Crossing Pakistani Borders

Recently the U.S. military began sending Special Operations ground troops into Pakistani borders without permission from Islamabad. The first of such attacks happened when they landed by helicopter within the borders of Afghanistan on September 3rd, crossed into Pakistan and attacked Taliban and al-Qaeda targets. In these tribal areas there are hideouts and safe-houses where members of either terrorist organization could be planning attacks, either within that region or outside. This would seem to fall directly under the mission of the U.S. military in the War on Terror. However, attacking without permission—from the Pakistani military, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency or the new President Asif Ali Zardari—may end up being counter-productive. Here are some issues to think about and discuss:

1) The people of Pakistan, like those in most every other country, have a great enthusiasm for keeping their territorial integrity, and are understandably upset by U.S. incursions into their borders. Up until now they have been called an ally in the war on terror, albeit an unstable and ineffective ally. Through the years of fighting since the U.S. invaded Afghanistan in 2001, terrorists have been able to cross the borders into Pakistan to find safe-havens and supplies, which has been detrimental to U.S. efforts in the region. It seems logical that the U.S. military should now follow them across the border to target known terrorist areas specifically. But crossing that border complicates the matter greatly. What authority does the U.S. have to do this? In a New York Times article by Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti, it was stated that an American official said “the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general concept of limited ground assaults by Special Operations forces against significant militant targets, but that it did not approve each mission" (“Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan”). Is this enough?

2) With the new president, and his apparent good relationship with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, a window of opportunity was opened for improved diplomatic relations among the two presidents and the U.S. But that window could quickly close if the U.S. goes too far in outraging the Pakistani population (they already aren’t too fond of us). Both Karzai and Zardari have to walk a fine line between good relations with the U.S. and seeming like a puppet for Western powers to their own people. I’m sure hearing news that U.S. soldiers killed civilians in their area is making it difficult for them to keep good relations with Washington.

3) It is extremely difficult for U.S. soldiers to fight in civilian areas while then enemy hides out in their villages and in their homes, wearing similar clothes. This has been a big issue in Iraq as well. So who is morally at fault when civilians die in these attacks? The terrorists who hide behind these women and children, or the soldiers who are trying to do their jobs while also protecting themselves and the lives of their fellow soldiers? And if it is wrong to attack in tribal areas where civilians may be in danger, what do we do instead? The U.S. military knows where the enemy is. One New York Times article stated that U.S. special Operations forces killed “about two dozen suspected Qaeda fighters” (“Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan”). So how can we expect our military men and women to stand back and wait for permission that may come too late, while they know the location of an enemy most of them joined the military to fight?


News Article:

Schmitt, Eric and Mark Mazzetti. “Bush Said to Give Orders Allowing Raids in Pakistan.” New York Times Online, 11 September 2008: