Pakistan criticized the American raid that killed Osama bin Laden as an “unauthorized unilateral action” and warned Washington on Tuesday not to launch similar operations in the future.
The comments laid bare the tensions triggered by Monday’s attack, which came at time when U.S.-Pakistani ties were already near rock bottom.
“Islamabad has also been angered at the suspicions it had been sheltering bin Laden”.
Need I highlight how ridiculous this comment is, in light of current events?
And I hope everyone is taking note that Pakistan was not sheltering a terrorist who was not only a scourge to the US, but to the entire world.
As someone else noted on another blog sometime back :
“Pakistan – one of the 20th century’s really bad ideas.”
Pakistan will try to show outrage at the U.S. because Pakistan’s
national sovereignty was violated, but how much national
sovereignty do they really have if bin Laden moved in there without
their government knowing anything about it ?
If Pakistani officials, particularly their intelligence officials, had any indication of our having located OBL where he was hiding, he would have been long gone before any raid on his compound.
They know that and they know that we know that. This Pakistani indignation is a charade pure and simple.
We are the ones who should be enraged since it seems almost impossible that OBL had been living in the raided compound for as long as he had been without the knowledge and complicity of high level Pakistani officials.
The difficulty in assessing this situation is that there are two equally plausible explanations for bin Laden’s apparently lengthy presence in these quarters: 1) Pakistani duplicity, and 2) Pakistani incompetence. Both explanations are unnerving, given the critical role Pakistan must play in advancing our interests in that part of the world and given that they possess nuclear weapons. But it is very difficult to know which of these is in play.
[blockquote] “The Government of Pakistan further affirms that such an event shall not serve as a future precedent for any state, including the U.S.,” adding such actions can sometimes constitute a “threat to international peace and security.” [/blockquote] Such actions are only necessary when an ally isn’t really an ally. The US is a sovereign nation. If its national interest demands that Pakistan’s sovereignty be violated, then so be it. Pakistan can stomp its feet all it likes. It put itself in this position. It’s just not wise to protect an enemy of a major power.
Even so, we shouldn’t underestimate the impact this will have. Islam is a shame-based culture and we have just publicly shamed Pakistan. The entire circumstance highlights Pakistani weakness. The Americans were not afraid of violating their sovereignty. They weren’t significant or trustworthy enough for the Americans to even notify. They couldn’t stop it anyways. They couldn’t protect bin Laden. In a word, they have been humilitated. Yes, it’s their own fault. But there will be fall-out.
carl
They have been humiliated, and they are a fragile state politically which has been pretty dangerous for foreigners for a number of years, in part because of those such as bin Laden. It is also a country on its knees because of the awful floods in the North not so long ago. It has a civilised and cultured elite which is at risk [consider what happened to Benezir Bhutto] and wild tribesmen in the North who have much in common with those over the border in Afghanistan. In this lawless country, it has been possible for militant Islamists to gain a foothold, and one cannot minimise the effect of the money from Wahabi Saudi Arabia which has contributed to the problems, as it has throughout the Middle East and Africa, and in part has contributed to the rise of militant Islam, although Bin Laden rather got ahead of and unnerved Saudi Arabia. I am sorry for Pakistan, it is in a terrible state.
Of course this was a breach of Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, and it was necessary for it to be done in the way it has, because people like Bin Laden have relied on being untouchable in Pakistan, and had the Pakistanis been asked for their permission, almost certainly this would have been leaked to Bin Laden as has happened previously.
However, there are serious questions about how someone can build a massive mansion in a garrison town, stick three walls of remarkable height covered with barbed wire, and not be seen by anybody, right next to the military acadamy in a town where almost everybody is connected with the military in one form or another. It is remarkable that it could happen in the equivalent of Annapolis or Aldershot, without apparently anybody paying a blind bit of attention. Notwithstanding a purge of the military and intelligence to rid it of terrorist sympathisers, it looks as if Pakistan has a lot of questions to answer, as it has about the murders of Mr Bibi and of Ms Bhutto. The Pakistani government is in deep trouble both internationally and internally, for different and almost diametrically opposed reasons.
Dear Pakistani Government–When you stop haboring international criminals, we’ll quit killing them. Any other questions?
Oh dear God, thank you for making sure I am never likely to be elected President of the United States. If I were in office right now it would be really really bad.
