the US has a problem with the country, let them act against that country, against its leadership, against its military organization, against its state organs. Why is the US attacking civilians?

I dont think swathi is saying that..But the fact that the question of sovereignty violation does not arise since pakistan's sovereignty in the said areas doesnt exist anyway..

The collateral damage is a separate discussion.. And while the collateral damage is a reality, what needs to be seen is if there is an alternate way that would result in lower collateral damage than drone attacks..

From my understanding, and it may be wrong, Agnostic Muslim was not talking about sovereignty.

Quite correctly, he was arguing that the moral equivalence of the US military action was the murderous activities of Chechen, Uzbek and Arab terrorists.

It isn't about sovereignty alone; it's about morality and legal means of conducting anti-terrorist campaigns.
 
The drone strike is indeed immoral and absurd but pray tell me what is Pakistan willing and can do? The only route they could have taken was diplomacy but can it work with the current state of affairs is a question for which I don't see an answer as yet.

The Pakistan's establishment over the years have made sure that they cannot argue using moral grounds and US uses each and everything to its advantage.
 
The drone strike is indeed immoral and absurd but pray tell me what is Pakistan willing and can do? The only route they could have taken was diplomacy but can it work with the current state of affairs is a question for which I don't see an answer as yet.

Well we haven't given up on the American people yet. Remember these traits of Obama and his henchmen Panetta and Petraeus were outed by Americans as well - three dozen close insiders of the white house.

What needs to happen is for the American people to rise up and speak against the usage of these drone attacks.
 
Well we haven't given up on the American people yet. Remember these traits of Obama and his henchmen Panetta and Petraeus were outed by Americans as well - three dozen close insiders of the white house.

What needs to happen is for the American people to rise up and speak against the usage of these drone attacks.
True but do you think the people in America care so much about the drone killings? Americans see everything as a logical conclusion to terror, they have been systematically brain-washed to it. I believe an effective campaign by the PA against the extremists should be undertaken so that US does not then have the moral high ground to carry out these attacks.
 
Has it not struck a single Pakstani here (or elsewhere in your friend and family circles) - especially the older ones - that this is exactly how we were colonised?

A little bit at a time.



Not on the evidence of this thread and countless others here I have briefly skimmed through.

You are more interested in debating the morals and ethics of it.

Playing the victims.

Going to the UN to protest.

Writing op eds.

Wringing your hands online.

Attending rock show jalsas.

Blaming the Americans.

Always the Americans.

So what's wrong with it? Why this bitter attack on the victims of drone attacks?

None none of these things are inherently abhorrent, what is horrific is actual murder that is being committed by using American forces to randomly kill people to show back home that they are doing something in Pakistan. We are using our words, they are killing us with weapons. At any given day we are the non-violent people and our words should carry more weight.

You're commenting like its our fault to be killed! You are not seeing it from the perspective of a people with very few options. So yes we are protesting, writing op-eds to light a fire within people like you to do the same. Do you think if you stood up, I stood up, the entire world stood up - this senseless murder of innocent people wouldn't stop?

Well it definitely wouldn't stop if we did nothing.

So we're doing something. Yesterday no one was speaking against the drones, we have here in this week witnessed strong outcries from US, UK, Australia and Russia - I am sure its there everywhere else too - I haven't seen Indian commentary deploring the drones but I think eventually their humanity won't allow a senseless murder to take place for much longer as well.

If I could shoot down the drones, I would. I can start a protest campaign right now, so I'm doing that.
 
So what's wrong with it? Why this bitter attack on the victims of drone attacks?

None none of these things are inherently abhorrent, what is horrific is actual murder that is being committed by using American forces to randomly kill people to show back home that they are doing something in Pakistan. We are using our words, they are killing us with weapons. At any given day we are the non-violent people and our words should carry more weight.

You're commenting like its our fault to be killed! You are not seeing it from the perspective of a people with very few options. So yes we are protesting, writing op-eds to light a fire within people like you to do the same. Do you think if you stood up, I stood up, the entire world stood up - this senseless murder of innocent people wouldn't stop?

