The aftermath

The ISI has leaked to the media the name of a CIA agent stationed in Pakistan as some sort of childish retaliation to American forces violating the sovereignty of their country. Apparently, the fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist was hiding in their country in a large villa opposite a military base isn’t bothersome enough for them. They are way more worried about how US helicopters entered their country undetected, and executed a surgical mission to kill a man who was responsible for the death of many Americans directly and indirectly responsible for bankrupting the country by leading them into two wars.

What I don’t get in this whole scenario is why America keeps funding Pakistan so much when it is seems that the Pakistani army and intelligence are definitely incompetent, and/or quite likely that there are some bad apples in the ISI.

Who cares? Let them cry foul and throw a tantrum. When they want to buy weapons to arm themselves against India, they’ll know whom to kiss up to. Cui bono is an important question to be asked in political debates. It basically means to whose benefit? It is in Pakistan’s financial interest and political expediency to foster terrorism within their borders. Keeping militants happy in their country ensures the death of a few Indians every year and guarantees the flow of cash from Uncle Sam to stem terrorism as it were.

The sovereignty of Pakistan is a tricky question. In a civilized world, it shouldn’t be legal for agents from one country to enter another and commit murder. Surely there’s something wrong with that. It would have been a different thing if CIA agents in disguise had entered the compound and killed bin Laden in some guerrilla way and quietly exited the country without a trace. Kinda like how Mossad runs things. The Obama administration needed a nice victory. No one would say that they killed bin Laden to increase polling numbers but publicizing this as an American effort and painting red, white and blue all over the news does reek of opportunism.

On the other hand, had this been a special OPs kind of operation, the Pakistani intelligence or army would’ve taken credit for this, further obfuscating their role in the war against terrorism. It must have been a dicey situation.

Now we have another question to answer. Did the enhanced interrogation techniques authorized by the Bush administration directly or indirectly lead to this operation? If it did, is it still fair for a democratic civilized nation to torture people for information, whether it is reliable or not?

There is some evidence to say that important information obtained about bin Laden’s courier was a product of torture, but the people who were waterboarded the most like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, produced very little usable information at best. They also misled the investigation more. This leads credence to what was said by Nice Guy Eddie in Reservoir Dogs, “If you f**king beat this prick long enough, he’ll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don’t necessarily make it f**king so!”

It is expedient, and not just politically, to do whatever measures seem necessary to protect innocent people. I just end up thinking that in that zeal, we might turn into the very people we are fighting against. We must draw a line. There are some things that civilized people just won’t do. Something as barbaric as torture should be one of them.

I think it is best summed up by Tommy Vietor, the spokesman for the National Security Council, “The bottom line is this: If we had some kind of smoking-gun intelligence from waterboarding in 2003, we would have taken out Osama bin Laden in 2003.”

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “The aftermath

  1. OK,
    Why is america funding Pakistan? Apparently there are many reasons:
    1.) “An All access card into Pakistan to do whatever”..
    2.) “Have a stronghold on negotiations involving Kashmir”.. making sure things do not go out of hands..India and Pakistan both hot headed itchy-finger-grenade pin-pullers..
    3.) Pakistan doesnt only rely on americans for weapons…Theres always china…and when its against India..its common enemies for china and Pakistan..Americans dont want Pakistan to go to china for getting their weapons..apparently becoz china is not on such great weapon-terms with USA afterall..

    Talking about “This leads credence to what was said by Nice Guy Eddie in Reservoir Dogs, “If you f**king beat this prick long enough, he’ll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that don’t necessarily make it f**king so”….Well heres an exceprt from CIA translations…washington post….cbc news and TOI..”After repeated denials, in 2004, Osama bin Laden claimed responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States”…which brings up the point…did he really do it? or was it all staged like it has been in Saddam Hussein’s case..”US yelled WMD when there was none”…they got into iraq and never came out!!

    Lets also not forget the fact that OBL is a by product of US-Soviet activity on afghanistan in the frst place..it all begun then..

    • There will always be conspiracy theorists. There are people who still believe that the moon landing was faked and that the earth is flat. IMHO if Osama bin Laden made claims that he caused 9/11, it should be enough for everyone. I highly doubt the possibility of anyone in the US govt. causing 9/11 without it somehow being leaked to the public.
      As for China, true Pakistan and China must have many bonding moments over their rivalry with India. But Pakistan gets a lot of aid from the US which they use to buy weapons probably from American defense contractors and weapon manufacturers.
      The Iraq war was a lousy idea and a foreign policy brain-fart, and I have maintained as much. What I can’t stand is the false equivalency of Iraq and Afghanistan. There was definitive evidence pointing to Afghanistan harboring Al Qaeda in 2001, and I don’t see anything wrong in the US going there. I do wish they had done some targeted killings instead of taking the army there though!
      The spread of communism is a much larger threat than terrorism according to me. Communism would destroy us all, and any steps taken to counter it within reason are good in my opinion. I think the US handled the cold war and situations like the Cuban Missile crisis with aplomb. If they had to ally with some unseemly parties to defeat a bigger enemy, so be it. That doesn’t make them culpable for everything OBL does after the cold war.

So, what do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s