If only Obama would cut aid.
Exactly, John Wilkins.
Anyone who thinks Pakistani intelligence didn’t know bin Laden was there or that was his compound? Pull the other one. Of course they’re ticked that they weren’t informed of the raid; they weren’t able to give bin Laden a head’s up! And the fact that we didn’t tell them anything speaks volumes.
And how much do we give them in aid?
We live in an imperfect world, and we have to deal with people who think differently because of their culture and history, and some of whom are horrible. It is perhaps easiest with those who state clearly what they are, but in many cases it is more complicated. Islamification and to some extent extremism has been built in the region with Saudi money and in the past ours, when we supported the Afghan insurgency against the Russians, the latest episode in ‘The Great Game’ which has been going on for two hundred years. Now US money, and some British money is going to Pakistan and Afghanistan, along with military support to encourage these countries to rebuild civil society and keep their young people out of the hands of the extremists. By and large Pakistan has been supportive of the West, and has paid a heavy price for that support, however there are significant elements, elements mind you, not a majority, who disagree with that and seek to protect terrorists and Islamists and undermine the West. So that is the complicated picture, and if we were to just leave them alone and cut off support, the extremists would take over, and we would be less safe. That is where we are, and why the UK has just given Pakistan £400 Million to build junior schools while we are cutting support for our own young people to go to university. Such is the world we live in, and such are the reasons for the decisions we make. It is far from perfect, but there we are.
Pakistan is just upset because they got caught with their pants down. Any prior consultation, and Osama would have fled the coop. The timing of things in that regard is interesting, seen as a subtext in this article:
Did Wikileaks force the attack on Osama 18 months before the election?
I am starting to like wikileaks.
drjoan, I read that we gave them $8 billion fairly recently. It was in The (London) Telegraph.
#4 carl
[blockquote]Such actions are only necessary when an ally isn’t really an ally. The US is a sovereign nation. If its national interest demands that Pakistan’s sovereignty be violated, then so be it. Pakistan can stomp its feet all it likes.[/blockquote]
I suppose we should be grateful that the US President didn’t feel it necessary to declare war on the United Kingdom before invading Grenada. Oh well.
14. Pageantmaster [Say no to Nick Holtam]:
I’m confused. Didn’t you say above in [5] …
[blockquote] Of course this was a breach of Pakistan’s territorial sovereignty, and it was necessary for it to be done in the way it has, because people like Bin Laden have relied on being untouchable in Pakistan, and had the Pakistanis been asked for their permission, almost certainly this would have been leaked to Bin Laden as has happened previously.[/blockquote] You seem to be criticizing me for saying just what you said.
Anyhow, why should the US have declared war on the UK before it invaded Grenada? Because it was once part of the British Empire? What about all those Cuban soldiers in Grenada? Were they simply enjoying an extended holiday? Oh, I get it. The Invasion of Grenada was a “flagrant violation of (snicker) International Law (chuckle).” So, this was an ironic comment about the international lawlessness of the US. Or something. Am I close?
In the meantime, I do wonder if the UNSC approved this military action which so flagrantly violated Pakistani sovereignty. I mean, it must have authorized the action at some point since you have already approved of it. Right?
carl
I may be misreading the comments — but is this the *first* time that political libs and conservatives have actually agreed on something here at T19???
Pakistan — bleh.
The other way of looking at this is how snookered we have been as a nation by Pakistan. The enemy — the guy who led the killing of 3000 civilians — has been sitting there for 6 years while we looked for him.
Nice.
[i]The other way of looking at this is how snookered we have been as a nation by Pakistan.[/i]
Pakistan isn’t the only country pulling our pants down and then shouting “fire”! We have as confused a foreign policy as any country can have……fueled mainly by our despicable dependence on oil from people who genuinely hate us. In the end, we have been our own worst enemy on several ocassions.
#15 carl
Grenada is a Commonwealth country and the Queen was and is head of state. The British protested the US invasion made without consultation and the UN censured the action by I think 109 countries to seven. There has been no specific authority in international law for the action in Grenada, nor that in Pakistan. There is however authority in international law for action in Libya, curiously of the three the conflict the US has been least willing to enter, and the least risky.