Well it definitely wouldn't stop if we did nothing.

So we're doing something. Yesterday no one was speaking against the drones, we have here in this week witnessed strong outcries from US, UK, Australia and Russia - I am sure its there everywhere else too - I haven't seen Indian commentary deploring the drones but I think eventually their humanity won't allow a senseless murder to take place for much longer as well.

If I could shoot down the drones, I would. I can start a protest campaign right now, so I'm doing that.

America has a long history of waging war, and sustaining such, over many years, in spite of their own domestic outcry.

Do not believe for a moment that what you are doing or trying to do is going to help.

You should be instead doing what you can to hold accountable those you control.

Your leadership.

Your military.

Shoot down the drones.

Make a stand.

Do you think the world will gand up against you if you do?

Or do you, your leadership, and most especially your military fear something else, were you to open this Pandora's box.

I am really curious why you would not fight back when your people are being killed, when your soldiers have been killed, and you have one of the serious military forces around the world.

If you believe you are right, fight back.

You are Pakistanis. Remember your martial history of a thousand years.

Stop behaving like weak baniyas here.
 
You are Pakistanis. Remember your martial history of a thousand years.

Stop behaving like weak baniyas here.

Lost me here - I don't what this is doing in the post. Perhaps more than any other country, public opinion matters in US
 


A most innovative choice of words, in a most unusual context. I agree with you that the death of innocents is a matter for mourning. I also agree partially when you say that with Pakistani terrorists, it is kill or be killed. I would agree wholly if you had said 'terrorists'; it is not clear why you qualified that with an adjective.

But then, it is war or it is not war. There cannot be a semi-virgin. There cannot be a state, legally, in terms of international treaties and agreements, when it is just like war.

Even in the case of war, armed assaults on a civilian, unarmed non-combatant population are crimes against humanity. This is true whether it is the bombing of Dresden, or of London, or the slaughter of Lidice, or the Rape of Nanking, or the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This is not even war. This is an outrageous act outside the permissible limit of any international law.


The answer is to declare war, and put a military solution to it, NOT to slaughter civilians.

In order to preserve the lives of your soldiers, in order to punish the enemy, without stopping him or even stopping his growth, it is now permissible to kill innocent men, women and children?


If the US has a problem with the country, let them act against that country, against its leadership, against its military organization, against its state organs. Why is the US attacking civilians?


From my understanding, and it may be wrong, Agnostic Muslim was not talking about sovereignty.

Quite correctly, he was arguing that the moral equivalence of the US military action was the murderous activities of Chechen, Uzbek and Arab terrorists.

It isn't about sovereignty alone; it's about morality and legal means of conducting anti-terrorist campaigns.

Thank you for you comments Joe. A most sane and thoughtful usage of words which i am most grateful.
I think your words sum up my views clearly.
I am sitting in the UK and am far away from the realities of whats happening. My major concerns are like yours - an illegal approach to a problem where civilians are being attacked. These attacks have highlighted that the USA are in a position to ask other nations to go and put other nations in their place by touting international law yet when it comes to their agenda they put a big two fingers up and have a "laissez faire" attitude.
Another case of "All animals are equal but WE are more equal than others - so we dont have to abide to any rules".
One innocent death from drone attacks is one too many. I cant imagine what the pain must be like of a family to lose a loved one in this manner.
 
So what's wrong with it? Why this bitter attack on the victims of drone attacks?

None none of these things are inherently abhorrent, what is horrific is actual murder that is being committed by using American forces to randomly kill people to show back home that they are doing something in Pakistan. We are using our words, they are killing us with weapons. At any given day we are the non-violent people and our words should carry more weight.

You're commenting like its our fault to be killed! You are not seeing it from the perspective of a people with very few options. So yes we are protesting, writing op-eds to light a fire within people like you to do the same. Do you think if you stood up, I stood up, the entire world stood up - this senseless murder of innocent people wouldn't stop?

