@ChaosEngine, At least take the topic seriously. You can't really think Arizona and North Waziristan have meaningful similarities, can you? If you truly know that little about tribal Pakistan then you should go read up for a long time before rejoining the conversation.

Arizona citizens pay taxes to America, cast votes for American elections and have American funded schools, roads and police. Importantly, the police in Arizona enforce the laws of the American government. Same goes for Texas. The same DOES NOT go for North Waziristan. Pakistani police don't even try to enter most of North Waziristan because the TTP would kill them.

Militants from Arizona and Texas aren't sending weekly attacks against schools and civilians throughout the rest of America, killing hundreds of people every month. Meanwhile, that is exactly what militants from North Waziristan are doing throughout Pakistan today and for a very long time now.

In the even that militants in Arizona and Texas DID commit even one such act, the American police would go in and make arrests. In North Waziristan, the police can not as stated before. More significantly though, not even the Pakistani military is willing to go in and get the militants for the casualties they would take.

You can't just willy nilly decare those situations comparable if you expect your argument to be taken seriously. Given that ground situation, it doesn't take a brilliant leap in deduction to see the very high percentage of top TTP officials hit by drones and reach the conclusion that the Pakistani military isn't entirely unhappy about the strikes.

I again repeat that dropping bombs on another nation is an act of war. You have a good point about that not being something America should be able to do lightly. You are wrong though about why Pakistan isn't declaring war back on America. It isn't fear of America, it is convenience of America JOINING their side in a civil war they are unwilling to call by name.

On rewatching I think there is a simpler way to state my point. The dillema as outlined is aerial bombings 'outside a battlefield'. If it the region were declared a battlefield, bombing the enemy would be considered part of prosecuting a war and not require individual warrants issued from a court for each combatant identified and targeted.

For all intents and purposes, places like tribal Pakistan and Yemen ARE open battlefields, but it's not considered polite to the local leadership to say that or make that declaration. To me it seems a lot of the issue revolves entirely around this compromise where the Pakistani military agrees to let us operate as though it is an open battlefield in an all out war, just as long as officially and publicly we never call it that. I agree the compromise is stupid, but I disagree that with choosing to no longer treat the region as a battlefied, I prefer openly calling it what it is and embrace that yes, we absolutely are waging acts of war against these militants and you can pick which side you want to be on in the fight.

For balance, most of the towns where drone strikes have been made already were completely controlled by people who hated America and harbored or cooperated with those actively working on killing Americans. Take a tour of the hundreds of drone strike targets in tribal Pakistan and you are surveying a region accepting the rule of militants so extreme that the Pakistani government is a secular heresy worthy of death to them. Pakistani law including the death sentence for blasphemy. Those regions being under such strong control of the militants that the Pakistani military can't go there for the casualties they would take trying to do so. The welcome for Americans(long before drone strikes were made) would have been even more vicious.

It is important to state that for as much legitimate reason to 'hate' American foreign policy as there is, there exist huge numbers of people who hate America for their own petty, vile and psychotic reasons. The Islamic fundamentalists that see Pakistan as too secular are plainly one such example, and saying they only hate America because they are justified is making excuses for monsters.

@enoch,

I think our gap is from very disparate world views and taking for granted we'll each work out for ourselves more than we do.

I used to really hang onto the saying that war is the ultimate failure of democracy. It resonated with me, and it seems to me that it's very much were you are coming from? Looking at history more and more though, I've come to see that saying is more the way we would wish our world to be, and not how it really is. Instead I see our history telling out the truth that diplomacy is the ultimate goal of war.

Peace is a fleeting and pretty much impossible state of existence for us it seems. The only time peace ever lasts is when war and conquest simply won't lead to greater gains than it. Time and time and time again history has shown that the only time war and violence weren't followed was when the gains from it were not worth the cost. How many times in history did an invading nation turn back because the other side stood back and refused to fight back? It just doesn't happen, get enough people united and they will use whatever method is to their greatest advantage, and all too often that is violence.

In Pakistan the taliban are making huge gains through violent repression of everyone that opposes them. It is extremely effective because those living in the region are unable to fight back for lack of unity and numbers. The Pakistani military meanwhile is unwilling to fight back, because they have more to gain by letting the taliban kill Pakistani civilians while the elected government is nominally 'in power'. Negotiation with the Taliban is impossible to my eyes unless and until their use of violence no longer benefits them. The fastest and surest way of accomplishing that is meeting them with that same force and ensuring they lose more than they gain with each attack.

It's a brutal, but also very simple assessment I think. It also leads to drone attacks being the one method of fighting back directly at them that leaves the least number of collateral casualties in it's wake. It takes more than a year for drones to kill as many people as the Taliban do in a month. Of those killed by drones, from 50-90%(depending who's counts you believe) are identifialy Taliban militants and leaders. That includes taking out the Taliban's top leader twice in the last 5 years with them, and if you include American actions in Pakistan in general, it nets Bin Laden as well.

