High Value Terrorist...Children

By Cernig

CNN report via CSpanJunkie

"we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights."
Barrack Obama, July 15, 2008

Well, Musharraf is long gone but his handpicked general, a former head of the ISI, is still in charge of Pakistan's armed forces. And on Friday President Obama's administration carried through on his promise to act. Airstrikes by American pilotless drones killed 17 people in two successive attacks in North and South Waziristan. Although we do not know from reports whether Musharraf's successor as head of the Pakistani army, General Kayani, or President Zardari refused or were unable to take action on any solid intelligence, we do know that three children as well as a "possible" senior Al Qaeda leader were reported killed. The airstrikes were part of a program begun by the Bush administration and authorized to continue by President Obama, but he himself does not personally authorize each strike.

I continue to think this program is a massive mistake. Firstly, on purely "realist" terms for reasons I've long-ago explained and that some reports say the US intelligence community warned Bush about - they're dangerously destabilizing to a nuclear-armed nation on the very precipice of civil collapse. The aim of these raids is to strike at Osama bin Laden and top al-Qaida leadership. But if a strike is to kill Bin Laden, or the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar, it will likely do so at a safe house owned by the ISI which would cause an anti-American explosion in Pakistan's military and convulsions in Pakistani society which would certainly oust anyone willing to back the US. Pakistani officials have previously condemned Bush's heavy-handed violation of their sovereignty, leading general katyani to say that such incursions would be prevented "at all costs". If Obama is really looking to stabilize the region, that's about as counter-productive as it is possible to get. As one former Pakistani official put it: "Maybe you'll get the fish, but you'll poison the pond around him." The most obvious retaliation Pakistan could take would be to close the supply route to Afghanistan from Pakistan's ports via the Khyber Pass. That might not hurt US forces much, but it would mean famine in Kabul as the Afghan countryside cannot support the capital on its own.

But secondly because such attacks really are morally unsupportable given the way they are planned and carried out. One attack inside Pakistan has already missed its target and killed entirely innocent civilians instead. We know from events in Afghanistan that the USAF seems to have a terrible predeliction for bombing wedding parties because some tribal enemy fingers the neighbouring village as being a nest of militants. And I simply don't believe the possible death of a "possible terrorist leader" is worth three children's lives under any circumstances. There's no point to reclaiming the moral high ground by closing prisons and banning torture if you're going to hand it away again with indiscriminate airstrikes - and airstrikes are by their nature indiscriminate despite what the PR brochures on "precision" bombs might say.

I've been very impressed with Obama's first couple of days in office but this is one campaign promise I believe he should either u-turn on or consider a drastically out-of-the-box alternative.

Comments

[justblamegeorge]

"The airstrikes were part of a program begun by the Bush administration and authorized to continue by President Obama, but he himself does not personally authorize each strike."

Well there you have your solution, just blame George Bush...It's a Bush program, and O! has nothing to do with it.

[Steve Hynd]

Better solution - Obama could decide to take responibility and personally authorize each strike.

Best solution - Obama could order strikes to halt while he reviews expert opinion from military, intel and public diplomacy analysts on whether the potential benefits outweigh the minuses. Because they don't.

No "blaming Dubya" strawman from rightwing trolls required. The buck stops with a different dude nowadays and mostly I'm very OK with that.

Regards, C

[glasnost]

Obama can't politically afford to take your advice. As long as AQ is still blowing things up, he has to be militarily aggressive in some way and through some kind of tool, or Republicans and media will eat him alive, and the mushy middle will buy it.

Pakistan/Afghanistan is the best place in the world for the US military to be active, if it has to be active somewhere. I'm afraid of Pakistan too, but their leaders can and will never become our open enemies. We have too much leverage, and they know it leads down a path to being literally annihilated by India.

[Dkline]

I agree that political and economic work must take precedence over military action in this region -- just one week's worth of Irasq war funding could build a public school alternative to the madrassas -- but I believe you underestimate how effectively Pakistan has played a double-game against us for 30 years now.

They preach cooperation, and then Jihadist elements in the ISI continue to hide, nurture and otherwise support Al Qaeda and other militant forces.

Appeasing Pakistan's conflicted leaders does not work -- never has and never will. Firm pressure and our insistence on concrete actions by them against terrorism is the only thing that will work.

Keep up targeted military strikes, but ramp up enormously our political and economic efforts to enable Pakistanis themselves to marginalize and isolate the extremists.