Students at the University of Sheffield have donated four tonnes of goods to city charities. As...
Why Recent Graduates Should Join Code for America
Sympathy for the dodgy salesmen of Australian politics
Babel Rising
T.C. Boyle: Incorporating Environmentalism in Art
The Stone Roses confirm all planned shows to go ahead after Ian Brown calls Reni a 'c**t' onstage
High Noon in Pakistan
NATO helicopter gunships recently made an incursion into Pakistani territory, pursuing Taliban fighters who had conducted an attack in Afghanistan and fled back into Pakistan, believing themselves to be safe there. They were mistaken, and they paid for their underestimation of NATO’s willingness to hunt them down with their lives. Pakistan protested- by Matt Gurney for Front Page Magazine

The problem is that if the Pakistanis cannot curtail free movement by the Taliban across their  border with Afghanistan, then NATO is going to have to do it for them. It is plain and simple: the U.S. cannot win in Afghanistan until the Taliban is denied safe harbor. So the missile and gunship attacks intoPakistan must continue, not only to deny the Taliban their sense of impunity along the border, but also to make it clear to Pakistan that NATO will no longer tolerate an open border.

How much can change in only a few days.

Early Thursday, local time, there was an incident. As of yet, the reports are unclear as to what exactly transpired. It has been reported that NATO helicopters traveling inside Pakistani airspace while engaging militants firing mortars into Afghanistan were fired on by Pakistani forces in what has been termed “warning shots.” The NATO aircraft, reported to be American Apaches, returned fire, inflicting casualties on the Pakistani forces. While there has been no confirmation of a friendly fire incident by either the United States Government or by the NATO military command in Afghanistan, it has been obliquely substantiated by a NATO statement offering “sincere condolences to the Pakistani military and the families of those who were killed or injured.”

NATO helicopter gunships recently made an incursion into Pakistani territory, pursuing Taliban fighters who had conducted an attack in Afghanistan and fled back into Pakistan, believing themselves to be safe there. They were mistaken, and they paid for their underestimation of NATO’s willingness to hunt them down with their lives.Pakistan protested.

The problem is that if the Pakistanis cannot curtail free movement by the Taliban across their  border with Afghanistan, then NATO is going to have to do it for them. It is plain and simple: the U.S. cannot win in Afghanistan until the Taliban is denied safe harbor. So the missile and gunship attacks intoPakistan must continue, not only to deny the Taliban their sense of impunity along the border, but also to make it clear to Pakistan that NATO will no longer tolerate an open border.

How much can change in only a few days.

Early Thursday, local time, there was an incident. As of yet, the reports are unclear as to what exactly transpired. It has been reported that NATO helicopters traveling inside Pakistani airspace while engaging militants firing mortars into Afghanistan were fired on by Pakistani forces in what has been termed “warning shots.” The NATO aircraft, reported to be American Apaches, returned fire, inflicting casualties on the Pakistani forces. While there has been no confirmation of a friendly fire incident by either the United States Government or by the NATO military command in Afghanistan, it has been obliquely substantiated by a NATO statement offering “sincere condolences to the Pakistani military and the families of those who were killed or injured.”

If these facts prove accurate, this is a most unfortunate event, with lessons to be learned by both sides. Clearly, better communication, leading to increased situational awareness as to the location of each other’s forces, might have served to avert this incident. Further, the wisdom ofPakistan firing warning shots towards powerful friendly aircraft that are engaged in battle with hostile ground forces is something to be carefully reconsidered. Beyond the specifics of this incident, however, are the rather serious consequences:Pakistan has shut down one of the two routes through its territory that NATO uses to provide overland supply to its forces in Afghanistan. It must be recalled that NATO is currently waging an offensive against the Taliban and al-Qaeda remnants in Afghanistan, and now is an awkward time to cope with a supply disruption.

The loss of the supply route through Pakistan’s territory is serious, but not fatal. NATO can continue to sustain its forces in Afghanistan, though at greater cost and inconvenience. More to the point, however, is the fact that this incident threatens to crack open the tense relationship between Islamabad and Washington.Pakistan is a nation with serious internal divisions, with the military, civilian government and intelligence service all pursuing their own, not always compatible, agendas. The result in a hydra-headed beast of a country that is both our ally and enemy.

Originally published at Front Page Magazine, Berkeley's Official Student Newspaper- click the link to read more or for more information.