I'd urge you not to take that as a western or American centric goal or objective. The thousands killed each month I list as justification and wanting protection for are nearly 100% Pakistani Muslims.

So you know, I'm not American. I think your problem is the same a great many people share, and that's the belief that America is far more special than it actually is. America has a history littered with all kinds of horrific awful things, as you've spent a great deal of time pointing out. The trick is, if you take a look at any country and you find the same thing. The colonization by the British you already touched on. I'll include the mention of the colonization that most other european nations also partook in as well. I'll also ask you take a look at Russian and Chinese histories as well. There's an awful lot of dead people in that history, and never for very good reasons. Actually, look at the whole of human history and it's always been that way.

I insist on pointing this out because it MATTERS to how we view our world and actions today. America is no more special than any other nation. I instead ask on looking at the details and asking oneself if the actions taken by any state in a particular instance is leading to more or less death and suffering. I look at the drone strikes in tribal Pakistan and see enthusiastic murderers being killed off more efficiently than any ground offensive the Pakistani army could muster, if it actually saw any profit in it. Truth is though, the Pakistani army WANTS the suffering, it makes them look good, or at least makes the civilian governments look bad, which to them is the same thing.

I believe that the end of current American involvement in tribal Pakistan will lead to more deaths and suffering than it's continued involvement, both long and short term.

If you say we needn't accept a lesser evil then please do share it with us. Simply walking away and ignoring the taliban as they slaughter thousands of Pakistani's every month in their quest to over throw the Pakistani government doesn't seem to me like some noble and 'good' course of action. If you've managed to discover a course of action here worthy of the name 'good' or even just not 'bad' I'm all ears.

No this isn't true. The US started a War with Afghanistan refusing to give any evidence against Osama Bin Laden. They said hand him over or else, and they didn't have any evidence against them which the CIA admitted 8 months after the War was launched.

The US doesn't present evidence, they don't go to the World Court and they don't even tell the Pakistani Military or Government when they are going to attack someone. They do what they want.

Also there is plenty that you CAN do when a country simply refused to hand over criminals. We don't do them, we simply kill now. Bush Jailed people without evidence, Obama kills them and innocent civilians.

You'll need to clarify for me what the rule of law in tribal Pakistan is. Plenty of evidence has been brought against terrorist criminals living in the region, and the Pakistani military, let alone police, are either unwilling or unable to attempt the arrest of said criminals. What do you propose as the right course of action in this scenario?

I think you are missing the point a bit though. In our world loaded with humans wishing harm to one another, you ARE sometimes left without any 'good' options.

With what the Taliban are, your choices are fight them or not. Neither choice seems very 'good'. Both choices mean watching people die as a result of the choice. If you do choose to fight them, how do you do so? Waging a ground war would mean MORE casualties than drones. Drones have been extremely effective in limiting casualties to the 'bad' guys more than any other technique available. They are still part of an act of war and mean people dying, which is hardly a thing to declare as 'good'. Insisting that there is a 'good' alternative to choose from though is more than naive, it's a lie that sounds sweet when you don't have to face the real consequences that Pakistani civilians do.

There will never be an easy solution, but in discussing drones there are points that deserve deliberation;
The Pakistani government cannot be seen, publicly, to condone drone strikes. However, given the carnage being done by the taliban, which they are finding difficult to contain, behind the scenes they actually do.
Terrorists existed long before drones and to believe that ceasing their use would reduce terrorism is naive and dangerous.
Manned or unmanned - and no matter what care is taken - weapons cause collateral damage. But these weapons can be highly effective, as was demonstrated in the "taking out" of the pakistani taliban leader last week.
If the terrorists had the same technology they would, certainly, use it. At the moment they are restricted to suicide bombers and maniacs with AK's who massacre innocents in schools or shopping malls etc. If/when they acquire chemical, biological, or atomic weapons you will see just how "restrained" in there use they truly are.
All weapons can be used for evil. The difference is, who controls them and how they are used. You just have to ask yourself, who would you prefer to hold the military advantage?

The Pakistani Taliban leadership spoke out emphatically after the shooting to be very clear they did it and were proud they did it. The Taliban leadership just this week spoke with Al Jazeera to reiterate that they fully intend to finish the job if they ever have the opportunity. That seems to me pretty strong indications of the Taliban supporters wishes, no?

I don't know wo' makes you an expa', but you're fla' out wrong, innit?

Via here:

1. (British slang, esp. Asian, i.e. Indian, Pakistani, etc.)

Contraction of "isn't it", "isn't he/she", "aren't they", "isn't there" and many other end-of-sentence questions. For greatest effect use in places where it would make no sense whatsoever if expanded.