Well it definitely wouldn't stop if we did nothing.

So we're doing something. Yesterday no one was speaking against the drones, we have here in this week witnessed strong outcries from US, UK, Australia and Russia - I am sure its there everywhere else too - I haven't seen Indian commentary deploring the drones but I think eventually their humanity won't allow a senseless murder to take place for much longer as well.

If I could shoot down the drones, I would. I can start a protest campaign right now, so I'm doing that.

Speaking as an individual Indian, representing nobody's views but his own, may I point out that my sympathies are with the people of Pakistan, especially those who are innocent victims. However, even as I will stand shoulder to shoulder with those in Pakistan who oppose this immoral and illegal way of waging an irregular, terrorizing war against a mass of people indiscriminately, I have to swallow my own feelings of bitter resentment at the casual contempt with which the Pakistani establishment, the Pakistani state, treats the civilian casualties that we have suffered.

I will personally continue to support the common people of Pakistan against this savage method of waging an undeclared war, but please be sure that this support is rooted in moral objections to what is going on, not to a support of the criminalized establishment or to state policy. Not even to defence of national sovereignty.

No innocent should lose his or her life in these acts of war. That is all that I stand for.

The reason for this elaborate personal explanation is that there are another hundred Indians, another thousand Indians who agree that this should not happen, but who ask why the state, the leaders that bred this condition should not be punished.

One innocent death from drone attacks is one too many. I cant imagine what the pain must be like of a family to lose a loved one in this manner.

THIS is what it is all about.
 
May 31, 2012

Obama Shows His True Colors

Pakistan Pays the Price for Its Defiance

by JUDY BELLO



Leading up to the NATO Conference in Chicago last Friday, the U.S. was hopeful that President Zardari of Pakistan would announce the reopening of U.S. military supply routes in Pakistan, according to an article published in the Guardian of London on May 21, but their hopes were dashed. Zardari, who was invited at the last minute for a trilateral conference with U.S. President Obama and Afghan President Karzai, said, in a bilateral meeting with Hillary Clinton, that he would open the supply routes, but first the U.S. would have to apologize for killing 24 Pakistani soldiers during an air attack on a military base on the Afghan border last December and commit to ending Drone strikes inside Pakistan. President Obama did not give a private audience to the Pakistani President. In fact, it appears that American officials were not shy about expressing their displeasure with Pakistan at the Conference.

“Obama, at the opening of the second day of the NATO summit Monday morning, demonstrated his displeasure with the Pakistan government by singling out for mention the Central Asia countries and Russia that have stepped in to replace the Pakistan supply route. He made no mention of Pakistan, even though Zardari was in the room at the time. To ram home the point, the US defense secretary, Leon Panetta, also held a meeting at the NATO summit with senior ministers from Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. Panetta expressed his “deep appreciation” for their support.”

This is a sharp rebuke, given the level of ongoing support that Pakistan has provided to the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan, which has lasted more than 10 years. Mr. Zardari was apparently under some serious pressure to capitulate. According to an Article in the Christian Science Monitor on May 22, there were high hopes for a deal when he attended the NATO meeting. It appears, however, that he offered to reopen the routes, without demanding the cessation of the Drone Strikes, at a price about 20x higher than what the U.S./NATO had been paying before the routes were closed, an offer unlikely to be accepted . Meanwhile, back in Pakistan, according to any number of sources, Prime Minister Gilani has been convicted by the powerful Supreme Court of Pakistan for refusing to reopen an old corruption case against President Zardari. Their government is in a very vulnerable position.

