January 17, 2006

LET'S SEE WHAT THE DNA SAYS ABOUT THAT LAST BIT:

Pakistanis Say Terrorists Died in Strike (AP, 1/17/06)

At least four foreign terrorists died in the U.S. airstrike on a Pakistani border village that was purportedly aimed at al-Qaida's No. 2 leader, the provincial government said Tuesday.

A statement by the administration of the Pakistan's tribal region bordering
Afghanistan also said that between 10 and 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.

Pakistani officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, was invited to a dinner in the village to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

Posted by Orrin Judd at January 17, 2006 8:24 AM
Comments

Pakistani officials have said Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, was invited to a dinner in the village to mark an Islamic holiday but did not show up and sent some aides instead.

He sent the aides he wanted to get rid of, then dimed them to the CIA.

Or not. Who knows?

If I worked for al-Zawahri, I might want to start sleeping with one eye open.

Posted by: Mike Morley at January 17, 2006 9:25 AM

Collateral damage is often regrettable. Where, as here, the force has been proporionate and necessary to the mission, the legal and moral responsibility rests on the combatants who have seen fit to conceal themselves among protected persons or places.

Furthermore, where a third power--Mexico, Pakistan, Cambodia--is involved, that third power has a responsibilty not to permit belligerent use of its territory.

The Law of War has not changed in this regard. What has changed are precision guided munitions and unmanned aerial vehicle technologies. The capability to strike a particular building, vehicle or even individual makes almost every such strike proportional.

This comment has a second level of meaning. Bad speech needs to be countered with more speech. When we hear seditious attacks on our lawful use of force, as at the time of the operations in Cambodia, we must speak out. That we are thereby identifying those people on the other side as traitors and fools should not deter us for that is but the rectification of names.

Posted by: Lou Gots at January 17, 2006 9:36 AM

Actually, I get the idea that Musharraf would not mind at all if we de-populated North, South, East, and West Waziristan.

Posted by: ratbert at January 17, 2006 10:23 AM

What I'd be interested in knowing is how the Pakistani govt. knows so much about Z. yet hasn't taken him out.

And the Pakistanies demonstrating over the collateral damage are either the world's greatest hypocrites or are truly in lockstep with the Caliphascists.

Posted by: Genecis at January 17, 2006 11:41 AM

It's not so much Caliphacism as it is a strong dislike for USA foreign policy, which is widely seen as being the successor to the quite unpopular British Empire.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at January 17, 2006 11:53 AM

Ali, Surely they must have noticed by now that we aren't empire building. Far from it.

Live in peace and let your neighbors do likewise and you won't have to worry about uninvited missiles at your dinner parties. Harbor those who want to do us harm and suffer the consequences. That about sums up our foreign policy. What part of that don't they like?

Posted by: erp at January 17, 2006 1:13 PM

Ali:

In all seriousness, what kind of objective opinion can mountain tribesmen have about US foreign policy? Or their own complicity in terrorism?

I don't want to sound condescending, but talking about the British Empire is like writing about the 'vaunted' Arab street, no? And don't they (the tribes) hate Islamabad as much as they hate the US?

Posted by: jim hamlen at January 17, 2006 1:16 PM

“…between 10 and 12 foreign extremists had been invited to dinner at the village hit in Friday's attack.” Until the Muslim world cleans up it’s house, collateral damage is an oxymoron. If you lay with dogs…

Posted by: TGN at January 17, 2006 5:07 PM

Commentariat, Ali wasn't claiming that the American Hegemony was in fact the successor to the British Empire, only that it is seen as such by certain populations. Based on my limited knowledge, I would agree with Ali that that is how many groups of people view it (just ask any EUlite about it).

Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at January 17, 2006 5:52 PM

AOG, My questions were rhetorical.

It was clear that Ali wasn't endorsing that the U.S. is empire building, but only reporting the conventional wisdom in the area.

Posted by: erp at January 17, 2006 7:28 PM

erp:

I'm not saying it's a reasonable assessment.

Just that the hatred for colonialism (and general ingnorance of history) tends to colour a lot of opinion on the subject.

Posted by: Ali Choudhury at January 18, 2006 5:19 AM

You're off message, Oje. Remember, there's no such thing as DNA.

Posted by: Tom at January 20, 2006 4:01 PM

It's the Word.

Posted by: oj at January 20, 2006 4:06 PM
« THE CONG DIDN'T FARE MUCH BETTER: | Main | ACT INEVITABLE: »