Derives from the chav/townie/pikey sub-culture, but falsely over-labbeled on the British Asian Communities. Innit is a shortened version of is it not, in context, it would be "is it not?" which we can see is a question due to the required question mark and change in the pitch of the voice to indicate a question is being asked. Chavs, however, due to their lack of education (zero GCSEs) and ignorance towards learning English at school because "i already speaks it, innit", tend to, more often than not, use the term innit when a statement has been used, rather than a question.

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

@lantern53 Where were Bush's apologies? Didn't he say that history would be the judge hence no need to apologise? Also, the government is not some mythical separate entity from 'the people". America is the bastion of democracy, don't you agree? How are we to separate the actions of its people from its government? Democracy, especially one as purportedly strong as your own, implies consent if not endorsement.

@bcglorf The first point just restates what I said which I think we both agree on.

The second point about Pakistan has been over simplified to the point of misdirection. There are 3 domains of power in Pakistan; the ISI (Intelligence), the military and the government. The ISI largely controls the madrassahs and although there is a huge amount of violence in Pakistan at the moment (something you won't hear about in Western news broadcasts) the main area of contention there is about Kashmir. It has little if nothing to do with the USA. In fact the USA aids the Pakistan cause by their alliance with Pakistan in an attempt to oppose Chinese backed India. Further, charities does not automatically mean state-based endorsement. Its quite a stretch.

Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one. Sure maybe a few in Kabul got wind of it but as a nation they are still pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Some more, Turkey (secular yes but muslim by demos), Azer Baijan, Sudan, Bosnia-Herzogoznia, Burkina Faso, Chad, Comoros, Gambia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Mauritania, Somalia.... I'm sure there were lots of other countries that had spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11... France, Cuba, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Venuzuela, Russia, Guatemala, Vietnam, Philippines, Laos, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Mexico, Serbia.

To paint any display of celebration with the brush of enemy eliminates any nuance or desire for understanding complex issues for the sake of post hoc raltionalisation of ones own immediate intuitions. Does the Westboro Baptist Church mean that America is no better than any of the Muslim nations you list? Of course not. To say as much as absurd. To see brown people doing the same is merely convenient.

The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda. You admit as much. If the AL Qaeda aim is indeed about Pakistan and India (which I think you may be very confused about Al-Qaeda and its Pakistani brethren, two very separate entities with almost no commonality bar what we grant them). Al Qaeda in the Bin Laden days cared nothing for Pakistan. It was almost entirely focused on Saudi Arabia and only went to Afghanistan as a sort of Boys Own adventure club. They were the laughing stock of the Mujahaddin.

"Can anyone honestly say that the US has objectively done nothing to be ashamed of? At best more to be proud of than ashamed of but that does on abrogate responsibility for the latter."
Well said, just remember to cut both ways on that. The fact America has plenty to be ashamed of and apologize for doesn't mean it's fair game to ignore both the good that America has done, and more importantly, it doesn't abrogate the responsibility of all other nations and dicatators for their own crimes.

"You have to point out that Al Qaeda has very little support and would have WAY less if they weren't recruited by the Wars and actions of the United States. When 9/11 happened there was a ridiculous outpouring of support from the Muslim world even after we've terrorized them for decades."

Name a muslim nation that did NOT have spontaneous displays of celebration after 9/11. Yes, very few governments praised or failed to condemn the attacks, but even in states deemed American 'friendly' like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan there were people dancing in the streets and handing out candies for the kids. don't underestimate the support there is for groups with Al Qaida's ideals. Saudi Arabian 'charities' have been funnelling billions of dollars every year into northern Pakistan ever since the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. That money is used almost exclusively for the construction of male only madrassahs. Not the good kind that teach reading and arthimetic on the side either. They are the bad ones that are there for brainwashing and training up jihadists for a war they are currently waging against the moderate muslims in Pakistan.

"Drones, Wars, Sanctions, and General Terrorism is what fuels Al Qaeda."
You are wrong. You need to understand that America is NOT their real target or goal. The jihad is within middle eastern nations and is currently an entirely domestic war. The only care for America is that it either not get involved, or only be involved in ways that benefit them. The war in Afghanistan and drone attacks may have helped gain them some recruits, it may continue to help for years even. It also lost them their years of support and connections with senior Pakistani leadership. They have come from a place where they had close friends and strong relationships with Pakistan's ISI and military, to a place today where they are nominally speaking public enemy number one. We aren't out of the woods yet there, but I think you miss the reason all of this has been centering near and within Pakistan's borders. Everyone always talks about the uneasy nuclear stand off between Pakistan and India. From the jihadists stance though, they had a devotedly Islamic nation with nuclear weapons, paranoid about it's nemesis, and were the leadership was heavily connected, infiltrated and indebted to jihadists or jihad friendly people. The jihadists desperately wanted to push the Pakistan-India conflict over the edge and those designs have been set back decades now.