Or, click this link to read about the affects of US drone attacks on Pakistan.

blog comments powered by Disqus
 
U.S in Libya: Get shot by your own bullets
22 mar  |  By Sean Maguire

There are few people in this world who would defend Gaddafi as a sane and viable leader of Libya; but I think there would be even less that would see the logic in the U.S selling guns to someone as psychotic as him and then parading about as world police.

It's the equivalent of a sheriff giving an outlaw a six-shooter and then acting surprised when he starts popping off the town folk. 

The second one U.S plane gets shot down by one U.S surface-to-air missile, all the military big wigs should get together and make a decision once and for all - "we have to stop shooting at tyrants we've given guns to".

What do you think about Libya? What do you think about the obvious contradictions in U.S foreign policy and how do you think they should be addressed? Tell us and remember...Disqus!  . . read more

Extremism in Middle East may be a product of American fear, Ed Husain says
27 apr  |  Extremism in Middle East may be a product of American fear, Ed Husain says . . read more
US Legitimacy: Mexican drones and blood money
17 mar  |  By Stephen Myles (UNSW, Sydney)

U.S Legitimacy has long been on the wane; whether it's been CIA organised coups, backing Middle-East dictators or fighting fake wars - who seriously wants to sit on Uncle Sam's lap?

Believe it or not, the stocks have slipped even lower.

Today it's been announced that Raymond Davis; a CIA contractor in Pakistan accused of murder, has been released after the U.S paid $2million for his freedom.

It's also been announced that they've been flying drones over Mexican airspace to search for leading lights in the drug cartels

The complete disregard for sovereignty, justice and life makes me wonder whether the U.S looks out at the world says "these rights aren't for them, they're exclusively for US". 

What do you think about the behaivour of the U.S? Do they have any legitimacy in world affairs or are they just a self-centered joke?

 

  . . read more

Joe Klein: Pakistan Is the Reason US Can't Leave Afghanistan
9 aug  |  Joe Klein: Pakistan Is the Reason US Can't Leave Afghanistan  . . read more
The War on Terrorism: General Casey Foresees Ten More Years
11 sep  |  General George W. Casey, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, discusses the current role of the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. In addition to "conventional war" tactics, Casey says the armed forces are newly focused on stability operations - and will likely be fighting for another decade.  . . read more
Bombs for peace? 'UN completely disgraced in Libya'
22 mar  |  Political writer Diane Johnstone gives her perspective on the ongoing Libyan conflict and the real reason NATO and the U.S are behaving as they are. An interesting analysis but occassionally she just states the obvious like when she says this war is for "regime change".

What do you think about her thoughts? Should the West be fighting such a war? Tell us and remember...Disqus!   . . read more

The American Way of Torture
9 jan  |  The American Way of Torture . . read more
Spilling Innocent Blood - From Dr. Adalat Khan
22 may  |  Imagine Al-Qaeda taking over the control of a small town in the USA. Imagine again that they start house to house search, beat and insult people and put innocent people into jail and inflict inhuman treatment such as American did to Iraqis and other Muslims in Gitmo or Abu Ghraib. Will the American people be happy? Would they tolerate their occupation? Would they not scream and not get rid of those occupiers? Ask any American and the answer to all these question will be a resounding Yes. Then if what is good for USA why is it not good for others?

Talk to any person on the street of Kabul and Baghdad or even Peshawar and they will tell you how much they hate Americans and their manipulative and occupying policies. Every freedom loving people want freedom, the same freedom which the U.S. constitution provides its citizens. In particular death is better for a Pakhtun than an occupation especially by the U.S. The U.S. has no need, no role, and no right to occupy others land and if it wants its own security it must secure others from its own occupation. "Yankees go home" is a very famous slogan which has been repeatedly shouted by millions and millions people of the world in various parts of the world, but deaf ears in Washington refuse to hear it.

Ultimately one has to talk to one's enemies, but the U.S. is always talking the language of force, bullets, and destruction... Instead of pressurizing Pakistan to kill its own people the U.S. must rather encourage and participate in a dialogue with people who want peace in the region and the world at large. Dialogue and negotiation alone will isolate the extremists and solve the problems of terrorism. Force is not the solution. [More] . . read more

A global culture to fight extremism
18 jul  |  A global culture to fight extremism . . read more
Iraq and the Next U.S. President
3 jan  |  Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Richard Holbrooke discusses the future of America's war in Iraq. Holbrooke is a top contender for Secretary of State in a future Democrat administration. . . read more
blogs   100words
 
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." -- Ronald Reagan (1986)