Presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan protest U.S. drone killings of civilians

[bigtree]

Pakistan President Zardari asks US to stop drone attacks

ISLAMABAD: President Asif Zardari expressed concern over US drone attacks in Pakistan’s Tribal Areas in a meeting with US Ambassador Anne W Patterson on Saturday. “These attacks can affect Pakistan’s cooperation in the war on terror,” he told the ambassador during a luncheon meeting at the President’s House. Zardari hailed the nomination of Richard Holbrooke – a veteran diplomat known for his global peace efforts – as a special US envoy on Pakistan and Afghanistan, and called it a good omen for peace in South Asia, sources privy to meeting told Daily Times.

Zardari told Patterson the democratic Pakistani government was already under immense pressure because of the attacks, but also repeated Islamabad’s pledge to flush out Al Qaeda elements hiding in FATA. “Our parliament has already passed a unanimous resolution against these drone attacks, which violate Pakistan’s sovereignty,” Zardari said. “Being an ally in the war on terror, Islamabad’s territorial integrity should be respected.”

“Zardari reminded the world of its promises for the uplift of the areas for lasting peace,” a source said. Anne Patterson said the new US administration wanted to enhance cooperation with Pakistan. Richard Holbrooke would soon visit Pakistan and Afghanistan, she told Zardari. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also expressed ‘great concern’ on Saturday over Friday’s twin drone strikes that it said had killed civilians.

“With the advent of the new US administration, it is Pakistan’s sincere hope that the United States will review its policy and adopt a more holistic and integrated approach toward dealing with the issue of terrorism and extremism,” it said in a statement. “We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued,” it said.

http://www.pakistanlink.com/Headlines/Jan09/25/08.htm


Karzai anger at US strike deaths

Afghan President Hamid Karzai has criticised a US military operation which killed at least 16 people in eastern Afghanistan.

Mr Karzai said most of those killed were civilians, adding that such deadly incidents strengthened Taleban rebels and weakened Afghanistan's government.

Women and children were among those killed, Mr Karzai said.

In a statement, the president said two women and three children were among the dead in the attack, which the US said targeted a militant carrying a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG).


Originally the US said all of the dead, including one woman, had been militants who opened fire after its troops surrounded a compound in Mehtar Lam, about 60km (40 miles) east of the capital, Kabul.

READ MORE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7850146.stm

[liberalpragmatist]

1. There will always be civilian deaths in war

To me that's the main reason why any military actions need to be limited to key, achievable objectives. It's obviously always going to be difficult to find a balance, and there's always going to be some blowback. So you have to make a delicate strategic calculation that looks at whether the gains that are achieved are greater than the costs (angered local sentiment, civilian deaths, etc.).

For me, the Afghanistan conflict is an extremely complicated situation. I was 100% opposed to the Iraq War and I believe we need to pull out. Afghanistan is a little more complicated. We are a target of Al Qaeda and terrorist factions based in Afghanistan and those elements as a whole are also destabilizing much of South Asia. I think simply pulling out and leaving really will precipitate greater violence and instability in this case, much like the Soviet withdrawal, which saw the U.S. and the West abandon Afghanistan, lead to more decades of war, the rise of the Taliban, and the destabilization of Pakistan.

I'll repost here what I posted in another thread:

There will always be civilian deaths in war.

Also, the Taliban really is an extreme organization, although its ranks include both those who are ideologically committed to a harsh Wahhabism and opportunistic tribes and warlords.

I think we need a strategic review. I do think the airstrikes are counterproductive and I'm disappointed to see them continue. At the same time, we can't expect Obama to fix everything overnight and I'm willing to give the new Administration time to sort out its policies.

There have been some encouraging signs. Both Gates and Obama have scaled down their rhetoric of what is achievable. And you've had Democrats on Capitol Hill, such as Kerry and Webb openly discuss the possibility of Afghanistan becoming a "new Vietnam." So that tells me that people aren't simply mindlessly allowing this to escalate.

I'm agnostic on whether 30,000 extra troops can make a difference and I've read differing assessments. Some strategists and experts say they could provide some extra strength, but that it'll be in vain unless accompanied by political outreach and by scaling back the war's objectives. Others say it'll make no difference. I think the key point is that there will need to be some engagement with warlords, local actors and even some opportunistic supporters of the Taliban. I think we ought to stop wiping out the poppy trade and simply purchase Afghan poppies.

I do, however, think that some limited military strikes are going to be necessary in both Afghanistan and parts of Western Pakistan. Pakistan is enormously unstable. It's government is incapable of controlling the Afghan frontier. Yet we're in a real catch-22. Every strike made in Pakistan kills some civilians and inflames sentiment against the U.S. Yet simply allowing the extremists free reign in Pakistan's Tribal Areas will likely result in a Taliban-takeover of Pakistan's tribal regions and an outright civil war in Pakistan, with the real possibility that Pakistan's nukes fall into the hands of Taliban or Taliban-sympathizing elements in the army and intelligence services.

