BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | Pakistan soldiers ‘confront US’
In the BBC today news there’s a report (Iinked above) of US troops apparently in hot pursuit of Talban forces heading for safety in south Waziristan being stopped by Pakistan troops firing ‘near’ though apparently not ‘at’ them. This is in accordrance with the recently-made-public American policy to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without prior consultation with Islamabad.
Pakistani troops have fired shots into the air to stop US troops crossing into the South Waziristan region of Pakistan, local officials say.
Reports say nine US helicopters landed on the Afghan side of the border and US troops then tried to cross the border.
South Waziristan is one of the main areas from which Islamist militants launch attacks into Afghanistan.
The incident comes amid growing anger in Pakistan over US attacks along the border region.
There are lots of ways in which this is a bad idea. It’s a real Catch-22. For the life of me, I can’t see how the Taliban can be stopped in Afghanistan without going after the sanctuaries they have in Pakistan’s border regions. It is rich of Pakistan to take affront at infringements of its sovereignty if it cannot control attacks from its territory on another sovereign state; it is particularly rich to do so in the face of numerous and well-substantiated reports that elements of the Pakistani security and intelligence services are involved in these attacks. Where do they think the buck should stop? On the other hand, it is true that the people in government and army who do want to crack down on radicals in the border regions are undermined by such action. Moreover, since the West is no longer on such nice terms with Russia we are entirely dependent on Pakistan for road-based logistics. (I don’t suppose that Iran or China will be offering these facilities.) It is as though having climbed to the top of a very long ladder we then started to cut the rungs out beneath.
Presumably there is a devilishly clever master plan at work here. I sure hope so.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
The issue is not only ‘can’t’ but more to the point ‘won’t’. The weak and factional central government coalition in Pakistan has had to make a deal with the devils in the tribal area in order to protect themselves.
This is indeed similar to the way in which several other states (in areas such as SE Asia) have chosen (surprise, surprise) to take care of their own national security interests. There is no single Global War on Terror/ism, but rather a myriad. Afghanistan ain’t a problem unless you think it is. From where other people sit, there is nothing there to be fixed. It’s all just fine as it is, thanks very much.
Thinking that there is a single, global interpretation of ‘terrorism’, or Afghanistan, or Iraq, with a viewpoint centred in Washington, London, Paris or Ottawa is to fall for the imperial conceit so lambasted by the Left.
I think the fact that the US chose to make a IO point out of it (“and we will NOT ask for permission” as the order from Bush himself) is more worrysome than the strikes themselves. It makes it formal, in many ways it could be interpreted as a revoking of the sovereignity of Pakistan and as such great stuff for legalists and arguers everywhere. Of wich Pakistan has many.
Also, remember that Pakistan is a young nation, and fiercly prideful. This is shaming them in many peoples eyes, no matter the rational arguments. Mexican forces in Texas, anyone?
Oh, and what Faceless Buerocrat said.
I think fnord’s point is crucial: you may walk on someone’s head, but just don’t tell to everyone around that you’re doing so. It just helps to make the whole thing counter-productive.
Mullen visited Pakistan today. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/17/world/asia/17pstan.html?hp )
Wonder if it had anything to do with this?
“Alarm bells suddenly went off in government offices from Washington to Ottawa to London to The Hague when Pakistan’s newly minted democratic government, after almost nine years of military rule, suddenly closed the border to all NATO resupply traffic to Afghanistan. ”
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/an-existential-crisis/