This is not a happy circumstance in a country where the civilian government has frequently been removed by a military coup, and Mr. Zardari’s father in law was actually executed by Zia al Haq, the military dictator, supported by the U.S., who removed him from office. From the viewpoint of the Pakistani government, this is a defeat any way you look at it. If even the reputedly corrupt Asif Zardari cannot bring himself to reopen the supply routes while the drone strikes continue to wreak havoc on the civilian population of North Waziristan, and cause upheaval in the general population of Pakistan, then it might be time to revisit the policy. However, the self proclaimed Masters of the Universe do not see it that way. This is their world and they will have their way. Violence, humiliation and oppression are their tools of choice. The lives of individuals have no meaning for them, and their mantra of freedom and democracy is meant to drown out the cries of the impoverished and brutalized masses of their victims. As you may imagine, an insult to a already debased opponent was hardly an adequate response to the refusal of a chattel to provide the expected services. So, that wasn’t the end of the affair.

Even as the beleaguered President of Pakistan was being shown the good will of the U.S. Government and their NATO allies along with their contempt for his country and the people who live there, a successful Drone Strike that targeted an Egyptian Jihadist named Saeed al-Masri, or Yazid, killed half a dozen men and 3 small children. “The Face of Collateral Damage”, an article by Jefferson Morley on Salon.com provides the details and a photo of one of the children, a small girl named Fatima. Fatima was not a member of Yazid’s family (not that that should matter) but the child of an associate who had already been killed along with his wives and other children in a previous drone strike on his vehicle. Fatima was killed in the compound where she lived in the village of Mohammed Khel in North Waziristan not far from the other villages listed below. Apparently this strike was not counted with the ones listed below because there was an actual ‘militant’ targeted. Despite the deaths of several children, it didn’t play into the global accounting.

Beginning the same day the conference closed, on May 21, 22 and 24, 3 separate U.S. Drone Strikes in North Waziristan killed 20 people and wounded many more. On the Monday the 21st of May, a compound (in our frame of reference, that would be a home) in the town of Mirinshah was hit with 2 Hellfire missiles, resulting in 4 deaths and a number of injuries. On Tuesday, a Mosque in a nearby village was struck by 2 Hellfire missiles during morning prayers, resulting in 10 fatalities and more injuries. On Thursday, a bakery in another village in the region was struck with Hellfire missiles, resulting in 5 fatalities. My Google Drone Alert was flooded with these events for the entire week. Headlines in India, Pakistan, Russia, China, the U.S., U.K. and Canada echoed “Drone Attack Kills 10″, “US Drone Strike ‘Kills 5′ in North Waziristan” , “5 Killed in Pakistan Drone Strike” ,, “Drone Attack in North Waziristan Kills 5″ and on and on. These were so called Signature Strikes so they did not target any identified individual.

Local people said that those killed in these strikes were ‘villagers’. Across the international press, the victims were referred to variously, as ‘militants’, ‘suspected militants’ and ‘people’. Some of the U.S. press presented them as ‘suspected’ militants and ‘supporters’ of terrorists. Even after looking at all those articles, I don’t know their names. I don’t believe the people who called the strikes know who they were. ABC News referred to the victims as militants in every case, and helpfully provided a Google terrain map with a single marker designated ‘Pakistan’. At least I can name the towns, and provide maps showing the locations of the strikes. The town struck on Monday was Mirinshah, a significant town in the region. The Mosque struck on Tuesday was in the village of Mir Ali, about 15 miles East of Mirinshah, and on Thursday the Bakery was struck on Thursday in the village of Khassokhel, not far from Mir Ali.

The Western press coverage of these events provides the big picture. The Global Post, an internet news source has “Back to Back U.S. Drone Strikes in Pakistan Test Diplomatic Standoff Over Supply Lines”, and then “Drone Strikes Continue to Pound Pakistan’s Northwest”. Yes, I’ll say that’s a test of the diplomatic standoff. An ‘official’ is quoted in the article as saying the victims were Uzbeks and other foreigners. They give no evidence of how he would know. Speaking of officials, the day of the first strike, the Christian Science Monitor ran “Pakistani Official: Position to Soften on NATO Supply Line”, where they cite a Pakistani official and a prominent Pakistani journalist saying that Pakistan is going to have to bite the bullet because they can’t win this one. They indicate that the negotiations were derailed by Zardari’s request for higher transit fees. But the bottom line is that there is nothing to negotiate because the Pakistani people will no longer tolerate U.S. Drone attacks and the U.S. has no intention of discontinuing them. The next day, the headline was “US Drone Strike in Pakistan Highlights Divergent Interests if US, Pakistan”. I would say, the strike highlight the near infinite disparity in power between the US and Pakistan; at least that is what the U.S. seems to be asserting.

