I still don't get why it's okay for the USA to assassinate people in Pakistan in the first place.
Because Pakistan is a friend in name only. At least, that's the probable behind-closed-doors justification. And because we have no HUMINT in Pakistan and never will. And because drone strikes come out of the CIA budget, which is under congressional seal, and are carried out under the Espionage Act of 1917, whereby unlawful disclosure is a violation of Title 18. So when we use drones to target people in Pakistan, it's black money with no oversight against a country that's been widely regarded in intelligence and foreign policy circles as an unabashed enemy since the death of Zia al Haq in 1988. Which doesn't make it "okay" but certainly changes the narrative. I mean, it wasn't "okay" when we were dropping napalm on North Vietnam either but the public narrative and the private one weren't so divergent.
Yeah, this is kinda what I meant, rhetorically really. Imagine any other country claiming the right to assassinate...
I remember when I was a kid and the CIA tried to assassinate Castro a few times (allegedly!) - at least back then the USA had the decency to pretend it was immoral to assassinate people. Those days are long gone.Which doesn't make it "okay" but certainly changes the narrative.
It might have been Tim Wiener - not sure, don't quote me on that - who pointed out that the entire "embassy" system was essentially the United States establishing a foreign espionage beachhead on every shore they intended to trade with and that on the face of it, it's an imperialist, tyrannical move just to have one. Especially when you look at the one we built in Iraq. The idea of an "embassy" is to give your diplomats a place to hang out and be available to foreigners to foster trade and understanding. If your embassy is behind barricades patrolled by soldiers, you aren't fostering shit.
It's also the truth, yes? Pakistan (or factions thereof) has done everything it could possibly get away with to impede us in the Middle East. Half the reason the war in Afghanistan was so difficult in the beginning; Musharraf by no means spoke for his entire government, particularly the military. Like you say, this does not excuse killing children. It just changes the narrative a bit. We are "allies" with Pakistan on the same level that we are allies with Saudi Arabia or Turkey (sort of). We assassinated bin Laden on Pakistani soil with barely a thought for the consequences, and we drop bombs on Pakistani citizens with (hopefully) quite a bit of thought to the morals, but not much to reprisal.Because Pakistan is a friend in name only. At least, that's the probable behind-closed-doors justification.
I think it was b_b who pointed out that the British Empire knew exactly what they were doing when they slammed 6 warring mountain tribes into one country and called it PAKiSTAN (Punjab, Azad Jammu, Kashmir, Sind-...istan). His point was it would always be an internecine pigfuck and the players of The Great Game wouldn't have to worry about them accomplishing anything resembling self-determination. Saudi Arabia we sell things to. Turkey is closer. But there would be a kerfuffle if we started running missions into Turkey like we owned it.
Actually... the country was named Pakistan after the Hindustani (Urdu)/Persian word پاك (pak), meaning 'pure'. This was backronymed by Rahamat Ali, a prominent Pakistani nationalist, to contain the NW provinces of Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, Sindh and Balochistan. Azad Kashmir didn't really exist until the Indo-pak war, and the entirety of Jammu is in india. Saying that the region consisted of 6 warring mountain tribes along those lines is inaccurate too. While there were a few of them in the northwestern regions/modern day FATA and neighbouring territories, they were ignored by the Britons/used to divide the tribes territory, like with the Pashtuns and the Durand Line. Most of the land wasn't all that different from (the rest of) India, other than being Muslim majority instead of Hindu majority. On a side note, Jinnah actually disliked the name, because he felt that 'pak' would mean that there was necessarily a notion of 'napak' (impure), but was later forced to accept it.
Most of my reading has been concerning the history of India, which is a bit hard to cover without going into Pakistan. I haven't read nearly enough to say what is a good account and what isn't, but I would say that going through the books Pakistan Or Partition Of India by B.R. Ambedkar and India Divided by Rajendra Prasad are worth going through, primarily because of their status as contemporary accounts from pre-independence, and hence pre-partition India.
I can't imagine living under that threat. I hate the Fleet Week that I must suffer here. It reminds me of what a fraction of life in Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan/Yemen would be like ... and it frightens me that that is the modus operandi of the USA. And drones can't be heard, seen, or noticed by eye. It is just a constant dread. And one must hope that one's parents, kids, kids' friends, family friends, coworkers, domestic workers ... that none of them are part of the "terrorists". Because we will kill of every one of them if anyone is even thought to be terrorists. And we will make a TV show cheering us on. It is a form of Orwellian control so dark and demented that no one wants to face it.
Also, remember that we have their tacit approval, which ties into my other comment about how fucking disjointed their government has been since the '99 coup. Entirely possible their PM, president, intelligence services and citizens all think entirely different things about US drone strikes.