As it happens I believe the action in Pakistan can possibly be argued to be legal on the basis of self-defence and that in Grenada could be argued to be in order to prevent killing. A mass grave with a hundred bodies was discovered subsequently in Grenada. However in none of these cases was there a clear resolution in International Law approving action, and as far as I am aware no congressional approval for mounting operations in a sovereign country were sought. There is actually better legal ground in Libya for action.
However, it is a high risk strategy, just sending forces into other sovereign countries on the grounds that you are Americans. As Brother Michael suggested earlier, if you knock down all the laws, where will you hide?
I take no pleasure in the killing of ObL, but am grateful to the US and its troops for their bravery and for the removal of this threat to the West. In spite of all the ‘experts’ saying he was a spent force, it is clear that he continued right at the heart of Al Qu’adas command structure to which all the arms looked. Hopefully all those computers taken will yield useful intelligence on the rest of the links.
18. Pageantmaster[blockquote] it is a high risk strategy, just sending forces into other sovereign countries on the grounds that you are Americans. [/blockquote] To be fair, the US didn’t send its soldiers into a sovereign country simply because we are Americans. It’s true that power provides options, but when was the last time the US launched an attack in a sovereign country without that country’s knowledge? This operation in Pakistan is a very unusual circumstance. The Pakistanis were playing both ends against the middle, and got caught at it. They pretended to be our allies even as they hid Bin Laden from us. There was no way to protect Pakistani sovereignty in this situation – unless of course the Americans simply let the Pakistanis keep playing their game. So the US either had to turn a blind eye, or it had to exercise its sovereign right to protect its vital interests. That isn’t really much of a contest.
Ultimately, all military operations are exercises of sovereignty. The restriction isn’t ‘law’ but power. You say 107 countries censored the US for its action in Grenada. What difference did that UN decision make? Absolutely none. The US had the power to act, and ignore any contrary opinions. In truth, it is not “law” that restrains nations the but consequences of offending a greater power. Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. No application of international law could have stopped or reversed that invasion. It was the instead application of US military power that reversed the invasion. Iraq threatened the interests of the US and suffered the consequences. That’s why Kuwait was liberated. The maintenance of order in the world requires that kind of power. You don’t need UN resolutions or international law. You need (at least) regional powers who are willing to enforce their interests by maintaining order. Otherwise you get chaos – laws or not.
I don’t worry about knocking over all of “international law” or where the US should hide if all these laws fall. They are toothless without the sovereign national power that is necessary to enforce them. So long as the US has the power to enforce its vital interests, things will be fine.
carl
Why do you only notice missing words after you make the post? Above should read … [blockquote] …when was the last time the US launched an attack in a sovereign (nominally) allied country without that country’s knowledge? [/blockquote]
carl
The Pakistanis were no more sheltering Bin Laden than the Japanese were sheltering Yamamoto.
“However, it is a high risk strategy, just sending forces into other sovereign countries on the grounds that you are Americans”.
Being American or Martian had nothing to do with it. And you might feel differently about it had Bin Laden’s 9/11 targets been Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Lloyd’s and the London Stock Exchange.
nw layman, you must be kidding me. The man lives there for years, in a heavily guarded compound, near major cities and a military base/school, and “nobody knew he was there”? I fully understand and agree that Pakistan is a complicated picture. But, all those who care that Pakistan might be offended, please raise your hand…Any takers? Nobody? Oh, well…
I’m also hearing that the IT stuff taken from the compound was the “Mother Lode”…
#19 carl
[blockquote]This operation in Pakistan is a very unusual circumstance. The Pakistanis were playing both ends against the middle, and got caught at it. They pretended to be our allies even as they hid Bin Laden from us.[/blockquote]
Well, the Pakistanis are pretty upset at the moment. They say they have been sharing information with the US and other countries for years, including their own concerns about this compound. It looks as if neither the US nor Pakistan were certain that ObL was there, although there was a suspicion that someone important was there. The US through information known alone to it was able to put all the information together to reach a more positive conclusion about the presence of at least a high profile target. There is no evidence that Pakistan was ‘hiding Bin Laden from us’.
