Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What Is The Legal Rationale For PREDATOR?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • What Is The Legal Rationale For PREDATOR?

    We use PREDATOR in the skies over Pakistan to attack our enemies. What are the arguments for such and their legal basis, if any?

    This is an important question, I believe, and deserves exploration by those versed in both the laws of war and the commonly accepted principles of sovereign authority.

    I'd be interested in the views of those here if WABBITS possess any views on this matter at all.
    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

  • #2
    None. As in no arguments here. The drones take the place of our troops in those regions and since the PA hasnt routed them as of yet I am all for them in any part of the world were we battle terrorism. Technology will never replace our troops but in certain cases it can keep them safer then anything else we know of and still they can do their jobs effectively.

    *IMO, Patton himself (if he was still alive) would have fallen in love with them.:)

    Soverignty? Most that argue that point dont have critical information that others do and thats why we ignore their bitching and keep taking the terrorists out.

    Its very tough to have a legal basis when their own government knows what the people do not know but yet argue point for their viewing/hearing sake.
    Last edited by Dreadnought; 20 Jan 10,, 18:48.
    Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
      Technology will never replace our troops...
      Perhaps not entirely, as you always got to have manpower, and sometimes a lot of it. But technology HAS replaced our troops, and to an extent nobody could ever have realized.

      But my REAL point is about something replacing something else. I know it was not what you intended with your question, S-2, but I'm going to take it and run with it anyway:

      What can't replace strategy and the primacy of looking first and always to national defense, national interest, and victory in war is a slavish devotion to what is LEGAL. This fetishization of 'lawfare' is killing us, and I do not mean that metaphorically. It is costing us buckets of American, Coalition, and even locals' blood to keep thinking in these terms.

      If anybody thinks I'm arguing for a complete abandonment of any sort of legal justification, or that all ends justify desirable means every single time, then you've set up a strawman to knock down that I'm not supporting.

      But we've gone WAY over






















      THERE


















      with that argument that the JAGs are somehow prime over considerations of what may be done in battle during time of conflict. I'm simply arguing for a much, MUCH more robust place for the plain, common-sense seeking after tactical, operational, and strategic advantage that we need not forfeit but for the arcane, exquisite and narrowly-considered arguments of the legal clerisy that seeks to inform our military leadership on what is possible.

      The placement of law as the objective sought during the course of a war is what is happening now. Well, in the view of all successful belligerants in history's innumerable wars, the object is VICTORY, and it will ever be thus. If you seek anything else, you will find it, with absolutely no possibility of any other outcome. And this is another unbreakable, iron law of armed conflict: all American wars should be concluded successfully, because if they're not, what follows is inevitably orders of magnitude worse than a bruised legal sensibility. To put it in ecclesastical terms, it is a SIN for America to lose Her wars.

      The legal professionals that wear their country's uniform should go forth and sin no more.

      Comment


      • #4
        Prosecution of War

        "The placement of law as the objective sought during the course of a war is what is happening now."

        So it would seem. It seems clear, for instance, that we knew something WRT intelligence about H. Mehsud that the Pakistanis didn't know. We valued the target sufficient to strike but not sufficient to strike with ground forces inserted for the purpose of killing and doing so with a higher degree of certainty to their objective purpose.

        A ranger company inserted to the objective would have unquestionably, with support from our gunships, laid waste to the target and positively identified the results to OUR satisfaction. We don't have that and the reason is our choice of means to prosecute the target.

        What governed that? Risk to the troops vs. the need of assured destruction of the target? Had we called in a flight of B-2s to carpet-bomb a relatively discrete area (i.e. Shaktoi village) that, too, would have afforded a higher degree of certainty without need of exposing troops. Nobody questions PREDATOR's accuracy but its effect is limited to a small, finite burst radius of the weapons employed.

        Seems functional consideration was laid to the wayside given those two alternative approaches for the least intrusive means of attack we had available.

        We've seen the effect of insurgent sanctuary on ostensibly neutral lands in war and even used it ourselves- i.e. PKK sanctuary on lands in northern Iraq, mujahideen sanctuary on Pakistani lands in the Soviet-Afghan war and, obviously, NVA/VC sanctuary on Cambodian and Laotian lands during the Vietnamese war immediately come to mind.

        We've seen cases of advising and consulting allies for strikes that would likely cause casualties and death upon their citizens in war, i.e. the French gov't in exile as we made plans during W.W.II for the invasion of France.

