A Pakistani reaction to the implications of US air strikes

A writer for the The News predicts continued chaos for Pakistan as a result of US air strikes

Consequences of US airstrikes

Saturday, February 02, 2008
Rahimullah Yusufzai

The US military carried out a missile strike in Pakistani territory at a time when Washington was putting pressure on Islamabad to allow its troops to operate in Pakistan for hunting down Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters hiding in Waziristan and other Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA). This wasn't the first time and it won't be the last for the Americans to launch an attack on Pakistan's soil.

Until now, there has been no claim of responsibility for the January 28 night-time attack on a house of a tribesman, known for his links to militants, in Khushali Torikhel Wazir village near Mir Ali town in North Waziristan. It reportedly killed 13 mostly Arab and Central Asian fighters allegedly linked to Al Qaeda and Taliban. Such strikes are carried out secretly and rarely acknowledged, though sometimes the Pentagon and other arms of the US government leak information to the American media to claim credit for the more successful airstrikes and for the ones that don't cause many civilian deaths. In the latest case, there is growing evidence that a CIA-operated, pilotless Predator aircraft fired the missile that struck the tribal village and caused those deaths.

There was obvious glee among US officials following reports that a senior Al Qaeda operative Abu Laith Al-Libi was among those killed in the airstrike. One of them while requesting anonymity said taking down guys like Al-Libi could have both an operational and symbolic impact. Still he wasn't confirming the report of his death and was content to say that there were strong indications that Al-Libi had been killed. The Americans in such situations don't rush to judgement and prefer to wait and seek evidence before confirming the death of some of their most dangerous foes.

The subsequent revelation by two Islamic websites, As-Sahab and Al Ekhlass, which are normally used by Al Qaeda and similar groups to provide news and views, that Al-Libi had indeed been killed was surprising. These websites, or the pro-Al Qaeda elements operating them, don't reveal the loss or arrest of their senior operatives and instead strive to keep their enemies guessing. Therefore, it is understandable that their admission of Al-Libi's death is generating controversy. Either it was no longer possible to keep his death secret or someone has manipulated their websites to pass on information that would demoralize the Al Qaeda rank and file. Still the statement posted on the Ekhlass.org [a1]website congratulating the Islamic nation on the "martyrdom of Sheikh Abu Laith Al-Libi" along with the prayer that "May God accept him (as a martyr)" could be taken as admission by elements close to Al Qaeda that Al-Libi is no more.

read rest of Consequences of US airstrikes

I mention this opinion piece because it points out that US air strikes in Pakistan have multiple effects. They both kill our enemies {good} and contribute to the destabilization of Pakistan {bad}. This second effect is being ignored by the US, because the worsening situation in Afghanistan inspires a desperate desire to score some kind of victory against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.

Also, to judge from the fact that the News published this, a substantial segment of Pakistani opinion apparently thinks the causal chain stops with the US air strikes. After all, the US air strikes, and for that matter the desire to use special forces to attack targets in Pakistan, are themselves caused. The air strikes are caused by the fact that the enemies of the US are making effective use of Pakistani territory to hide wanted fugitives and support operations against NATO forces in Afghanistan. Under international law, a country has the obligation to prevent its territory from being used by insurgents as a base from which to attack another country.

So the air strikes are in turn caused by the Pakistan government's lack of control over its own territory and/or its willingness to tacitly support the Taliban in Afghanistan. From what I have read, this point eludes mainstream Pakistani opinion.

What we have here is a vicious circle. Because the Pakistani government does not have effective control over Pakistani Pashtuns, and perhaps supports the Taliban for reasons of its own, the US attacks the Pashtuns in Pakistan. After all, when fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan it is a poor idea to let the insurgents have a sanctuary in Pakistan. These attacks in turn inflame the insurgency in the NWFP and FATA further, making the situation worse. The US responds with more air strikes, which further alienate the Pashtuns in Pakistan. These strikes are victories for the US in terms of killing its most prominent indivicual enemies, but worsen the overall situation. Neither the Pakistanis nor the US fully understand the situation. Here in the US, we tend to focus on the reasons that the US air strikes are justified, and want to kill more of our AQ and Taliban enemies. We ignore the fact that the air strikes bring us more enemies, and the insurgency grows stronger. In Pakistan, they concentrate on the fact that the people attacked by the air strikes are Pakistanis, and the fact that the air strikes make the situation in Pakistan worse. They ignore the fact that Pakistan has an obligation to prevent the insurgents from using Pakistan as a base from which to attack other countries.

In the long run, both we and the Pakistanis lose.

return to top of blog