[blockquote]Ultimately, all military operations are exercises of sovereignty. The restriction isn’t ‘law’ but power. You say 107 countries censored the US for its action in Grenada. What difference did that UN decision make? Absolutely none. The US had the power to act, and ignore any contrary opinions. In truth, it is not “law†that restrains nations the but consequences of offending a greater power.[/blockquote]
The trouble with this ‘might is right’ argument is that it is used not just by the good guys, like the US but also by the bad guys. It was the attitude of the Kaiser in invading Belgium, and of WWII Germany in taking over Austria and invading Poland and other countries. It is also the argument used by Argentina to invade the Falkland Isles and South Georgia and by Indonesia to occupy East Timor in both of which cases UN decisions and pressure led to expulsion/withdrawal of the occupying forces. Mind you, sometimes countries get away with it, such as the Indian takeover of Goa and the Moroccan takeover of Spanish Sahara, the Chinese takeover of Tibet, and further back the Russian occupation of Japanese Sakhalin and the Kurile Isles but often the long-run consequence is a unresolved dispute.
The problem of course with observing International Law is that it may well constrain what a country feels it needs to do. The UN was formed after WWII when the major powers and their empires controlled much of the world. Now however those empires have turned into hundreds and hundreds of countries, all of whom have the ability to put their own interests first and so for example, Africa has with so many countries a lot more influence than say North America which has only a few countries. If each US and Canadian state or province was a country, North America would have much more say. So we have seen in sixty years decolonisation has fundamentally altered the make up of the UN from domination by the great powers and their empires, to their eclipse by the newly created countries and this is put in relief in the Caribbean or Pacific when a tiny island gets the same vote as the US or Russia.
Added to that, the expansion of the UN Security Council to include mainland China and India has made life much more difficult for the West. Until Kuwait and now Libya, it has been almost impossible to get approval for any action or even censure out of the UNSC against the blocking by Russia, China and India, and if the US intent to expand it to include Brazil goes through then even the Libyan Resolution may become impossible to achieve.
I think there is certainly a built in problem with not International Law, but the seizing up by self-interest blocs of any international decision-making. This is something which remains unsolved and of course why the US has felt that it has on occasion to go it alone and just ignore everybody else.
[blockquote]Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991. No application of international law could have stopped or reversed that invasion. It was the instead application of US military power that reversed the invasion. Iraq threatened the interests of the US and suffered the consequences. That’s why Kuwait was liberated. The maintenance of order in the world requires that kind of power. You don’t need UN resolutions or international law.[/blockquote]
Iraq was invaded by Kuwait and the action was illegal under International Law and declared illegal by the UN which is why the US and the coalition of regional powers, were able to go into Kuwait to liberate it. I am uncertain whether that operation would have been possible if Saudi Arabia had not allowed the US to use it as a base for that invasion and am doubtful if Saudi Arabia would have had the courage to allow US troops, tanks and aircraft on its soil against domestic political and religious opposition without that UN resolution and international coallition which Saudi Arabia was part of.
Iraq took the idea that might is right and invaded Kuwait illegally, making itself a pariah state, much as Turkey invaded Northern Cyprus creating a pariah state in Northern Cyprus which is only recognised by Turkey, and which cannot contract internationally and whose laws and actions have no authority outside Northern Cyprus. That is the potential consequence of a ‘might is right’ approach.
[blockquote]You need (at least) regional powers who are willing to enforce their interests by maintaining order. Otherwise you get chaos – laws or not. [/blockquote]
I think we are seeing that happening – the African Union taking action in that continent in some failing states, but through self-interest unwilling to take action in Zimbabwe, and antagonistic to action against Libya which has financed both the AU and many of those countries significantly. We are also seeing a willingness in Western European countries to take action in the Balkans. That may well become the future, as the UN seizes up. However against that, the fact that it was possible to get a resolution on Libya suggests that there is increased willingness in countries to take action and make that institution work.
[blockquote]I don’t worry about knocking over all of “international law†or where the US should hide if all these laws fall. They are toothless without the sovereign national power that is necessary to enforce them. So long as the US has the power to enforce its vital interests, things will be fine. [/blockquote]
I say all I have above as someone who believes that the action in Libya, Grenada and Pakistan has been beneficial to world peace, but to highlight the dangers of just ignoring international law and opinion. It is a bad principle to operate from and one can imagine the circumstances where the US could find itself in the same position as USSR/Russia found itself in when they occupied Afghanistan and Georgia.