        We've even, IIRC, approached judaic scholars when concerned or certain that our bombings upon hostile lands may cause casualties. The last two examples in cases of clear moral authority to prosecute our objectives in the midst of total war.

        The French, as I recall, affirmed our right to do so. So too the judaic scholars. I presume that we weren't asking for their permission but, if so, why did we bother to ask at all?

        Today, Pakistan is (ostensibly) an ally-much like France in W.W.II-that has forces and leadership councils of our mutual enemy on their soil. They haven't given us their permission. Not publically anyway and, instead, have asked for the technology to do so themselves.

        So, I'm full circle with nothing still. Somebody somewhere has accumulated the legal rationales for our actions but I've not found a reasonably concise treatise explaining such. My personal preference might be the declaration of war upon Pakistan as I've long sensed duplicity of purpose to their actions.

        We haven't done that either. Clearly we fear doing so and I can only guess that it stems from our logistical vulnerabilities. So we don't fully prosecute the target. We don't even partially prosecute the target. We've instead chosen the absolutely least intrusive means available that I can see.

        Failing to be able to positively confirm the success or failure of such an attack isn't new and, likely, stems back to the Clinton raids of the late nineties using cruise missiles.

        Anyway, I'd still like to see our justifications/rationales put forth in a lucid, concise argument that might be followed by this layman.
        Last edited by S2; 20 Jan 10,, 23:44.
        "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
        "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
          My personal preference might be the declaration of war upon Pakistan as I've long sensed duplicity of purpose to their actions.
          I agree with you there; so far, all Pakistan has done is taken our billions of dollars in aid (since 2001), and done virtually nothing in return; they may SAY they're doing something, but it's been proven that the ISI knows where most of the terrorists are, yet aren't telling US authorities. "Duplicity" is a kind term; I think they're taking the US for a ride.

          Originally posted by S-2 View Post
          We haven't done that either. Clearly we fear doing so and I can only guess that it stems from our logistical vulnerabilities. So we don't fully prosecute the target. We don't even partially prosecute the target. We've instead chosen the absolutely least intrusive means available that I can see.
          The current Administration is doing as little as possible to "offend" anybody; I think their objectives are valid, but they have limited themselves by public (and international) opinion as to what they can actually do. You're right, they have chosen the "least intrusive" means available; no risks to US airmen or ground forces and, as you pointed out, an AGM-114 only does so much damage: it won't take out an entire block, just a house or two, so the collateral damage is kept to a minimum. And, yes, any kind of a war in Pakistan would probably be precluded logistically by it's inaccessibility, although we would have naval access from the Arabian Sea.
          "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

          Comment


          • #6
            What I think needs to be understood is this black/white definition of sovereignty does not work.

            If the Pakistani does not control and enforce its own laws in the tribal regions, they are not de facto sovereign there.

            Some (no one on this board, methinks) call that a simple violating of sovereignty just as well as Iraq v. Kuwait.

            The issue is not bereft of scholarship in political science. Stephen Krasner wrote a seminal work on it, called Compromising Westphalia.
            Last edited by Stan187; 21 Jan 10,, 22:42.
            In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
            The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

            Comment


            • #7
              Arguments

              Yeah but where are the arguments. Krasner is unavailable to me. Can you summarize his thoughts WRT PREDATOR.

              Does Article 51 of the U.N. charter apply as our over-riding rationale? Has our government remained silent about PREDATOR operations to avoid a legal debate?

              Israel with Lebanon, for instance. It would seem that the Lebanese government's willingness to ignore POG in its south as a force-in-being and a direct challenge to its own state authority as another example of such.

              Everybody knows those craft bear our markings on them. I've seen plenty of open contentions about American violations of Pakistani sovereignty but none discussing Pakistan's willful aborgation of sovereign obligations by housing a foreign government and its proxy army on its land.

              Do we prefer the ambiguity of silence? Why if our justification is clear? Do we fear that a clear justification of our use would require the next logical step, challenging Pakistan's authority to govern in FATA?
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • #8
                We use PREDATOR in the skies over Pakistan to attack our enemies. What are the arguments for such and their legal basis, if any?
                The argument against is a stupid hang over from Korea and the 2nd Indochina War.
                To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                  Yeah but where are the arguments. Krasner is unavailable to me. Can you summarize his thoughts WRT PREDATOR.

