Can you talk about the missile strike in Pakistan on Friday? The first such thing under an Obama administration...talk about its effectiveness...this, to me, is a huge huge deal, a continuation of a controversial bush policy.Actually, no, I can't. I don't know that much about Pakistan. So I e-mailed Brian Katulis, a national security expert at the Center for American Progress, and asked him to weigh in. He wrote back to say, "I don’t know the details on this particular strike, but once more emerge I’d be happy to comment. As a general principle, my personal view on these types of strikes was outlined in the Pakistan report we put out in November – the result of several trips to the country, 100s of interviews on the ground, and some discussions with our working group."The full report is here, and it's a very useful analysis for those interested in Pakistan. Katulis argues that we should "preserve U.S. capabilities to conduct military strikes in Pakistan, but use these strikes as a last resort, recognizing their negative impact on U.S. –Pakistan relations." The argument for the military strikes is fairly simple: Pakistan often lacks the capability or will to hunt down terrorists hiding in the mountainous border with Afghanistan, and given the danger posed by al Qaeda and Taliban safe havens, the U.S. must maintain the capacity to strike when Pakistan cannot. That said, the strikes should only be used when absolutely necessary. Katulis and his coauthors continue:
The use of unilateral military strikes by the United States has also created a backlash among people in the tribal areas and throughout Pakistan. The United States had previously taken sporadic independent military action in Pakistan, using unmanned Predator drones and missiles to target Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But in 2008 it has escalated the use of this tactic as a result of a strengthened insurgency in Afghanistan. The United States has conducted at least two dozen missile strikes during 2008 alone, compared to 10 in 2006 and 2007 combined. And in September 2008, U.S. Special Forces allegedly entered Pakistani territory to conduct raids against suspected Al Qaeda-linked militants.These strikes have had negative consequences for the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. They are deeply unpopular in Pakistan and inflame an already volatile domestic political environment. Insurgent groups use these attacks to bolster their anti-U.S. propaganda through arguing that they are fighting Americans who launch attacks on Pakistani territory. The military and the people feel deeply threatened by the strikes and may be more resistant to cooperation with the United States and to reorienting their military toward counterinsurgency. Pakistanis believe that these strikes violate state sovereignty, and their leaders have threatened retaliatory action.
In other words, not the sort of thing you want to take lightly.