As far as Pakistan goes, one has to accept that while the outcome has been positive so far, one can’t just ignore other countries’ legal rights and say: ‘It is in our interest – might is right’.
#22 Bookworm
[blockquote]Being American or Martian had nothing to do with it. And you might feel differently about it had Bin Laden’s 9/11 targets been Parliament, Buckingham Palace, Lloyd’s and the London Stock Exchange.[/blockquote]
66 Britons were killed in 9/11; 52 Britons were killed and 700 Britons injured by the London and Kings Cross bombings – all the responsibility of Al Qu’ada. Of course our Stock Exchange and later the nearby Baltic Exchange were bombed by the IRA with explosives supplied by Libya and it has to be said, funds raised in part in the US, leading to the deaths of 1,800 Britons over the period of the IRA campaign although still less than the 3,000+ killed in 9/11, so we know all about it I am afraid. It is with that in mind and the consequences of the Bloody Sunday killings and the other times we have ignored the international norms that we have learned the importance of keeping within the law, and of avoiding the temptation to cut corners; it invariably rebounds on one when one does take the route of expediency over that of consensus building and observance of law.
We also learned with the massacre at Amritsar, that when one does just ignore law and one’s own rules that it is generally a sign that one has lost the battle. It was Amritsar that radicalised many of the families of those who then fought for an independent India and turned them in some cases from supporters of the Raj into active opponents. One has to remember that Nehru was educated at Harrow and Trinity College, Cambridge, and Ghandi at University College, London. What happened is that the educated Indian intelligensia saw us ignoring our own rules and that, as they say, was the beginning of the end as those who were part of the structure turned on it.
That is why law matters, and why we should be cautious of just ignoring it when it conflicts with either our personal or international interests. I personally believe that the rule of law, and of equality under the law, along with democracy are some of the finest things that the Christian UK and US have produced and spread around the world, and we need to be particularly careful to live by the rules we tell others to observe.
23. Pageantmaster[blockquote] The trouble with this ‘might is right’ argument is that it is used not just by the good guys, like the US but also by the bad guys.[/blockquote] But I wasn’t making an argument about how the world should work. I was stating how the world does work. I was saying the equivalent of “Water flows down hill.” Nations organize themselves according to relative power. That does not provide a justification for Hitler’s invasion of Poland. It is rather a recognition of the fact that laws and organizations (like the League of Nations) couldn’t stop Hitler from doing what he did. Countervailing force was necessary. The League was a colossal failure because it possessed no countervailing force. The UN can work to prevent aggression only when a major power is willing to provide that force. Major powers provide that force only when their interests are threatened. Unimportant countries in unimportant places don’t fare well under this arrangement, but there it is. You will notice the complete lack of nations rushing to intervene in Syria.
Law is not law unless there is an enforcement mechanism. This is why international law is not really law. Only sovereign nations possess the ability to coerce and enforce it, but the sovereign nations are the entities that are supposed to be under its jurisdiction. There is no supranational organization over the nations with the independent ability to coerce. International law is instead a collection of customs and conventions that nations find mutually beneficial. Nations respect them because they fear some form of retaliation. The customs become self-policing. “I will leave your diplomats alone, and you leave my diplomats alone.” This is not law. It is mutual self-interest.
If the UN is seizing up, it is going the way of all international bodies before it. The nations will not be constrained. They will act according to their own self-interests. Thus it has always been. Thus it will always be.
carl
There are people [i]within their own government and military[/i] who were clandestinely supportive of bin Laden and al Qaeda, and President Obama quite rightly felt that Pakistan could not be fully trusted with dealing him in a decisive manner. Therefore, we eliminated him. So far, Pakistan has said nothing to prove otherwise. Will they be forthcoming with the truth? Who knows?
Pageantmaster, I do understand the academic “big picture” that you are trying to paint. But it is a bizarre ethical place to find oneself in if you basically say, “I wouldn’t have done it(at least not without international consultation, and we all know what a chaotic debacle that would have been, also with the target scurrying away into the night), you guys shouldn’t have done it either, but I am grateful that you did it”.
Many times these things are not “might makes right” but cost-benefit analyses. As Carl rather says, I can wish the world a different place, but it is not.