                  Does Article 51 of the U.N. charter apply as our over-riding rationale? Has our government remained silent about PREDATOR operations to avoid a legal debate?

                  Israel with Lebanon, for instance. It would seem that the Lebanese government's willingness to ignore POG in its south as a force-in-being and a direct challenge to its own state authority as another example of such.

                  Everybody knows those craft bear our markings on them. I've seen plenty of open contentions about American violations of Pakistani sovereignty but none discussing Pakistan's willful aborgation of sovereign obligations by housing a foreign government and its proxy army on its land.

                  Do we prefer the ambiguity of silence? Why if our justification is clear? Do we fear that a clear justification of our use would require the next logical step, challenging Pakistan's authority to govern in FATA?
                  Summary of Krasner: Compromising Westphalia - From WikiSummary, free summaries of academic books and articles

                  Brief summary of the main points of the article. I did not mean to say he addresses the issue of Predators directly. He addresses the issues of compromised sovereignty directly.

                  It all has to do with the definition of sovereignty for states. De facto, Pakistan does not control the tribal regions. Even de jure they are supposed to be fairly self-administered. The internal sovereignty is not there. We can hold either the leaders of Pakistan responsible and threaten force to have them act against threats in these regions, or as in the case of them being our allies, just act ourselves. In fact, their weakness and inability to intervene and bring those tribal areas under control works well in their justifying letting us intervene. They do not have the capacity to say no... de facto they do not, anyway, only de jure. Their alliance with the US compromises their sovereignty because the alliance is putting on certain requirements that they cannot meet themselves. So they technically have only two options, withdraw from the alliance, or let those with capacity (US) get involved.

                  Do you mean to cite Article 51 as a reason to help Pakistan in terms of collective security, or self-defense by extension of Al Qaeda-Taliban-Taliban in Pakistan, where Al Qaeda attacked us, the Taliban shielded them, and thus we are defending ourselves from the Taliban in Pakistan? The former works, the latter not so much. One could argue the Taliban as a threat to world peace.. entirely acceptable in my view. ISAF was, after all, authorized under Chapter 7 of the UNSC.

                  I think we prefer silence for Pakistan's sake. Technically, legally, the Pakistanis are supposed to be rooting out these people, but they do not have the capacity. They let us operate there and mostly stay quiet about it. They have no other alternatives. They could legally call to the US for help in their alliance. But that would harm the legitimacy of the government there, so they do not.

                  This is not the same thing as Hizballah and Israel. Not currently anyway. Hizballah is a major part of the government. Before, Hizballah used to be a state within a state. Now it is part of the state itself. This changes things from a legal-political framework.

                  Before, when Hizballah was not part of the government, there was some resemblance in the situation. However, Israel and Lebanon were not allied, and Lebanon protested any Israeli presence or incursion. The Lebanese would have to suppress Hizballah because they are inacting their own policy in southern Lebanon and being aggressive toward another state. The Lebanese state must reign this in if they are sovereign in their own territory, or they cannot complain about Israeli incursions to do what the Lebanese lack the will or capacity to. But the Lebanese have no moral right to complain about their territorial integrity being violated in this case, because they are not able to control all of the parties within said territory. Their lack of enforcement capacity is compromising this integrity.

                  I hope these ramblings make sense, and address what you're asking, Sir.
                  In Iran people belive pepsi stands for pay each penny save israel. -urmomma158
                  The Russian Navy is still a threat, but only to those unlucky enough to be Russian sailors.-highsea

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Stan187 Reply

                    Thanks for your excellent thoughts on the matter, particularly WRT POG.

                    "I think we prefer silence for Pakistan's sake."

                    I think that our rationales for such stemming from both self-defense and aborgation of sovereign authority by Pakistan are sound.

                    Why the silence then? Ruth Wedgwood, a professor of Internat'l Law at SAIS mentions legal ambiguity in this NPR article-

                    Airstrikes In Pakistan Legally Murky-NPR March 17, 2009

                    My thought there is that we refuse to acknowledge anything about PREDATOR, however justifiable, as it would open a Pandora's box of questions deadly to our relationship with Pakistan that couldn't or wouldn't be ignored by Congress. If PREDATOR then more onerous means would be justified. Further, it would require America to answer questions regarding Pakistan's aborgation (willful or otherwise) of their sovereign responsibilities.

                    Doing so would likely challenge any premise that Pakistan is an ally in this enterprise.

