Pakistan Responds to U.S./NATO Airstrikes

<--

Frustrated in coping with the insurgents in his own country, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent threat of targeting militant’s locations inside Pakistani territories, just a few days after the US-led NATO’s airstikes in the Mohmand tribal agency, killing 15 Pakistani paramilitary troops is, in fact, their self-delusive diplomacy.

In reply to Karzai’s warning and NATO’s aggression, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said that his country “would not tolerate any violations of its territorial sovereignty”. While, the foreign office statement pointed out that only Pakistan has right to “conduct operations within the country”.

For more than 7 years, world’s most well-trained troops of the US-led NATO, equipped with sophisticated weaponry have badly failed in crushing the stiff resistance of the Afghan Taliban who have been fighting against the occupying forces. The coalition forces and Karzai’s regime could not provide security to the population in the wake of the continuing events of suicide attacks and kidnappings. The latest sophisticated Taliban assault on Kandahar’s prison on June 15 this year, which freed 870 prisoners, shows the intensity of the conflict and lawlessness in Afghanistan.

Demoralized in eliminating the Al Qaeda-militants in Afghanistan, the US and puppet government at Kabul are accusing Pakistan for cross-border terrorism to divert the attention of their publics from the weaknesses of their strategy. Particularly, tough comments of the President Karzai against Pakistan indicate that he wants to shift American pressure from his country to Islamabad.

By forgetting the sacrifices of more than 3000 Pakistan’s security forces during war on terror, an increase in intermittent violation of Pakistan’s air space by the NATO’s spy planes and airstrikes under the pretext of attacking Al Qaeda hideouts clearly expose future intentions of America.

It is notable that on the same day of the incident, the US Defense Department press secretary Geoff Morrell defended the bombing in the Mohmand agency saying, “Every indication we have is that this was a legitimate strike”. While quite contrarily, on June 13, 2008, American Secretary of State Rice expressed “regrets for the death of Pakistani soldiers” calling them as “our allies of war on terror” and pointed out that both the countries would “conduct a joint investigation”.

It is noteworthy that the main purpose of the strikes inside Pak tribal areas is to sabotage the peace agreements, concluded between the elected government and the tribal militants-and to destabilizing Pakistan.

It is of particular attention that on June 9, 2008, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of America, Mike Mullen, while repeating US fears disclosed that “if left unchecked, the ungoverned border region (Pak tribal areas) will likely spawn the next attack on the U.S. soil”.

The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is the only Islamic country that possesses nuclear weapons which irked the eyes of ‘nuclearized’ India and Israel whose lobbies are also exaggerating through American thinktanks and media that these weapons might go in the hands of Al Qaeda operatives who are likely to use the same inside America and Europe. The main aim behind is to convince Washington to invade Pakistan’s tribal areas.

Owing to any prospective military action in FATA, both Iran and Pakistan might stand together to frustrate the US strategic designs. Further their alliance with Syria would make the matter worse for Washington. In that case, a vast region from Pakistan to Somalia and Nigeria to Iraq will further be radicalized, bringing about more terrorism, directed against Americans.

It is because of a prolonged conflict in Afghanistan that in the recent past, differences were witnessed in Bucharest when NATOs European members, especially Germany were reluctant to send more troops in Afghanistan. Canada and Australia intend to withdraw their forces from that country in future.

Nevertheless, Washington will have to face these implications which will damage her strategic goals in the region-which is part of her global political and economic interests. So, any aggressive strategy in FATA will certainly prove to be self-delusive for the United States as well as Afghanistan.