I have sat at dinner with SEALs in uniform, albeit operations were not the topic of conversation. 🙂 If you are ever in the company of British Special Forces, I’d advise against saying, “By the way, I hope you guys are careful not to violate international law”. And I’d bet good money that SAS, etc. helped with this in some way; they usually do. So it was probably not as “unilateral” as you think.
And I believe the world will be a better, safer place without Bin Laden.
If Pakistan is humiliated, it will have to learn to deal with that. That’s what usually happens when any country is caught playing both ends against the middle, even if their cultural picture and national interests are complex. Bin Laden probably killed just as many Muslims as he has Britons and Americans, and most Muslims know that.
#25 carl
I am grateful for your recognition that International law has the force of moral suasion albeit recognising that there is no international police force to enforce it, other than that of countries who are willing to offer their forces to do so. It is not a matter of the way the world works versus the way the world should work, it is a question of perhaps the difference between short and medium term advantage and the impact that can have on the long term position.
The point is ultimately these situations of conflict are a battle for hearts and minds. Both the US and Britain for that matter make a point of lecturing everybody else about democracy, the rule of law and freedom, but the counter side of that is that people expect us to live with what we preach at them. In for example a country like Pakistan, there will be a proportion who will be anti the West, whatever it does [probably a small proportion like 10%]; then there will be an equally small, perhaps smaller proportion, who see their future with the West and will support it whatever it does; but in the middle there are a large proportion who will fall somewhere in the middle and whose reaction will depend on whether the West observes its own rules. They may not instinctively like what has been done, but if the rules have been followed, or an explanation for varying them given, they may say: “well, I am not sure about what happened, but I can understand the reasons why the action was taken. In this case, had the US military carpet bombed Abbottabad or even sent a cruise missile in, the resulting innocent casualties would have set the country aflame. As it was, the use of helicopters and troops limited this risk and so the reaction both in Pakistan and elsewhere, although not always appreciative, does at least understand that efforts were taken to limit loss of life.
That is what failed to happen in Amritsar, the Indian intelligentsia who kept the country going were horrified at what happened, as were the British and worldwide public. We were seen not to be living by our own rules and the grounds for Indian support were undermined. It was not the start of the push for Indian Independence, but it was a seminal moment, when we lost the battle for hearts and minds.
That is why I say that your argument:
[blockquote]So long as the US has the power to enforce its vital interests, things will be fine.[/blockquote]
may produce a short or medium term advantage, but if in the long run you lose the battle for hearts and minds, how much better off or safer are you?
#27 bookworm
I am not saying “I wouldn’t have done it(at least not without international consultation)” if you read what I have said. I actually think it was a necessary thing to do and that it was also necessary not to inform anybody else, and in particular the Pakistanis before it happened. A leak would have rendered the operation a failure, have put the lives of the military involved at risk, not least from perhaps having the Pakistani military or some element of it waiting for them, and have been a PR fiasco.
The point I am making is that as a rule, one cannot just say we have the power and don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks. In the long term that is a slippery slope and is the way battles can be won and wars lost.
I have known a few ex special forces and intelligence people socially, including some Americans, but by and large we have not discussed “business” except in the most guarded and round about way, which is as it should be. Certainly our forces are obligated to obey lawful orders which is why the British Government goes to considerable lengths to check the legality of any action they are undertaking prior to engagement, both for their and for our troops’ protection.
As for British participation, there is a suggestion that there may be some British help being provided with the recovery, de-encryption and translation of information recovered, but I don’t know how much reliance can be placed on that.
Pakistan has been humiliated, and does have some answers to provide, some of which have been forthcoming, but there is no doubt that this operation has completely upset the domestic applecart for them; they are probably more sinned against than sinning, and in an impossible situation. They are in need of support and encouragement to get their house in order rather than further destabilised, because they are almost certainly better than anything which might follow them.
28. Pageantmaster
Remember that the British position in India does not track well with the American relationship with Pakistan. India was part of the British Empire. Britain was the sovereign government. So any talks of Law & Order and democracy and obeying your own laws occured in a completely different context. Pakistan is not a part of the American Empire. The US doesn’t govern it. There is no law that governs the relationship between the US and Pakistan. There are only mutual interests and mutually agreeable customs.
