Obama's Pakistan Strategy Is Not Working

[tekisui]

Source: Alternet/The Nation.

Among the many lessons the United States may have gleaned from the story of failed Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad, the one that may be hardest to absorb, is that America's Pakistan problem is getting worse, not better, on President Obama's watch. Since he took office in January 2009, there is seemingly nothing the administration hasn't tried in its effort to contain the threat of terrorism coming from Pakistan. It has tried anger, kindness, money and love. Its desperation is palpable, with Hillary Clinton once again left to be the bad cop, sternly warning Pakistan of "severe consequences" if a successful attack is ever traced to it.

Pakistanis may be forgiven for being unmoved. They have stared severe consequences in the face for nearly four years. The terror campaign of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) -- the group implicated in Shahzad's training, according to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder -- hit high gear in 2007. Since then, the economy has tanked, long overdue reforms have slowed (but, thankfully, not stopped) and social tensions have grown. Worst of all, TTP and associated terrorist groups have killed some 10,000 Pakistani citizens and soldiers. If anyone is more desperate for answers in Pakistan than Hillary Clinton and the U.S. government, it is ordinary Pakistanis.

Drones from the sky and Pakistan artillery from below are fulfilling their mission to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al-Qaeda." But they are also creating a new, more decentralized and dispersed terrorist threat. Civilian deaths -- "collateral damage" from U.S. drones and Pakistani military operations -- are feeding into a narrative that pins the primary responsibility for Pakistan's troubles on America. That logic may be a fallacy, and Faisal Shahzad might be leading investigators astray. Emerging details about Shahzad's radicalization, however, are revealing.

According to reports, his rage was sparked in part by civilian deaths from U.S. drone attacks. "They shouldn't be shooting people from the sky. You know, they should come down and fight," Shahzad told his Connecticut neighbor Dennis Flanner about a year ago. By the fall, Shahzad had quit his job and flown to Pakistan, where, during his five-month visit, there were thirty-one U.S. drone attacks, almost all targeted at the North Waziristan sanctuary of the TTP, Al-Qaeda and the Haqqani network. Interestingly, a drone strike on February 2 -- the day before Shahzad arrived back in the States -- was the only recent attack that has caused a large number of nonmilitant, and possibly civilian casualties, according to the New America Foundation database.

more: http://www.alternet.org/world/146868/obama%27s_pakistan_strategy_is_not_working

[tekisui]

1. More than 300 people have been killed in U.S. drone missile strikes this year.

1,000 since August 2008.

http://australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2733:nato-in-afghanistan-world-war-in-one-country&catid=52:world&Itemid=166

[Phx_Dem]

5. And how many of those "people" were terrorists? That's kinda of important. n/t

[rug]

6. What number of non "terrorists" is acceptable? That's kind of important. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

10. A low percentage. Our own troops get killed by our own misguided

bombs sometimes. Our own troops get killed by friendly fire.

War is dangerous and sometimes innocent people get killed by accident.

[tekisui]

7. Not really.

[Robb]

11. LOL

Well, at least that's an honest answer. You don't care whether the bad guys get killed. Good to know.

[Cleobulus]

13. No because you can't bomb terrorists out of existence...

its idiotic to think so. Let's say you bomb a village used by some terrorists to attack people from, you kill 30 terrorists, 10 civilians. Some of the survivors of the attacks, sons, daughters, wives, husbands, mothers and fathers of even the civilians killed now have an excellent motive to want YOU dead. And many of them will join or form groups that promise that, classic cycle of violence.

[tekisui]

14. You are right.

I don't know what Ignored said.

Tit-for-tat, the cycle of violence will ever-expand and kill more. Not to mention the vastly disproportionate use of deadly force coming from our side. We have killed somewhere near 1,000 people in Pakistan through our drone strikes.

So far, there has been a tenuous connection to Pakistani Taliban with the attempted bombing, that killed no one. And, the half dozen CIA agents that were killed in the suicide bombing.

[ShortnFiery]

2. The CIA's term for this uncomplicated phenomena is "Blowback."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjE2wMWMJwI&feature=player_embedded

The war in Afghanistan is increasing the likelihood that American civilians will be killed in a future terrorist attack. Part six of Rethink Afghanistan brings you three former high-ranking CIA agents on the record to explain why. There is no “victory” to be won in Afghanistan.

[NJmaverick]

3. Interestingly enough the article lacked any sense of balance by

suggesting an alternative or noting the lack of a good alternative. When you have a nearly impossible problem to deal with, it makes little sense to say a Strategy isn't working when it was the best of the bunch.

[tekisui]

4. It is not a journalist job to 'suggest an alternative'.

He did mention the impossibility. Still, if the drone strikes are worsening the problem, including drawing terrorist attacks in the US< how can you say it is working?

[mkultra]

8. dont think for a second that a ground invasion would have less civilian casualties

If you think drones are dangerous, you haven't thought about hopped up 19 year olds with an automatic weapon. terror attacks in pakistant where pretty serious before Obama. Have we already forgotten Benazir Bhutto?

[ShortnFiery]

9. Drones are immoral and counter to International Law.

Further, as I mentioned above, their implementation leads to senseless civilian casualties, in addition to not providing charges and a trial before EXECUTION of the "suspects."

The above implementation of killer drones in Pakistan is radicalizing what might otherwise be "thoughtful citizens" into overtly HATING the USA, i.e., Blowback with terrorist attempts on USA cities. Drone execution, in an of itself, is an excellent recruitment tool for al Qaeda, NOT the *locally* based Taliban.

Remember it was al qaeda, NOT the local rag taggers in the Taliban who attacked us on 9/11?

It's call mission creep: 1) invade Afghanistan for al Qaeda; 2) invade Iraq for WMD; 3) conduct missions and bomb Afghanistan for Taliban :wtf: because they let al Qaeda set up camp there; and

3) NOW = bomb Pakistan and conduct covert missions because the TALIBAN (who we should have never been at war with) may have a large presence there due to be forced out of Afghanistan. :crazy:

It's all insane policies that will usher in WWIII if we don't stop the tyranny of *perpetual warmongering.*

[JCMach1]

12. Zardari is a corrupt buffoon and yet we are trying to bolster him

Even worse than Karzai.

[greencharlie]

15. Sky is blue, news at 11... nt