                    In short, our silence protects Pakistan more than ourselves from our own Congress.

                    The ACLU may be asking for a justification on this issue even as we discuss it here. I don't think they'll have any more luck leveraging a rationale about something we don't acknowledge than anybody else heretofore.
                    Last edited by S2; 22 Jan 10,, 01:04.
                    "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                    "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      S-2,

                      Farhat Taj-- a Norway-based Pakistani Pashtun researcher-- has been writing regularly on issue of drones. She also critically argues about the nexus of Pakistani intelligent agencies and Taliban, leaving the local people in utter misery. She has also drawn a line of differentiation between Pashtuns and Taliban and counter-argued the points that consider Taliban as an intrinsic part of Pashtuns.



                      Analysis: Drone attacks: challenging some fabrications —Farhat Taj

                      The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and al Qaeda. Therefore, they welcome the drone attacks

                      There is a deep abyss between the perceptions of the people of Waziristan, the most drone-hit area and the wider Pakistani society on the other side of the River Indus. For the latter, the US drone attacks on Waziristan are a violation of Pakistani’s sovereignty. Politicians, religious leaders, media analysts and anchorpersons express sensational clamour over the supposed ‘civilian casualties’ in the drone attacks. I have been discussing the issue of drone attacks with hundreds of people of Waziristan. They see the US drone attacks as their liberators from the clutches of the terrorists into which, they say, their state has wilfully thrown them. The purpose of today’s column is, one, to challenge the Pakistani and US media reports about the civilian casualties in the drone attacks and, two, to express the view of the people of Waziristan, who are equally terrified by the Taliban and the intelligence agencies of Pakistan. I personally met these people in the Pakhtunkhwa province, where they live as internally displaced persons (IDPs), and in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA).

                      I would challenge both the US and Pakistani media to provide verifiable evidence of civilian ‘casualties’ because of drone attacks on Waziristan, i.e. names of the people killed, names of their villages, dates and locations of the strikes and, above all, the methodology of the information that they collected. If they can’t meet the challenge, I would request them to stop throwing around fabricated figures of ‘civilian casualties’ that confuse people around the world and provide propaganda material to the pro-Taliban and al Qaeda forces in the politics and media of Pakistan.

                      I pose that challenge because no one is in a position to give a correct estimate of how many individuals have been killed so far in drone attacks. On the basis of American media estimates, 600 to 700 ‘civilian population’ have been killed. The Pakistani government, pro-Taliban political parties like Jamaat-e-Islami, Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, Tehrik-e-Insaf, and the media are quoting the same figure. Neither the government of Pakistan nor the media have any access to the area and no system is in place to arrive at precise estimates. The Pakistani government and media take the figure appearing in the American media as an admission by the American government. The US media too do not have access to the area. Moreover, the area is simply not accessible for any kind of independent journalistic or scholarly work on drone attacks. The Taliban simply kill anyone doing so.

                      The reason why these estimates about civilian ‘casualties’ in the US and Pakistani media are wrong is that after every attack the terrorists cordon off the area and no one, including the local villagers, is allowed to come even near the targeted place. The militants themselves collect the bodies, burry the dead and then issue the statement that all of them were innocent civilians. This has been part of their propaganda to provide excuses to the pro-Taliban and al Qaeda media persons and political forces in Pakistan to generate public sympathies for the terrorists. The Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or other militants have never admitted to the killing of any important figure of al Qaeda or the TTP. One exception is the killing of Baitullah Mehsud that the TTP reluctantly admitted several days after his death. According to the people of Waziristan, the only civilians who have been killed so far in the drone attacks are women or children of the militants in whose houses/compounds they hold meetings. But that, too, used to happen in the past. Now they don’t hold meetings at places where women and children of the al Qaeda and TTP militants reside. Moreover, in this case too no one is in a position to give even an approximate number of the women and children of the terrorists killed in drone attacks.