Now you are surely 100% correct when you say a nation must not stride about the world as if it never had to take account of its allies or their interests. You are correct to identify the difference between short and long-term advantage. Even so, this formulation still depends upon the rational calculation of national self-interest. It still allows for the possibility that some actions are so important that a nation would undertake them despite massive opposition. The Second Iraq War is a good example. The prospect of a nuclear hegemon over the Middle East oil fields was so dangerous, and the potential for nuclear war between Israel and Iraq so great, the US had to mitigate that risk. There was no other option.
Law is intended to constrain self-interested action. It is meant to restrict the allowable range of responses to a certain situation for the public good. Now, actors would certainly choose these options if they could, for they are often effective and direct means of solving a problem. But they tend to shift cost from the actor to some second party in a way that injures the second party. The actor is therefore constrained to act against his self-interest for the sake of another, and settle for less effective means. You may say that this works against his own long-term interest to choose illegal means, but the actor is the one who computes his own self-interest. He often sees it differently, and history often proves him right.
A country must for its own self-interest generally respect the sovereignty of other countries. As I said above, the action in Pakistan was extra-ordinary. It would never have happened in Britain because Britain is an actual ally. That government wouldn’t have hidden bin Laden. The US could have trusted the British gov’t to keep the secret, and supply reliable professional forces to make the raid. There would have been no need to insert Navy Seals into a compound in Reeding. The SAS would have done it for the asking. But Pakistan was different. It was acting as an enemy even as it spoke as a friend. It left the US no choice. The raid became one of those unusual circumstances where a nation simply has to act in its own interest despite the potential cost. I give President Obama great credit for having the courage to make this decision. It was truly his finest hour so far.
carl
#28 Hi carl
I broadly agree with you, however remember British India under British drafted laws and governance was smaller than modern India and Pakistan, notably Kashmir was an independent princely state. However my reference was not to the domestic laws of British India or of modern India or Pakistan, but to international law and to in particular the sovereignty of all countries, not just the ones we like or who we regard as allies. Even with allies there are times when we are not always frank with one another. For example Britain regards itself as friendly with Israel, but that did not stop the Israelis from snatching Vanuunu from under our eyes, or from issuing false British passports to an assassination team sent to the UAE. Unfortunately short-term self interest can easily be seen as more important than either international law or the long view.
International law, and the limits it puts on invasion of the territory of sovereign nations is there for a reason. It limits the grounds for wars and makes countries think twice before invading their neighbors because of the risk they may be taking of international ostracism, sanctions and counter military action. It is like children, if they know the bounds, they have to make an assessment of whether the downside of breaking them warrants any perceived short-term advantage.
Now of course when the ‘big boys’ decide that the rules don’t apply to them, there is a problem, because the whole system is put at risk, and so the small and aggresive countries say well if the rules don’t apply to them we will do as we like as well. So off they go, invading their neighbors, torturing their citizens, aquiring nuclear weaponry, and practicing genocide.
You may not like International Law, but it is there for everyone in the club’s benefit, and to keep the obnoxious in line.
I am not saying the US decision in this case was wrong, it was a brave and beneficial one, and I am glad of it, but there has been a cost as a country’s sovereigntly has been violated, and the government of that country is having to explain how one of its allies has violated its airspace and conducted a military operation without its knowledge or permission. It is as you say a huge loss of face for Pakistan and for the reasons I have given above I think it may be going too far to say that this fragile and divided state has been “acting as an enemy even as it spoke as a friend”. That may be giving it too much coherence and unity of purpose – the truth is probably that most of the Pakistani government and military were acting as friends but there are a minority who do act as enemies. Putting the whole of the Pakistani government and military in the same boat may not be either the whole truth or to the advantage of the West and the majority of Pakistan’s government who are our friends and allies.
By the way, I think the way the British kept order in the tribal areas of the North-West of the sub-continent was to pay off the tribes; perhaps that is still how it works.
Perhaps it is also worth remembering in relation to the Pakistani divisions that it was Pakistani intelligence officers and military who set up with US support the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan to oppose the Soviets and those people have subsequently been required to disavow and suppress the organisations like the Taliban who they fostered. That is why, despite purges, there are senior Pakistani intelligence officers who act as enemies even as they appear to speak as friends. One also has to bear in mind how the state of virtual warfare with India impacts on and complicates all this, and that I am afraid I am aware of but do not understand.
Hard to actually know what’s true, but this is out there; and, based on what I’m hearing, would make sense:
“Please get this out ASAP. Want specific people to know we know.
