Pakistan's Ambassador to the U.S. Speaks Out Against Drone Strikes
Pakistan's ambassador to the U.S. has spoken out against American drone strikes in Pakistan, pointing out that they are illegal, create more militants than they kill, and violate national sovereignty.
From Bloomberg:
Ambassador Sherry Rehman called the targeted killings a "direct violation of our sovereignty" and international law as well as a red line that Pakistani authorities are constantly urging the U.S. not to cross. While saying that her country has done all it can to eradicate terrorists and their havens, she said more strikes by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's remotely piloted planes may hamper security cooperation.
"We need to drain this swamp," Rehman said yesterday, referring to pockets of violent extremism in her country. Still, U.S. strikes stir deep resentment and radicalize some, Rehman told journalists hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
It should come as no surprise that Pakistanis have an unfavorable view of the U.S. A June 2012 poll from the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project highlighted the worrying trend in Pakistan of increased animosity towards the U.S. Additional research from The Pew Research Global Attitudes Project shows that American drones strikes in Pakistan have become increasingly unpopular, falling from an already low 23 percent in 2010 to 17 percent in 2012.
John Brennan, Obama's nominee for CIA director, will be giving testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee tomorrow. If the Senators on the committee do their jobs effectively they will make sure to press Brennan on how effective he thinks the CIA's drone strike program is and what justification he thinks there is for the program. Brennan's nomination is not a sure thing, and he would do well to clarify his thoughts on the use of drones. All that the program seems to be accomplishing currently is the strengthening of anti-Americanism in an unstable part of the world.
Watch Reason TV's video on drones program below:
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
One question: Have you always been a chick? I mean, I don't want to offend you, but, you were born a man, weren't you? You can tell me, I'm open minded.
This is why there are no female libertarians.
That's a man, baby!
You see, cosmotarians hate freedom and justice and so use their evil influence to make all the prospective female libertarians get sex change operations into effeminate men that will become mass-murders, giving their beloved government an excuse to start taking our guns away. So all that's left are just evil cosmotarians that try to infiltrate the REAL freedom lovers.
And that's why there are no female libertarians.
Fuck you that's why.
/King Obama
Can you imagine if a team of Pakistani soldiers infiltrated DC and blew up Obama in his office (maybe with the kids) with an anti tank guided missile? Do you think we'd be OK with that because the Pakistani Prime Minister unilaterally decided it was legal, wise and necessary in order to protect Pakistani citizens from execution?
I think you are forgetting one thing: AMERICA!
They got the bomb too.
No Muslims have atomic weapons. Everyone knows they are crazy and think it's the 16th century or something. CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS!
I guess you're right. We're doing them a favor by indiscriminately killing them.
The ones that don't thank us are terrorists.
"The ones who run are terrorists. The ones who don't run are well-disciplined terrorists. Hey, you should write a story about me, I'm so fucking good. I have 150 confirmed kills."
"Any women or children?"
"Sure."
"How do you drone strike women, children?"
"Easy. You just don't lead them as much."
Kil them all, God will know his own.
I wouldn't weep over their loss. Sure I'd be pissed if Biden wasn't in on the fun...
Only a terrorist would be against drone strikes. Ergo, she's a terrorist, and as a result, we need to drone strike Washington, DC. And if we should happen to miss... hey, nobody's fault, it happens.
I can think of one terrorist that's going to throw a very unfortunately party for a grandchild after she gets home.
No one criticizes the US and lives, lady. We can do anything we want because we always have millions of useful idiots out there to insist that nothing we do is ever wrong or has any consequences whatsoever.
You might as well wear a target on your silly Mooslim robes, America-hater.
Good thing we've sold their america hating military all of those weapons.
...before we turned their population against us.
Obama has ocaused the death of 176 innocent children. How do you live with that? How do you vote for that?
You close your eyes and think about free healthcare and how erudite and sophisticated the President is now. The finger that pushes the button that sends the missile into the house is elegantly manicured, not rough from ranch work.
Don't forget, he's half black and a lot of people love the idea of voting for a man based on the color of his skin.
A lot of this.
Tim| 2.6.13 @ 2:16PM |#
"Obama has ocaused the death of 176 innocent children. How do you live with that? How do you vote for that?"
BOOOSH! That's how.
This is the same guy who is fine with killing babies that survive an abortion attempt. He loves his morning shake sweetened with baby brains. It is why he is so smart.
Send them more guns, some copies of Call of Duty, and some 64oz coke and pepsi products and we can save money on drone strikes.
maybe even use it to buy more free birth control!
Well, she can talk about her sovereignty, right after she stops harboring people who are violating the sovereignty of Afghanistan and waging war against its lawful government. Until then, she and Pakistan can go fuck themselves. If you can't control your borders, you can't complain when your neighbors control them for you.
Uh, John, we can't control our borders...
No one from our borders is using the US as a save haven to wage war on Canada or Mexico as far as I know.
Eric Holder?