                      The people of Waziristan are suffering a brutal kind of occupation under the Taliban and al Qaeda. It is in this context that they would welcome anyone, Americans, Israelis, Indians or even the devil, to rid them of the Taliban and al Qaeda. Therefore, they welcome the drone attacks. Secondly, the people feel comfortable with the drones because of their precision and targeted strikes. People usually appreciate drone attacks when they compare it with the Pakistan Army’s attacks, which always result in collateral damage. Especially the people of Waziristan have been terrified by the use of long-range artillery and air strikes of the Pakistan Army and Air Force. People complain that not a single TTP or al Qaeda member has been killed so far by the Pakistan Army, whereas a lot of collateral damage has taken place. Thousands of houses have been destroyed and hundreds of innocent civilians have been killed by the Pakistan Army. On the other hand, drone attacks have never targeted the civilian population except, they informed, in one case when the funeral procession of Khwazh Wali, a TTP commander, was hit. In that attack too, many TTP militants were killed including Bilal (the TTP commander of Zangara area) and two Arab members of al Qaeda. But some civilians were also killed. After the attack people got the excuse of not attending the funeral of slain TTP militants or offering them food, which they used to do out of compulsion in order to put themselves in the TTP’s good books. “It (this drone attack) was a blessing in disguise,” several people commented.

                      I have heard people particularly appreciating the precision of drone strikes. People say that when a drone would hover over the skies, they wouldn’t be disturbed and would carry on their usual business because they would be sure that it does not target the civilians, but the same people would run for shelter when a Pakistani jet would appear in the skies because of its indiscriminate firing. They say that even in the same compound only the exact room — where a high value target (HVT) is present — is targeted. Thus others in the same compound are spared. The people of Waziristan have been complaining why the drones are only restricted to targeting the Arabs. They want the drones to attack the TTP leadership, the Uzbek/Tajik/Turkmen, Punjabi and Pakhtun Taliban. I have heard even religious people of Waziristan cursing the jihad and welcoming even Indian or Israeli support to help them get rid of the TTP and foreign militants. The TTP and foreign militants had made them hostages and occupied their houses by force. The Taliban have publicly killed even the religious scholars in Waziristan.

                      I have yet to come across a non-TTP resident of Waziristan who supports the Taliban or al Qaeda. Till recently they were terrified by the TTP to the extent that they would not open their mouth to oppose them. But now, having been displaced and out of their reach, some of them speak against them openly and many more than before in private conversations. They express their fear of the intelligence agencies of Pakistan whenever speaking against the Taliban. They see the two as two sides of the same coin.

                      What we read and hear in the print and electronic media of Pakistan about drone attacks as a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty or resulting in killing innocent civilians is not true so far as the people of Waziristan are concerned. According to them, al Qaeda and the TTP are dead scared of drone attacks and their leadership spends sleepless nights. This is a cause of pleasure for the tormented people of Waziristan.

                      Moreover, al Qaeda and the Taliban have done everything to stop the drone attacks by killing hundreds of innocent civilians on the pretext of their being American spies. They thought that by overwhelming the innocent people of Waziristan with terror tactics they would deter any potential informer, but they have failed. On many occasions the Taliban and al Qaeda have killed the alleged US spies in front of crowds of hundreds, even thousands of tribesmen. Interestingly, no one in Pakistan has raised objection to killings of the people of Waziristan on charges of spying for the US. This, the people of Waziristan informed, is a source of torture for them that their fellow Pakistanis condemn the killing of the terrorists but fall into deadly silence over the routine murders of tribesmen accused of spying for the US by the terrorists occupying their land.

                      The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. She can be reached at [email protected]

                      Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
                      Peace, Peace, Peace

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Analysis: Dangerous abyss of perceptions —Farhat Taj

                        The Pakistan Army is engaged in ‘friendly fire’ with the jihadi gangs in which the civilians, poor soldiers of the security forces, especially FC soldiers, policemen and foot soldiers of the Taliban are killed. This, according to the Pakhtun perception, is in line with the scheme of things of the military-militant leadership

                        I have been writing in these pages that there is a remarkable difference in the perceptions of the people of Pakhtunkhwa, including FATA, and the majority of people in the rest of Pakistan with regard to what drives terrorism in our country. For the latter, it is the US, India and Israel rocking our country with terrorism on the pretext that no Muslim can ever kill fellow Muslims. Whereas the former believe that fellow Muslims in the Pakistani religious-political parties, jihadi organisations, retired and in service generals of the Pakistan army (the real lords of our country), and media Taliban (pro-Taliban journalists and analysts) have created a complex mixture of fanatical, sectarian, anti-civilisation and anti-humanity state of mind among fellow Pakistanis, who are now thoroughly engaged in the genocide of the Pakhtun and replacing the Pakhtun culture with the seventh century Arab tribal culture. The US, India and Israel may or may not be fishing in troubled waters, but they are certainly not running the deadly show on the Pakhtun lands in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover, the international jihadi forces are fully in alliance with the Pakistani jihadis. The Pakistan Army is engaged in ‘friendly fire’ with the jihadi gangs in which the civilians, poor soldiers of the security forces, especially FC soldiers, policemen and foot soldiers of the Taliban are being killed. This, according to the Pakhtun perception, is in line with the scheme of things of the military-militant leadership in terms of ‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan.