The article elaborates the inconvenience that Pakistan has cause to the U.S. and NATO by closing the supply lines, and says that inviting President Zardari to the NATO Conference was a goodwill gesture. So, Zardari spent 17 hours or so on an airplane twice, so he could spend a few hours schmoozing with the folks who matter because they thought he was finally going to give in and violate the wishes of his domestic constituency by offering them what they want, but he spoiled the gesture by refusing to do so.

Two later pieces of news summarize the U.S. perspective on this situation. On Friday, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette ran “Drone Strikes Continue in Pakistan as Tensions Increase and Senate Panel Cuts Aid”. Punishment is being piled on punishment, insult added to injury, in an attempt to bring the Pakistani government to it’s knees. All that is left is Regime Change. Interestingly, if you look at the first few paragraphs of this article, it seems like that is where they are heading. And then, today in the New York Times, “Secret Kill List Proves a Test of Obama’s Principles and Will”, 8 pages of arrogant, bluster, wherein we read such gems as:

“When a rare opportunity for a drone strike at a top terrorist arises — but his family is with him — it is the president who has reserved to himself the final moral calculation.”

and

“Without showing his hand, Mr. Obama had preserved three major policies — rendition, military commissions and indefinite detention — that have been targets of human rights groups since the 2001 terrorist attacks. “

following a reference to “the president’s attempt to apply the “just war” theories of Christian philosophers to a brutal modern conflict.”

Then we have:

“Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

and

“Aides say Mr. Obama has several reasons for becoming so immersed in lethal counter-terrorism operations. A student of writings on war by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, he believes that he should take moral responsibility for such actions. And he knows that bad strikes can tarnish America’s image and derail diplomacy. ” [You could have fooled me]

and yet

“In Pakistan, Mr. Obama had approved not only “personality” strikes aimed at named, high-value terrorists, but “Signature” strikes that targeted training camps and suspicious compounds in areas controlled by militants.” [What principle guides this decision?]

The Republicans ‘get it’:

“Their policy is to take out high-value targets, versus capturing high-value targets,” said Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the top Republican on the intelligence committee. “They are not going to advertise that, but that’s what they are doing.”

Mr. President, I have to ask, “What Principles are reflected here? It would appear that Mr. Obama is playing God. Seduced by the power of the Presidency, and at the same time barred from constructive domestic action, President Obama has turned to the minute details of day to day issues of life and death for strangers on the far side of the planet who do not have it in their power to protect themselves from his personally structured version of state terrorism. And last week, his eminence apparently decided to teach the Pakistanis a lesson about defying the mighty powers of the American Olympians. Perhaps, Mr. Obama, you would deign to look down from your lofty post and say a few words of comfort to little Fatima and the dozens of others like her.

Judy Bello is currently a full time activist thanks to the harsh and unforgiving work environment in the Software Development Industry. Finally free to focus on her own interests in her home office, she is active with The Upstate Coalition to Ground the Drones and End the Wars, and with Fellowship of Reconciliation Middle East Task Force and often posts on their blog at Fellowship of Reconciliation | Working for peace, justice and nonviolence since 1915. She has been to Iran twice with FOR Peace Delegations, and spent a month in the Kurdish city of Suleimaniya in 2009. Her personal blog, Towards a Global Perspective, is at Towards a global perspective . . . and she is administers the Upstate anti-Drone Coalition website at Ground the Drones & End the Wars.
 
