Benazir Bhutto in 2006 (Photo: Reuters/Toby Melville)
"There may be five chaps here and three chaps there, sitting in huts, plotting, preparing. ... But there aren't hundreds of cells working in bunkers that look like Pentagon military operations centers."
Mike has a point. There is far too much military intervention into Tribal Areas of Pakistan without the consent of the Pakistani government. The problem is that militants live among the average Pakistani citizen. When these attacks take place they kill innocent people. In years past, I have witnessed 'targeting' of terrorists that have only destroyed the KNOWN terrorist. It is possible and it should be investigated as a potential for ending the terrorist networks within Pakistan.
I rather not make this example, but, it is valid and quite accurate. To quote the exact facts from the BBC:
Sheikh Yassin was killed in a precise missile strike on March 22, 2004 (click here).
...In December 2001, one man died in clashes with Palestinian police after Sheikh Yassin was placed under house arrest.
Shooting erupted again in June 2002 when Palestinian police surrounded his house, following a spate of bloody suicide bombings against Israel.
And, in September 2003, the Israeli army attempted to kill Sheikh Yassin, while he was at the house of a Hamas colleague in Gaza.
His killing in a missile strike on 22 March 2004 was seen by analysts as an attempt to stop his group taking advantage of a proposed Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Sheik Yassin was considered a holy man and was revered by the Palestinian people, but, in fact he sent young boys to their deaths as recruits to suicide bombings. Israel tried on many occassion to stop the ritualist holy man from his continued recruitment for suicide bombers. They were unsuccessful until one day, a missle strike aimed exactly at the car the Sheik was riding was targeted and exploded. They never knew the missile was coming, nor did it cause any other deaths.
Pakistan is a sovereign country with the right to control the activities within its borders. As seen with Syria and with increasing regularity in Pakistan, there are self-righteous attacks by the USA military on areas of these countries without the consent or knowledge of the central authority.
The reporting of the event below is somewhat blurred. It is debatable as to why that is the case, however, under the Bush administration and due to the high rate of violence it has become increasingly difficult for accurate focus to USA military interventions. So, for the sake of example I will point out a few 'jounalistic flaws' that cause 'permission' for continued USA military strikes where they should not be.
"...U.S. drones fired missiles on Monday into a Pakistani village used by Taliban commander Jalauddin Haqqani,..."
The reporting style, for whatever reason it exists, causes the reader to believe the entire Pakistani village was in support of IF not just USED by a Taliban commander. It causes the belief that the entire village is the enemy. That is not the case.
We have witnessed in Afghanistan the oppression by the Taliban. We know they are capable of some terrible behaviors. At the time bin Laden occupied Afghanistan with his regime courtesy of The Taliban, men were required to have beards, women were required to wear burkas and although some still do, that isn't because they were terrified of their own safety. Today, in Afghanistan if a man wants to shave his beard it isn't viewed as sacriledge and a death sentence.
While I am grateful for the reporting and the direct quote and account of an eyewitness, if there could be 'content' added to such reporting that would provide a clearer picture as to why some Americans view this as an egregious act by their military it would be helpful.
Villagers of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are somewhat innocent bystanders in an equivalent to a 'drive by shooting.' They are caught in the middle of a war not of their making nor their desire. While villagers are faced with consequences for lack of loyalty to such oppressive regimes, that doesn't mean they are or should be the targets of USA military intent, when it would be better to kill or capture the oppressors than kill everyone in sight.
Three killed in strike on Pakistani village-witness (click here)
08 Sep 2008 05:37:25 GMT
08 Sep 2008 05:37:25 GMT
Source: Reuters
MIRANSHAH, Pakistan, Sept 8 (Reuters) - At least three people were killed and up to 20 wounded when suspected U.S. drones fired missiles on Monday into a Pakistani village used by Taliban commander Jalauddin Haqqani, witnesses said.
"There were two drones and they fired three missiles," said a resident of Dandi Darpakheil, a village near Miranshah, the main town of North Waziristan tribal region.