                        In a conference held in Peshawar on December 12-13, 2009, this issue of the difference of perceptions was thoroughly discussed. The conference, named ‘Terrorism: The Ways Out’ was attended by political parties and civil society organisations of Pakhtunkhwa and FATA that actively oppose terrorism: Awami National Party, Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party, Pakistan People’s Party Parliamentarians, Pakistan People’s Party-Sherpao, National Party and Awami Party Pakistan. Civil society included organisations under the banner of Amn Tehrik (Peace Movement), businessmen, doctors, lawyers, teachers, students, labourers and intellectuals.

                        The conference concluded the following in terms of the difference in perceptions. One of its reasons is perfectly natural. There is a Pashto proverb that burns are felt where there is fire. Most of the fire of terrorism is burning in the Pakhtun lands. The second reason is the policy of the government. In pursuit of strategic depth in Afghanistan, the government of dictator Musharraf allowed massive media coverage to the people who were supporting terrorism. This includes some retired generals and a few journalists and analysts. As a result, those living in other parts of the country or those who were not directly affected by terrorism were systematically indoctrinated with pro-terrorism ideas for about eight years. This nurtured a social environment that is tolerant to those committing terrorism. Those living in the war zone are eyewitnesses to all that is happening there and they have their own perceptions of this war.

                        The conference noted with great concern that it continues to be propagated in the media, though in an implied manner, that terrorism is the continuation of jihad against the Soviet Union. The fact is that almost all of those who were fighting against the Soviets have become an active part of the political canvas of Afghanistan in order to bring stability to the democratic process in that country. They are the foremost opponents of terrorism. They include Professor Mujaddidi, Burhan-ud-Din Rabbani, Pir Gilani, Abdul Rasool Siaf, Abdul Rasheed Dostam and the party of late Ahmed Shah Masood. Only two people of the anti-Soviet campaigns are now involved in terrorism, i.e. Gulbadin Hikmatyar and Jalal-ud-Din Haqqani. Gulbadin’s party is almost non-existent. Only one of his commanders, Kashmir Khan, and a few friends are supporting him. Haqqani had already joined the Taliban and is based in North Waziristan, where he commands an entire terror secretariat.

                        Moreover, none of the Pakistani terrorist organisations like Hizbul Mujahideen, Harkatul Mujahideen, Lashkar-e-Tayyaba, Jaish-e-Muhamamd, Sipah-e-Sahaba, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, Lashkar-e-Islam, Ansar-ul-Islam, Amar-bil-Maroof, Tahreek-e-Nifaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi and Tahreek-e-Taliban had participated in the anti-Soviet campaign. Despite this, it was propagated over the media that these terrorists were part of the anti-Soviet campaign and they have been living in the tribal areas for thirty years where they had married the local women and thus became part and parcel of the tribal society. The fact is that in the tribal areas, a foreigner is never called a native even if he had taken asylum and lived there for centuries. The Mehsud tribe of South Waziristan did not allow even a single non-local to stay in their area during this whole period.

                        The conference participants observed that people of the war-affected areas think that the army and the Taliban are friends, not enemies. These people have been persistently asking the question why the military failed to target the core leadership of the militants in all the 17 military operations in FATA? It is true that during the military operations the top as well as the second and the third cadre leadership were neither killed nor wounded nor captured. Moreover, the news of the killing of many terrorist leaders was broadcast several times over the media but they are still alive. Commanders like Ibn-e-Amin, Shah Duran and Ikram-ud-Din are the prime examples of such false propaganda.

                        In Swat, the news that Fazlullah is under siege was broadcast three times by the ISPR but in the same month it was propagated through the media that he had escaped to Afghanistan. Fazlullah’s close associates Muslim Khan, Haroon and Mahmood were arrested by the military but six months have passed and nobody knows what happened to them.

