Pakistan Responds to U.S./NATO Airstrikes

Frustrated by insurgents in his own country, Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s recent threat to target militant locations inside Pakistani territories is self-delusive diplomacy. The threat was made just days after US-led NATO airstikes in the Mohmand tribal agency killed 15 Pakistani paramilitary troops.

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

For more than 7 years, the world’s most well-trained troops, equipped with sophisticated weaponry, have badly failed in crushing the stiff resistance of the Afghan Taliban. The coalition’s forces and Karzai’s regime is unable to provide security to the population in the wake of continued suicide attacks and kidnappings. The latest sophisticated Taliban assault, which freed 870 prisoners from Kandahar’s prison on June 15, shows the intensity of the conflict and lawlessness in Afghanistan.

Demoralized by their attempt to eliminate Al Qaeda-militants in Afghanistan, the U.S. and its puppet government in Kabul are accusing Pakistan of cross-border terrorism by means of diverting public attention from their weaknesses in strategy. Particularly, tough comments by President Karzai against Pakistan indicate that he wants to shift American pressure from his country to Islamabad.

Forgetting the sacrifices of more than 3000 of Pakistan’s security forces during the war on terror, there has been an increase in the intermittent violation of Pakistan’s air space by NATO spy planes, and airstrikes under the pretext of attacking Al Qaeda hideouts. This clearly exposes America’s intentions.

It is notable that on the same day as the incident, U.S. 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, Condoleezza Rice, expressed “regrets for the death of Pakistani soldiers,” calling them, “our allies in the war on terror,” and pointing out that both countries would “conduct a joint investigation.”

The main effect of strikes inside Pak tribal areas is the destabilization of Pakistan by sabotaging peace agreements between the elected government and tribal militants.

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

The fact of the matter is that Pakistan is the only Islamic country that possesses nuclear weapons, which irks the eyes of ‘nuclearized’ India and Israel, whose lobbies exaggerate through American think-tanks and media that these weapons might get into the hands of Al Qaeda operatives, who would then be likely to use them inside America and Europe. The main aim behind this lobbying 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 U.S. strategic designs. Further, their alliance with Syria would make the matter worse for Washington. In that case, a vast region from Pakistan to Somalia, Nigeria, and Iraq will be further radicalized, breeding more terrorism directed against Americans.

It is due to a prolonged conflict in Afghanistan that differences were expressed in Bucharest, where NATO’s European members, especially Germany, were reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan. Canada and Australia intend to withdraw their forces from that country in the near future as well.

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