A military official said a house and madrasa founded by Haqqani was the target of the attack. (Reporting by Haji Mujtaba; writing by Zeeshan Haider; Editing by Alex Richardson)
The Tribal Areas were the focus of the Late Benazir Bhutto when she returned to run for office. It was due to that focus, violence toward her began as the campaign got under way. She did nothing to inflame the circumstances, however, her focus was evident and that brought terrorists out of the woodwork to harm her and stop her progression to power within Pakistan. It didn't work and we should all be grateful it didn't work as her spouse now leads the Pakistan Peoples Party and the country of Pakistan.
The tribal areas are where terrorist networks find their best hiding places. They move among the people of that region and seek influence of the people to protect themselves from being arrested or worse. There is little at this point the Pakistani government can do about the Taliban because the country itself is in crisis. It currently has a fiscal deficit that could threaten the elected leadership. Pakistan unemployment is high resulting in hideous circumstances of impoverishment. Where impoverishment lives, so do the opportunities for terrorist networks.
The tribal areas are dangerous territory and to state otherwise would be foolishness, yet, in the wisdom of Benazir Bhutto these were the regions of Pakistan which needed her solemn attention. They are the regions that allow the migration of terrorists into precious Pakistani cities such as Karachi, wear Danny Pearl was kidnapped and subsequently murdered. The tribal areas cause many problems, but, they also have many problems and to realize that Benazir Bhutto longed to raise these people out of misery to create employ, education and quality of life speaks to the path the USA has to take to instrument the changes required to REMOVE and DESTROY terrorist 'entities' in both Pakistan and Afghanistan.
When I think of the citizens of these areas the first word that comes to mind is RESPECT. The citizens of Pakistan and Afghanistan that desire a better tomorrow deserve the respect of their government, the USA and an international community that knows the brevity and consequences of their suffering.
Pakistan under Musharraf actually had a 'government within a government' that resulted in the re-establishment of a vicious regime of Taliban which now dominate the civilians of both countries. The Taliban have become accustomed to a great deal of comfort under Musharraf and I doubt sincerely it will continue when the people of Pakistan are empowered to reclaim their sense of freedom and well being. I am not so much worried about the people of Afghanistan, because, they already have education opportunities they thrive on that will liberate them at first opportunity.
The problem with assaulting these tribal areas is that violence serves the opposite of the purpose it intends. And YES. The USA air strikes, when they kill innocent people are assaults considered to be violence, that serve the purpose of the Taliban and not the PPP. The turmoil these people live in everyday has to end and it won't end so long as they view their government as their enemy rather than their liberator.
Benazir Bhutto was the liberator of the people of Pakistan, NOT, their sherrif or jailer and CERTAINLY NOT their oppressor !
...In an exclusive interview with Newsweek's Ron Moreau (click here) in his corner office in the prime minister's secretariat in Islamabad, Durrani, 67, discussed how American attacks are undercutting the country's struggle against militants, Pakistan's commitment to battling extremists in its own way, and how the historically testy relations between the country's political leaders and the military are, at least for now, proceeding smoothly. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: It has been reported that you made an urgent trip to Washington immediately following an unprecedented U.S. military ground attack in Pakistan's tribal area early last September. What was your message to the Bush administration?Durrani: I did go, but not immediately [following the attack]. First the president [Zardari] said we have to do something about this. Everyone was upset. So first I sent a letter three days [after the attack] to [U.S. National Security Adviser Stephen] Hadley, giving our point of view and strongly suggesting our opposition to this. I said it was highly unpopular in Pakistan and was causing greater anti-Americanism; that the [Pakistani] military is unhappy with this, and most important that it is not helping your cause and is counterproductive. It is doing exactly the opposite of what you are trying to do. We are trying to separate the good guys from the bad guys, trying to separate the tribes from the militants. We made it abundantly clear that this [attack] was pushing them together and creating sympathy for the militants. Soon after that I went to Washington and repeated my message personally to the White House....
