An attack on Pakistani troops
NATO's helicopter raid on a Pakistani checkpoint killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers and triggered an avalanche of public anger and suspicion against the U.S.
This was no accident, said the Peshawar Frontier Post in an editorial. NATO claims that its helicopter raid on a Pakistani checkpoint last week, which killed at least 24 Pakistani soldiers, was called in by Afghan and U.S. troops in Afghanistan who said they were under fire from the Pakistani side of the border. It’s a lie. “This was a naked aggression, plain and simple, deliberate and planned.” The site is clearly marked on NATO maps as a Pakistani base, yet U.S. forces battered it for more than an hour. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. It’s not the first time, or the second, or even the third that U.S. forces have killed Pakistanis on our territory. And each time the Americans slaughter our people, our government meekly accepts their apology.
No more, said the Lahore Nation. It’s time for Pakistan to “refuse to continue an alliance with such a high cost in its soldiers’ blood.” Past retaliation for fatal attacks has always been temporary and perfunctory. Last year, for example, after NATO forces entered Pakistani territory and killed two security officials, we shut the supply routes to Afghanistan, but after the U.S. ambassador apologized, we relented and reopened them. Now, the military has again closed the supply routes, and ordered U.S. forces to withdraw from a Pakistani air base, but will these measures, too, be temporary? Pakistanis have had enough. It’s time to “end the alliance” and make it clear that “Pakistan will brook no further interference or foreign presence in the region.”
Such “anti-American viewpoints” are now dangerously ascendant, said the Karachi Dawn. The avalanche of public anger is understandable, but Pakistani officials are overreacting. “Maintaining a constructive or at least working relationship” with the Americans is crucial, particularly as the deadline for U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan approaches. For our own security, we have to deny safe havens to militants on both sides of the border—and for that we need U.S. cooperation. Do we really want to jeopardize peace on our border out of pique?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Cooperating with the U.S. will not bring peace, said Javid Husain in The Nation. The U.S. keeps attacking sites in Pakistan because of a simplistic theory that if it can stamp out the militants hiding there, Afghanistan would become stable. That is a fantasy. The source of the armed resistance is “the U.S.’s attempt to impose a government of its choice on Afghanistan,” without regard to the country’s tribal character. In so doing, the U.S. has alienated most of the Pashtuns, who make up half the country. The Taliban are staging a successful comeback in Afghanistan “not because of the alleged help from Pakistan’s tribal areas, but primarily because there is a large reservoir of support for them within the Pashtun belt” in Afghanistan itself. The U.S. military incursion into Pakistan, then, is not merely bad diplomacy. It’s a strategy “doomed to failure.”
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Create an account with the same email registered to your subscription to unlock access.
-
5 category 5 cartoons about hurricane Helene
Artists take on precarious conditions, planning ahead, and more
By The Week US Published
-
Wolfs: 'comedy thriller' stumbles despite George Clooney and Brad Pitt
While the crime caper might 'pleasingly pass a Saturday night' its star-studded duo cannot ultimately salvage it
By The Week UK Published
-
The death of Hassan Nasrallah
In the Spotlight The killing of Hezbollah's leader is 'seismic event' in the conflict igniting in the Middle East
By The Week UK Published
-
Saudis want action on Syria
feature The Syrian conflict “has tested the Saudi-U.S. pact as never before.”
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
NSA spy scandal divides Europe
feature Spy agencies are supposed to protect their nations’ interests, but with this scandal the NSA has only harmed them.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Any takers for a war on Syria?
feature Despite David Cameron’s pleas, the British Parliament says no to Syria, while François Hollande, in a surprise move, provides French backing.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Turkey wants our help with Syria
feature Turkey can’t take any more—it’s time to tell our closest ally, the U.S., that “it is past time to do something.”
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Afghans worry about U.S. pullout
feature Is an internal meltdown all but inevitable after the U.S. withdraws its troops?
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
The world’s biggest free-trade zone
feature An “economic NATO” has been proposed before, but President Obama is the first leader to give it such an unequivocal endorsement.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
Should Canada keep U.S. deserters?
feature Last week, Canada for the first time deported a female Iraq War resister.
By The Week Staff Last updated
-
How they see us: Calling the Haqqanis terrorists
feature After two years of “spirited debate,” the U.S. has declared the Haqqani network a terrorist group.
By The Week Staff Last updated