                        In the past, Sufi Muhammad was arrested and then released in a so-called peace deal, which was imposed upon the provincial political leadership at gunpoint. The valiant police of the Pakhtunkhwa province once arrested 28 terrorists with suicide jackets and these terrorists were taken away by the intelligence agencies for further investigation. These people were kept somewhere for a few months. They were released the day when General Pervez Musharraf imposed the Emergency. Only a few words came to us about their release. It is due to these reasons that the people of the war-affected areas are neither satisfied with the military operations nor do they entertain false hopes.

                        The issue of drone attacks is the most important one. If the people of the war-affected areas are satisfied with any counter-militancy strategy, it is the drone attacks. According to the people of Waziristan, drones have never killed any civilian. Some people in Waziristan even compare the drones with ababils (the holy swallows sent by God to avenge Abraha, the invader of the Khana Kaaba). A component of the Pakistani media, some retired generals, a few journalists/analysts and pro-Taliban political parties never stop their baseless propaganda against drone attacks.

                        I would request all fellow Pakistanis to urgently address these issues. Any more silence on this matter could be dangerous for the integrity of Pakistan. The generals, militant groups, religious-political parties and a section of our mainstream media, especially Urdu media, are pushing the entire Pakhtunkhwa towards becoming another Bangladesh. If this happened, those fellow Pakistanis who otherwise may not agree with the military, militants and the media Taliban, but chose to remain silent, would also be responsible for another break up of Pakistan.

                        The writer is a research fellow at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Gender Research, University of Oslo, and a member of Aryana Institute for Regional Research and Advocacy. She can be reached at [email protected]

                        Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
                        Peace, Peace, Peace

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          IHM Reply

                          I've been long aware of Ms. Taj's work-both the most recent column as well as an earlier poll taken on behalf of AIRRA about a year ago-and have been discussing it with little success on a Pakistani defense forum.

                          You might wish to apprise yourself of Irfan Husain's op-ed in DAWN as well-

                          Howling At The Moon-DAWN Irfan Husain Jan. 9, 2010

                          Here's a link to an earlier thread on this topic-

                          Howling At The Moon-WAB

                          That should allow you to get caught up in the discussion as it was before trailing off.

                          Husain is very supportive of Ms. Taj and both op-eds are surprisingly pleasing in their perspectives. Of course, unusual too.

                          Oh! A simple link will usually do rather than the entire piece. Thanks.
                          Last edited by S2; 31 Jan 10,, 11:01.
                          "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                          "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                            I've been long aware of Ms. Taj's work-both the most recent column as well as an earlier poll taken on behalf of AIRRA about a year ago-and have been discussing it with little success on a Pakistani defense forum.

                            You might wish to apprise yourself of Irfan Husain's op-ed in DAWN as well-

                            Howling At The Moon-DAWN Irfan Husain Jan. 9, 2010

                            Husain is very supportive of Ms. Taj and both op-eds are surprisingly pleasing in their perspectives. Of course, unusual too.

                            Oh! A simple link will usually do rather than the entire piece. Thanks.
                            Exactly! It is unusual in Pakistan because the mainstream media is controlled by rightist religionists. Farhat has been writing for daily The News controlled by right-wingers but now her article appears in liberal newspaper like Dailytimes. Such independent journalists are very rare in Pakistan who are very daringly and audaciously unleashing some bitter facts.
                            Peace, Peace, Peace

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              IHM Reply

                              Taj endured great enmity and attempts at discrediting from a telephone poll conducted among about 600 FATAville professionals about one year ago that acted as a predecessor to this latest column.

                              The response has been more muted this time, partially because it's admitted that she is a pashtu of the region with access now to those IDPs whom are outside the taliban's watchful eye (for the most part) while living in the U.N. camps of NWFP. Too, Husain is a fairly respected columnist. His weight behind her has lended credence that she couldn't entirely muster on her own.

                              In either case, both are still veritably lonely cries of reason in a wilderness of dissemblance and duplicity. Not the blinder-like lockstep of Pakistan in the face of Defense Minister Ahmed Mukhtar's admission that the Quetta Shura was destroyed-

                              Quetta Shura No Longer Poses Threat-DAWN Dec. 11, 2009

                              For eight years, categorical denial of the Quetta Shura's existance. One day we awake to find this from their defense minister. Overnight an about-face. Has the Q.S. been destroyed? Of course not but how is it that such could even be suggested without an upheavel within the intentionally duped Pakistani citizenry. Screams of "INVESTIGATION" from their nat'l assembly?

                              Cries of outrage from every corner? Only DAWN of that I'm aware.
                              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
                              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X