So we're in a real shitstorm. I guess to tie it all back together to your original point, the civilian deaths give me a lot of pause and I know they're counterproductive; at the same time, some civilian deaths are going to expected in any military action and I think some military actions in this arena are necessary. But I don't pretend to know that I'm absolutely correct and I'm not sure anybody really knows what to do.

[bigtree]

2. I think that the 'objective' will always be seen as a U.S. attempt to dominate Afghanistan

. . .through military force. The only mission which made/makes sense at all was the pursuit of the suspected perpetrators and orchestrator of the 9-11 attacks which is expressly outlined in the original authorization to use military force. Nation-building (imperialistic military expansionism) was not supposed to be part of that mandate. VP Biden's statement today that we're looking to 'reclaim territory' is an invitation to a decades-long struggle which will escalate the animosity to our interests and allies in the region; not lessen it or provide any of the stability that is expected by supporters of continuing to occupy and opportunistically intimidate resistant tribes and other forces which reside there.

[BunkerHill24]

3. You wrote;

"I do, however, think that some limited military strikes are going to be necessary in both Afghanistan and parts of Western Pakistan."


How long do you suppose we continue on bombing them?, and what is the end result, if you don't mind me asking?

[liberalpragmatist]

5. My answers...

... again - subject to change - are this:

The bombings do inflame things. But that being said, there are highly violent militant elements in Afghanistan and Pakistan that are sympathetic to Al Qaeda, and, more worryingly, intent on fomenting civil war in Pakistan, taking power there, and also destabilizing India.

There actual capacity to take over Pakistan is limited - but they can certainly make it hell in the meantime.

I think we are in a state of war against a lot of these forces. Our strategic aims ought to be to limit their ability to topple the Afghan or Pakistani governments. Our long-term aim needs to be to defang the extremists in Pakistan and prevent a Taliban-takeover of the Afghan government or a reconstitution of Al Qaeda - but I think we need to dial back our ambitions of putting in place a liberal, democratic, unified government in Afghanistan - we need to be aiming for just a tenuous stability.

I think there needs to be a military component to this, as many of the actors there are militant in their approach and aren't going to negotiate. But some are - and those military efforts need to be part of a larger effort that makes allies of local tribes, peels off elements from the Taliban, and also invests in humanitarian aid where possible. I also think we need to revise and reconsider our drug war policies - the destruction of Afghan poppy production has played a big role in fostering support for the Taliban.

The airstrikes can be counterproductive. But I think some kinds of military actions are necessary in the short-to-medium term. How long exactly? I don't know.

I admit that's not a very satisfactory answer. And I'm not sure there is one. I don't pretend to have all the answers here, and maybe it will be the case that things will be better if we simply withdraw completely and stop the airstrikes or any military involvement in the region. My sense, though, is that - to a much fuller extent than in Iraq - pulling out completely really will simply allow the Taliban to take over in Afghanistan and further destabilize Pakistan, potentially putting Pakistan's nukes in danger. So we're in a real catch-22.

[Idealism]

4. Diplomacy gets more accomplished than war

With less side effects and no bitter aftertaste.

[bigtree]

7. I'm concerned that these events are putting diplomacy in the back seat again

They've certainly overshadowed the visits and calls to Pakistan in the past few days.

[Idealism]

8. That is a problem

People have some need to kill Al-Qaeda militants, as if it will bring back their dead ones. Any we kill, we casually call them terrorists- but to those who knew these people they may not have been thus, which in turns brews more hatred in the region

[Runcible Spoon]

10. Ding ding ding! Our main priority should be preventing any more Al Qaeda from joining..

and that is not done by carpet bombing civilians; this just radicalizes those who survive further. Bush failed to see this, I'm hoping Obama learns quickly.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Murdering civilians is always justified by the murderers.

The bogeyman lurking in Afghanistan, and now Pakistan, represents a terrible threat to the mighty USA.

BE AFRAID! It's vital to the politicians, the Pentagon, and the "defense" industry.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[scarletwoman]

9. I totally disagree with Obama about continuing this policy.

Death from remote-controlled robots in the air, it's just plain wrong. You can't fight terrorism with more terrorism.

Why are Afghan or Pakistani villagers' lives less worthy of protection than our own? Don't give me this crap about protecting us from "terrorists". Are we such fucking craven cowards that we'll assent to any number of dead women and children just so we'll feel safe?

I stand utterly and adamantly opposed to this policy.

sw

[jillan]

11. It is going to be interesting to see if this policy of ours continues.

Kerry, VP Biden and others are trying to develop a better relationship with Pakistan.
I believe Obama has the same goal. I don't see how this policy is going to help us reach a better relationship.

I can't get over that this happened on Obama's watch.