Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and President Obama met today in the White House to discuss their alliance to battle terrorism, however the US's use of drones could cause some tension in that agreement.
Sharif has called for President Obama to stop the drone strikes in Pakistani borders, and stated that as long as those continue, there will be tension in US and Pakistan relations. Pakistanis hope their leader will convince the US to stop the drone attacks, as they feel they've been "pushed around by the US."
Along with drone strikes, added tensions have affected the relationship between Pakistan and the US. After the assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011, the Pakistani government arrested a doctor for supposedly assisting the US in finding bin Laden's whereabouts; the US's mission to kill bin Laden was kept from the Pakistani government.
However, experts have mentioned that because of the recent decline in terrorist targets, the amount of drone attacks will likely begin to decrease.
Some experts argue that drone attacks are more effective and cause less civilian casualties than other methods might.
Do you think that the US has the authority to conduct counterterrorism in foreign countries? Do the benefits of killing terrorists outweigh the civilian casualties that will almost certainly occur? Is it acceptable to risk killing civilians in the short term for the long term benefit of security?
5 comments:
America is often criticized for playing "the world's policemen." And it is entirely fair to say that the US is impeding on other countries' sovereignty by continuing these drone attacks. But when people in other countries are actively working to endanger American lives, the US has to respond to protect the lives of its citizens. But it's an uncomfortable and dangerous situation: it's like going into your neighbors house to stop them from starting a fire.
I am disappointed that Mr. Obama has expanded the US's drone program; I'm disappointed that the US is still fighting in the Middle East. But the realist in me recognizes that such an entanglement has become unavoidable. I hope that the drone program begins to scale back in the coming years, as I hope all US involvement in the Middle East will begin to end (troops are set to begin leaving Afghanistan in 2014).
I think that Jack explained the situation quite well with that metaphor.
The US should be allowed to stop people in other countries from hurting its citizens, but other than that, the US should really get out of other country's business. We, as American people, would freak out if another country was sending drones around our borders. I think that it is unfair to believe that we are special, and can act differently than the other countries.
In these drone attacks, it is easy to see that the decision has already been made that the innocent casualties do not outweigh the killing of terrorists. This is an extremely difficult and complex judgement call, and I don't think that one side or the other is really in the right. This whole situation is not a good thing.
I hope, as most people around the country do, that the US will soon be able to untangle itself from the business of other countries, and try to deal with the problems in its own borders.
While it seems ideal to have the US scale back as much as possible and allow Pakistan and other countries to maintain their own sovereignty, I think certain circumstances could at least justify the US's continued involvement. First, it seems the US should have the consent of the country it is involving itself in. Some governments simply do not have the capability to police their own borders, and might welcome (or at least tolerate) US intervention, as long as the relationship remained mutually respectful and beneficial. Second, if drone strikes that damage terrorist systems at the cost of civilian casualties could, in fact, lower future civilian deaths (American or not), perhaps those drone strikes should continue. Third, and most important to Americans, when Americans are put at risk, the government seems obligated to work to minimize those risks.
Like in Jack's metaphor, if I had to enter my neighbors home to stop them from starting a fire, I probably would.
I don't endorse the US's involvement in the Middle East (or elsewhere, for that matter), yet certain factors can and sometime do make them justifiable.
I agree with Jack, we do tend to play "the world's policemen," and though I know that the drone strikes are being used to prevent the further loss of American lives, I hate the fact that they have become necessary. Although they are an effective way to combat terrorism, I feel that the number of civilian casualties they generate makes them an unacceptable course of action for the future. I am glad that there is a chance that the number of drone attacks will begin to decrease in the future, but my only question is what will we replace these drone attack with? It seems that as time passes, we find increasingly destructive means to deal with threats to our security. First it was troops on the ground, now it is drone attacks. I hope that in the future we can find ways to protect our nation while limiting the number of casualties.
At this point in our relationship with the Middle East, I feel like it is impossible for America to eradicate all tension between itself and Pakistan.
I more or less agree with what everyone else has been commenting on this page: there is a thin line between defending your nation and infringing on other nations' safety for the sake of defending your nation. Additionally, it is difficult for us as citizens of the U.S. to be able to really comprehend the threat of drone attacks on civilians, since in the past there hasn't been a large amount of warfare/casualties on U.S. soil, especially when compared to countries in Europe or the Middle East.
I don't know how to incorporate this piece into my commentary, but it's called "Pakistan Knew of U.S. Drone Strikes" and it's very interesting.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/10/24/pakistan-knew-of-u-s-drone-strikes.html
Post a Comment