It’s been awhile since I’ve sat down to write, a confluence of work, travel, and family has left our beloved blog to wither…but hope springs eternal and a quick trip to the BBC has left me outraged and ready to comment on U.S. foregin policy again.
Yet another article on US drone attacks in Pakistan. Once again, the language mystifies me. President Obama made few quibbles about the spill over of the war in Afghanistan into neighboring Pakistan, nor did he trouble himself to criticize drone attacks during his presidential campaign. While tough talk at the time, what of the outcome? A BBC headline reading “US Drone ‘kills 10 suspected militants’ in Pakistan,” captures much of the problem with our policy towards Pakistan today.
The United States’ undeclared war in Pakistan isn’t helping. It destabilizes the country (a nuclear one at that…), punishes the countryside, and provides moderate politicians who may be favorable to the United States with a whole lot of nothing. While the war against Afghanistan’s people (isn’t that what it is?) looks to continue, preventing spill over into Pakistan remains our greatest challenge.
While the U.S. military establishment seems intent on replaying the Vietnam War’s Phoenix Program (criticized as an assassination project), drone attacks killing “suspected militants” could easily read drone attacks killed innocent civilians. Death from afar, while politically viable for U.S. citizens, has no accountability. While civilian deaths due to drones can be shifted to faulty intelligence, who is responsible, who is to blame when civilians are killed? Killing people suspected of anything isn’t reason enough to kill someone. Sending explosives at high velocities to kill individual targets tend to indiscriminately kill others as well. Any perceived tactical gains are being unravelled by the very real anger and disappointment of the U.S. in Pakistan. How can we succeed in supporting and helping to stabilize the region if we are killing with impunity?
It is apparent that the U.S. can not contain the conflict to Afghanistan (the military refers to the area as AfPak for a reason – we seem content to view two different countries with different sets of challenges as a similar problem, although yes the ease of combatants crossing over porous borders is an issue). While applying military force is a solution, it isn’t the only solution. After the 2009 election in Afghanistan, it should be readily apparent the President Karzai’s grasp on power is tenuous at best. Investing more in political solutions on both sides of the border needs to take greater priority. While the U.S. has been keen to back individual personalities (the word puppets isn’t polite and disregards a leader’s own motivations and ambitions), the big picture, is that one day we will leave (unless we outsource our occupations to Blackwater, oops…XE, and the rest for the next (several?) decades), and what will be our legacy?
Navigating the byzantine layers of politics in Pakistan and Afghanistan will not be easy, nor will negotiating with people who identify with and subscribe to violence while using religion for legitimacy. However, finding political solutions with long term sustainability is more likely to pay off than killing people in Pakistan’s countryside suspected of being militants.
0 Responses
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.