...... I have to swallow my own feelings of bitter resentment at the casual contempt with which the Pakistani establishment, the Pakistani state, treats the civilian casualties that we have suffered.


The reason for this elaborate personal explanation is that there are another hundred Indians, another thousand Indians who agree that this should not happen, but who ask why the state, the leaders that bred this condition should not be punished.

THIS is what it is all about.


That is indeed what it is about. It is not only the establishment however, I believe that most Pakistanis, including a majority on this forum do likewise. Years of that behaviour has so conditioned Indian responses that I believe most Indians no longer sympathize when Pakistanis are at the receiving end. One can detect similar(though still muted) reaction from the Americans. A kind of a dehumanising effect is in play. This has been starkly evident in India especially after 26/11when even pediatric cardiac surgeons have been accused of saving the lives of Pakistani "terrorists to be". While it is important to stress that this is an extreme reaction, it is still just an extreme variant of what is a widespread attitude of fatigue with Pakistan. Most Indians are both immune & indifferent to the claims of innocents being killed in Pakistan, believing that Pakistan is only reaping what it sowed. Even attitudes across the world are slowly showing the same indifference. Sad but true.
 
This is not a matter of 'not believing' - the arrests of KSM and killing of Libbi by Pakistan are documented high profile cases, and even US officials admit that Pakistan has done more than any other nation in neutralizing AQ members, leaving aside the disagreement over intel provided in the OBL case.

But by the comments of same officials, they are not sure if the said arrests had to do with Pakistan's real intentions or with relieving pressure on them by offering up individuals at regular intervals while still supporting the ideology of the said terrorist groups on the side..So we are back to suspicion..

The suspecting side has no basis to cast suspicion on Pakistan - Pakistan is not responsible for US paranoia and hubris, and has a far more legally valid legitimate position in setting the terms for how military action will be conducted on Pakistani soil.
I dont agree to not having any basis for suspicion.. The fact that more terrorists have been arrested/located/killed in Pakistan leads to the hypothesis that there is a tacit support for these terrorists within Pakistan. OBL's presence, half a mile from the gate of Pakistan's biggest military academy sealed the deal in my view..
 
Lost me here - I don't what this is doing in the post. Perhaps more than any other country, public opinion matters in US

Please don't mind it. Just friendly ribbing and reverse psychology to goad you guys into action that counts.

Not action that helps you go to bed at night, just because you feel you are doing "something".

Speaking as an individual Indian, representing nobody's views but his own, may I point out that my sympathies are with the people of Pakistan, especially those who are innocent victims. However, even as I will stand shoulder to shoulder with those in Pakistan who oppose this immoral and illegal way of waging an irregular, terrorizing war against a mass of people indiscriminately, I have to swallow my own feelings of bitter resentment at the casual contempt with which the Pakistani establishment, the Pakistani state, treats the civilian casualties that we have suffered.

I will personally continue to support the common people of Pakistan against this savage method of waging an undeclared war, but please be sure that this support is rooted in moral objections to what is going on, not to a support of the criminalized establishment or to state policy. Not even to defence of national sovereignty.

No innocent should lose his or her life in these acts of war. That is all that I stand for.

The reason for this elaborate personal explanation is that there are another hundred Indians, another thousand Indians who agree that this should not happen, but who ask why the state, the leaders that bred this condition should not be punished.

My point too, though I am going about it via a circuitous route, waiting for someone to articulate what's actually going on.

Someone preferably from the side of the stakeholder - namely, Pakistan.

Come on guys. We were willing to wage war on the US in 1971 (Diego Garcia) had push come to shove.

At a time when our economy and military was nowhere close to what you have today.

What is your leadership-military nexus doing?

History teaches us that when you bend over a little, the next step is for someone to make you bend over a lot more. Not be appeased and go away leaving you alone.
 