John wouldn't have any problem with the Mexican government blowing up a random house in DC and getting away with by claiming Holder was there.
SF,
In all seriousness, if Mexico declared war on the US over Fast and Furious, it would be within their rights. At the very least they have a right to demand Holder be extradited and to come and take him by force if we refuse.
But having the right to do something and the ability to do it are two different things.
But having the right to do something and the ability to do it are two different things.
You feel fine in collapsing the difference in Pakistan's case.
Either make the case that we should declare war and invade or stop bombing them with the thinnest of excuses.
Or maybe you could try applying the skepticism about the governments motives and actions that you apply to every other fucking thing they do.
Do you really think we are bombing Pakistan for fun SF? Yeah, I believe we are bombing Pakistan in an effort to keep the Taliban from using it as a save haven to wage war in Afghanistan.
Why do I believe that? Because I can think of no other plausible explanation for why would do it. If you have one, please give it. But I am sorry "Obama likes to drone strike brown people" is not a plausible explanation.
I don't care why Obama is doing it, I just care that he's getting away with it. Principles. You've probably heard of those by now.
But really, I'm just wondering why he has your unwavering support in this, when on a normal day if Obama told you the sky was blue you'd go outside to check.
What principles? I will give you my principles. When one country harbors people who attack one its neighbors, said country can't complain when its neighbors take matters into their own hands.
We are defending the government of Afghanistan and have every right to go after the Taliban if they hide in Pakistan. That is the way war works.
OK, so you are just going to swallow anything Obama says about what's going on over there at face value. And to think so many people were worried that Mexcians were going to go all in for Democrats.
SF,
I am not just swallowing it. I am believing it because it is the only plausible explanation. If you can give me another plausible explanation I am listening. But until I see one, yes I am going to believe the only plausible one available.
Your confirmation bias has been convinced! Yay!
Do you really think local police are [no-knock-raiding/ killing pets/shooting civilians] for fun John?
Do you really think local police are [no-knock-raiding/ killing pets/shooting civilians] for fun John?
No I don't. I think they are doing it because they are stupid. Again, what evidence do you have that Obama is doing this for fun other than you would like to think that is true?
Obama is doing this for fun
You have brave stood up to this strawman!
I think Obama is doing it for the same reason he does anything: political gain. I am skeptical about the things Obama does; you are not.
Okay SF. What political gain is he getting? No one cares about this one way or another. I am open to the idea that he would do it out of political self interest. But please explain what that self interest is? Wouldn't it be easier just to not do it and not have to mess with explaining it?
Who does he have to explain it? Nobody on the left gives a shit and vocal opponents on everything else like you support him. He gets to accumulate more unilateral power and only a few voices in the wildness disagree.
It's like cops shooting dogs. Why not do it if there's no downside?
Touche!
Except for the DEA, of course.
DEA and ATF?
Oh, and the only reason that Pakistan's "harboring" of insurgents crossing the border into Afghanistan and fighting American troops is because we've kept American troops in Afghanistan for over a decade now.
I would submit that if Afghanistan we not occupied and simply bombed the fuck out of if any home-grown terrorists tossed a bomb our way then we wouldn't be having this problem.
Sure. If we had only left and let the Taliban have Afghanistan, they would be living there. But so what?
But that's the whole fucking point - there's no real american interest being protected in afghanistan.
The only reason this whole drone thing has come up is that we keep our dick in a hornets nest and get pissed off when we get stung.
Let's leave afghanistan, let whoever turn it into whatever as long as they don't bother us.
If they do then fuck 'em up - like we did with the initial invasion - and screw occupation.
No americans in an area = no american targets in an area.
If we're going to use american military force to bring safety and stability to the world, there are other countries that are far more deserving of getting invaded and occupied than afghanistan.
If they do then fuck 'em up -
I am sympathetic to this. I really am. But there is no way we would ever just go fuck up someone like that. The moment a bomb dropped Reason and others would be talking about the injustice of it all.
^^This.
If they fuck with us, we invade their country, break all their shit, kill all their leaders, and then LEAVE. With the warning that if they fuck with us again, we'll be back to do it all over again, and leave it as a lesson to anyone else contemplating fucking with us.
And if someome isn't directly attacking us, we leave them the fuck alone.
No americans in an area = no american targets in an area.
When there are no Americans in that area they come looking for them elsewhere. Ergo 9-11. We are the big dog they think they need to destroy so they can expand their control. We ignore that at our own peril.
Your problem is that you actually believe their excuse that if we but left them alone they would do the same. The ones waging war on us are not fighting us because we are there, or for that matter anywhere else they claim to be pissed we are, they are fighting us because we will not bow down to their religion and control. They bombed Spain because the Spaniards had the temerity to throw off the yoke of Islam. These people need no excuse for what they do, they love it when we give them one. Like the whole movie made them do Benghazi or the Mohammad cartoons made them want to kill bullshit
As a libertarian I understand you might feel a moral compulsion to live & let live, but from your life experience you should have gathered by now that such a belief is a rare thing indeed.
