"the white house has backed away from using us commandos for further ground raids into pakistan after furious complaints from its government." notice how the complaints are described as "furious" but not the ground raids. it as if the pakistanis were the ones being violent. of course, this should read "the white house has backed away from using us commandos to illegally attack pakistan, hence killing scores of civilians, after complaints by the pakistani government."
instead, the us is now relying "on an intensifying campaign of airstrikes by the cia against militants in the pakistani mountains." well, it is not as if the cia is another country! the cia is a part of the us government. and who are these "militants," and what right does the cia have to bomb them? are these militants the only people who live in the "pakistani mountains? hell, they are bombing pakistan! it just sounds a little better to say the "pakistani mountains." it makes you think there aren't any people around except for "militants." left unstated is the blatant illegality and immorality of bombing a sovereign nation, a nation, by the way, that is supposedly our ally. apparently, we have the right to strike pakistani territory because of these so called "militants." therefore, doesn't pakistan now have the right to bomb us cities to avenge these airstrikes? perhaps they could strike "militants in the u.s mountains." the authors do not suggest such a response, although it seems clear that pakistan would have a better case to attack us than we do to attack them.
"according to us and pakistani officials, attacks by remotely piloted predator aircraft have increased sharply in frequency and scope in the past few months." so, we don't even have the courage to send live pilots anymore when we bomb! "remotely piloted predator aircraft?" sounds like a video game. i, for one, am still trying to figure out how suicide bombers are condemned as "cowardly," but no one says a word about the utter cowardice on display here. think of it; we get to bomb and bomb, and if they do shoot a jet down, the aircraft doesn't even have a person in it. the article doesn't mention how disgusting such a scenario is.
"through today, there were at least 19 predator strikes since the beginning of august, some deep inside pakistan's tribal areas." 19 bombings of a country that we aren't even at war with. and what about the name of the aircraft; a "predator." kind of says it all, huh? notice also that some of the attacks were "deep inside pakistan's tribal areas." well, i thought they were bombing the pakistani-afghan border! now we learn the attacks are "deep" inside pakistan. doesn't all of this sound just a little like "the us is bombing the shit out of pakistan, a supposed ally, and killing scores of pakistanis?"
"the latest strike was today, when a suspected us missile hit a compound used by taliban militants." a "suspected" us missile? where else could the missile have come from? is pakistan bombing itself? and the missile didn't "hit" a compound. rather, the "compound" was bombed. notice the use of the word "compound." sounds kind of dark and scary, doesn't it? supposedly, this "compound" was "used by taliban militants." well, were they the only ones using it? what were they using it for? were they living there? were other people living there? to me, this just sounds like a building where pakistanis live. by the way, would another country have the right to bomb an american "compound," such as the pentagon, which was used by us "militants?" the author doesn't inform us if this would be acceptable. furthermore, what did the taliban ever do to us? so what if taliban "militants" were using the "compound." what american cities have the taliban bombed? even if one goes along with the demonization of al qaeda, (and we shouldn't) it's important to remember that the taliban and al qaeda are not the same thing.
"pakistani intelligence officials said the strike in south waziristan killed up to 20 people. they said the identity of the victims was not immediately clear." well, the officials said this because it is true. it is not some kind of conspiracy. is this not a crime for the us to kill 20 pakistanis without cause? can pakistan now kill 20 americans? the author is silent on this issue.
"after months of debate within the administration and mounting frustration over pakistan's failure to carry out more aggressive counterterrorism operations, president bush finally gave his approval in july for ground missions inside pakistan." how do we know how "aggressive" pakistan's "counterterrorism operations" have been? pakistanis are likely angered that we are bombing the shit out of their neighbor. our policy of war, ie "terrorism," is probably increasing sentiments and actions within pakistan that we describe as "terrorism." so now, we express "mounting frustration" over a series of events that our policies have set in motion. again, notice the wording; "president bush finally gave his approval in july for ground missions inside pakistan." it's like he was showing great restraint, and then just couldn't wait any longer to invade an ally. why does bush have the right to "give his approval" for such attacks? do other leaders now have the right to "give their approval for ground missions inside the united states?" perhaps these leaders have had "months of debate within the administration" and have shown "mounting frustration over america's failure to cease and desist in bombing several countries at once," and have now "finally given their approval for ground attacks inside the u.s." this would seem to be more fair than the current set up, but is not discussed in the article.
on september 3rd, the first, and to this point, only commando raid was attempted in pakistan. it was a special operations raid, "in which the roughly two dozen people killed included some civilians." well, wasn't everybody killed a "civilian?" we are not at war with pakistan, so who else could have been killed? we can call the dead "militants," but does that mean they aren't civilians? surely, they live in pakistan, an ally that we are not at war with. therefore, they are civilians. we have no right to kill anyone in pakistan. and if the author is going to tell us that the attack didn't only kill civilians, shouldn't he say who they were? just who are these "militants" that we are killing? and if we can kill their militants, why can't they kill ours?
"us officials acknowledge that following the sept 3rd raid they were surprised by the intensity of the pakistani response." surprised? the raid killed 24 people! how would the american government respond to foreign forces invading american territory, and killing 24 americans? notice that it is their response which is "intense," but not our bombing of their country. somehow, their response to our bombing is violent, but not our violence.
finally, "there's always a balance between respecting full pakistani sovereignty, even in places where they're not capable of exercising that sovereignty, and the need for our force protection, said an administation official." why is there a balance? can other countries balance their respect for american sovereignty, and the need for their force protection? and who are we to judge when "they're not capable of exercising that sovereignty?" can other countries make that determination about us? the author doesn't tell us. it seems only we get to "balance" these concerns.
oh, why do i read the globe?
No comments:
Post a Comment