Oh Boy... Looks like I am going to get caned by the old master :fie: :fie:



A most innovative choice of words, in a most unusual context. I agree with you that the death of innocents is a matter for mourning. I also agree partially when you say that with Pakistani terrorists, it is kill or be killed. I would agree wholly if you had said 'terrorists'; it is not clear why you qualified that with an adjective.
Oh! The term Pakistani terrorist was simply to highlight the locational context (since you have enough of them within Afghanistan too). Nothing special about Pakistani terrorists.. All terrorists are same and the only good ones are the dead ones :)


But then, it is war or it is not war. There cannot be a semi-virgin. There cannot be a state, legally, in terms of international treaties and agreements, when it is just like war.
Absolutely.,. It is not war... And I dont see any formal objections coming from the govt of Pakistan against drone attacks. Its been years since they are happening.. I would believe if Pakistan really wanted them to stop, it would have complained to UNSC long back..

Even in the case of war, armed assaults on a civilian, unarmed non-combatant population are crimes against humanity. This is true whether it is the bombing of Dresden, or of London, or the slaughter of Lidice, or the Rape of Nanking, or the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
That is when Civilians are intentionally targeted.. Isnt it? Collateral damage is a part of every war.. More so when one side decides to use civilians as human shields..

This is not even war. This is an outrageous act outside the permissible limit of any international law.
While I would agree in normal circumstances, but the rules of engagement made for wars of yesterday, just dont apply today. When countries use fighters who are not dressed in combat gear and are mixed up with local population, following the laws made for explicit blue on red skirmishes just dont work.



The answer is to declare war, and put a military solution to it, NOT to slaughter civilians.

Which war has been fought till today that didnt have civilian casualties.. ?? So does this.. Wars are declared on nations who openly attack other nations. When a nation chooses to inflict an undeclared war on another nation, the other nation is well within its rights to respond in kind.

And we are asked to believe that this minor detail has restrained the US ever before, anywhere?
I cant speak to the mind set of Americans, but like any strategist worth his salt, they would chose the option with the best CBA in their eyes..



This is a strange thought. In order to preserve the lives of your soldiers, in order to punish the enemy, without stopping him or even stopping his growth, it is now permissible to kill innocent men, women and children?

Please explain to me, in what way does this differ from 9/11?[/QUOTE]

I think i have tried to address this before.. The drone attacks are not targeted at civilians, but at terrorists.. The civilians do get hit as collateral damage.. Just like in a declared war, when one side takes out a military factory of the other side and ends up killing hundreds of civilian workers working in that factory.. or when in a declared war, shelling of border posts at times, takes out border villages along with the civilians living there...

About how it differs from 9/11, well, 3 points from top of my mind.. 1. Its not targeted at civilians 2. The source is not hidden 3. Its a response and not an initiation.



Two wrongs do not make a right.

May be, but it makes the source of 1st wrong think twice (if he survives) before doing another wrong in future


If the US has a problem with the country, let them act against that country, against its leadership, against its military organization, against its state organs. Why is the US attacking civilians?
Because the approach followed by that country has removed the distinction between its military and civilians



Quite correctly, he was arguing that the moral equivalence of the US military action was the murderous activities of Chechen, Uzbek and Arab terrorists.

It isn't about sovereignty alone; it's about morality and legal means of conducting anti-terrorist campaigns.

In my personal belief (and it may well be abhorrent to some), morals have no place left in fight against terrorists (all not just Pakistani). You need to operate at their level to put the fear of God in them. When they attack our families, they should keep in mind that its not just them, but their families too that will get hit in return. When a country uses non uniformed men to attack neighboring countries for the sake of plausible deniability, that country should realize that by doing this, they are putting all of its population in risk

Rules like Geneva convention apply when 2 uniformed armies fight each other. When one country chooses to remove distinction between combatants and civilians, it needs to be told that this distinction is being removed on both sides.. Not just one.. and hence it should be ready to receive the same kind of damage its inflicting on the civilians of the other country....


Just my 2 cents
 
Back
Top Bottom