John| 2.6.13 @ 2:42PM |#
"No one from our borders is using the US as a save haven to wage war on Canada or Mexico as far as I know."
And if they were, we *still* can't control our borders, but nice try.
Huh. So the Brits could have droned Boston in the '80's because the IRA was raising money there, right?
Too long ago? Let's see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P....._terrorism
Looks like Columbia, India and Israel for starters could all have a good case for droning us under that logic.
Also we're not their neighbors.
... and some of these drones have been accepted by the Pakistani government itself. Some of this is her just politicking to the Pakistani people despite the truth that Pakistan's government needs all the help it can get in dealing with all the violent Islamists in Pakistan.
"The only goddamn Mooselimbs that aren't liars are the ones who agree with MURIKA!"
If you can't control your borders, you can't complain when your neighbors control them for you.
John, every Cosmo knows that 'borders' are an outdated illegitimate concept.
Cosmo? Cosmotarian? Oh, I get it! Like Cosmopolitan and libertarian blended together.
Clever. Did you think that up yourself?
John, I thought we had the entirely voluntary approval and blessing of Pakistan to drone strike the enemies of freedom and democracy within their borders. What happened?
Judging by their actions, I would say we do. Beyond that, it doesn't matter. Pakistan is harboring people who are waging war on Afghanistan. That gives the Afghanistan government and by extension the NATO forces that are there, the right to go after said people.
John, you seem to be conflating "harboring" with someone hiding inside of Pakistan.
Which one are we dealing with here? Are the Pakistanis "harboring" Al-Qaeda? Or is Al-Qaeda sneaking in and out of Pakistan because the Pakistanis are incapable of preventing them from doing so?
A June 2012 poll from the Pew Research Global Attitudes Project highlighted the worrying trend in Pakistan of increased animosity towards the U.S.
But that's unpossible! They said they hated us because of BOOOOSHH!!11! and Obama would make everyone love us!
"direct violation of our sovereignty" and international law"
Wait, that can't be true - we have a memo that says its all in accord with international law.
This is crazy.
John says the Pakistani government begs us to dronestike Paki citizens on Paki territory. My head's a whirl.
we have a memo that says its all in accord with international law.
Barack Obama, President of Earth, has thus decreed.
Make it so.
Yeah Brooks. no one ever said anything for domestic consumption. And the Pakistanis are so angry about this, they are letting us drive right through their country to supply our forces in Afghanistan.
In all fairness, I don't know that they had a real choice in'letting' us, since we apparently threatened to bomb them if they didn't cooperate.
If she is really meaning this, and not just belching and squeaking for domestic purposes... then kick the drone folks out of your country, fly your Air Force on CAP over the NW Frontier and Tribal Areas and shoot down any drones that violate your airspace.
Do or do not. There is no try... ing to enforce your sovereignty.
She is bitching for domestic ears. The Pakistanis are so angry about this, they are allowing the US to use their roads to supply its forces in Afghanistan.
Only Reason is dumb enough or disingenuous enough to take this woman at her word. And as ambassadors go, she is pretty hot. Has kind of an intense crazy sexy about her.
Dude, if the U.S. stopped sending supplies on those roads, who else would pay the Taliban the bribe money required to pay their operating costs?
They are all getting rich off of it. They talk a good game about supporting the brother Muslims. But I find it hard to believe the government in Islamabad really gives a fuck about the tribal areas in the NW, a place they can't control either.
They won't do it for two reasons
1. Fear of loss of foreign aid
2. Fear of drone strikes
Hmmmmm, it's almost as if the US were applying some sort of "carrot and stick" approach to Pakistan.
they are letting us drive right through their country to supply our forces in Afghanistan.
No bribes required.
Clearly they like our bribes a lot more than they dislike our campaign against the Taliban. That is their choice. Either way, it is pretty clear this woman is talking for domestic consumption.
And if Pakistan decides they are angry about this, they can always cut off US supplies or even declare war.
More theft than bribes - in late 2004 we were getting upwards of 20% of our cargo boosted in the last urban stops before they crossed the AF/PAK border.
One truck driver casually told us that he stopped and his brother's bunch would unbolt the doors (so as to not break the seal) and then take out 25% of the bottled water, food, or whatever he was carrying. Had a whole warehouse of stuff all stolen from US contracted trucks. Somewhere in North Central Pakistan there was a large grocery type store selling naught but stolen stuff.
There was a smaller version of such right outside the front gates of Bagram AF. The local hoods, er, militia liked to steal the toilet paper more than anything else.
militia liked to steal the toilet paper more than anything else
Sounds like hearts and minds will take care of themselves if we just help out with the asses.
OPERATION BEAR IN THE WOODS, the world's largest airdump of toilet paper.
SF, why did you NOT come up with this back before I retired?! I would have made O-6 early.
Don't they know that toilet paper is haram and that they should wipe their asses with their bare hands like the Prophet Mohammed did?