RE Osama Bin Laden. Significant push to take him out months ago. Senior WH staff resisted. This was cause of much strain between HC and Obama/Jarrett. HC and LP were in constant communication over matter – both attempted to convince administration to act. Administration feared failure and resulting negative impact on president. Intel disgusted over politics over national security. Staff resigned/left. Check timeline to corroborate.
Now Intel already leaking to media facts surrounding how info obtained. Namely from enhanced interrogation efforts via GITMO prisoners. Obama administration placed in corner on this. Some media aware of danger to president RE this and attempting protection. Others looking for further investigation. We are pushing for them to follow through and already meeting with some access.
Point of determination made FOR Obama not BY Obama. Will clarify as details become more clear. Very clear divide between Military and WH. Jarrett marginalized 100% on decision to take out OBL. She played no part. BD worked with LP and HC to form coalition to force CoC to engage.
IMPORTANT SPECIFIC: When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. This order did not originate from CoC. Repeat – this order did not originate from CoC. He complied, but did not originate.
Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit.
The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.
Speaking with additional contacts RE info.
Stay safe.
HC = Hillary Clinton
BD = Bill Daley
LP = Leon Panetta
CoC = Chain of Command/Commander in Chief”
From here:
http://newsflavor.com/politics/us-politics/did-senior-militaryintelligence-officials-overrule-president-obama-regarding-mission-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/
Perhaps the order was given because of significant pressure from the other brass. We’ll have to see what else comes out, if anything.
“The point I am making is that as a rule, one cannot just say we have the power and don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks”.
Not in the current administration but I have met some of the past “players”, and/or known and spoken with people who worked closely with others at these levels. I’m just a “baby” and it’s not as if I believe I am privy to classified information, or to run with these crowds. Others would have to speak to their own experiences, but I have never met anyone who was simply “power-mad” and/or “didn’t care what anyone else thinks”. One I know is a retired CIA station chief(operated in a different theatre than the Middle East, and could speak to some of his experiences because they had already been “outed” in a best-selling book) who saw hand-to-hand combat, even as an administrator, and he certainly didn’t feel that way.
Perhaps I am naive, but no one I ever talked to, or heard of second-hand, EVER spoke or behaved as if they were in this for power or money, they were in it for the greater good. I realize that the “greater good” should also not be one man or woman’s decision, regardless of their nationality, but they didn’t act that way, either. If anything, they seemed world-weary(yet not lazy) but were giving their all to the job, even if they would have preferred to be out on a boat, golfing, or hunting somewhere.
As an aside, the buzz I’ve heard, including from a former CIA operative, is that Pakistan, at best, proved itself “unreliable”(the polite word tossed around), at the very least, on the intelligence front. Hence the data was gathered, a time was chosen, and we acted. Sometimes the real world is a tough place, and I’m not sorry for what the US did, and we didn’t do it just “because we’re Americans”. That’s a petty, unwarranted shot below the belt, especially from someone who says he agrees with the operation.
It’s not the only measure of success, but this is also what happens when a mission has a CLEAR objective.
Considering her far-left origins at Yale in the 60’s-70’s, the one I am most impressed with is Hillary Clinton. Unknowingly, she has also validated my spouse, who likes to say, “It’s amazing how one’s tune can change when they start getting top-secret security briefings”. Or maybe she’s channeling another interesting saying, if I have it right–“Socialist at 20, realist at 60″…I think we should thank her for a job well-done, too. BZ…
#33 Bookworm
There are so many stories running about. I think there is enough for us to go on on what has been released by official channels. I am not sure such stories are helpful.
Regarding my comment:
[blockquote]The point I am making is that as a rule, one cannot just say we have the power and don’t have to worry about what anyone else thinks[/blockquote]
and yours to me:
[blockquote]..we didn’t do it just “because we’re Americansâ€. That’s a petty, unwarranted shot below the belt, especially from someone who says he agrees with the operation.[/blockquote]
Those were my responses to the arguments for the reasoning behind US action given by carl. I have no reason to believe that the US administration operates by carl’s reasoning, nor that anybody in it makes such decisions with anything but the most serious reflection. I have always found the US government and military decision-makers awsomely impressive and painstakingly careful. I think they all did well in this case. I hope that explains what I have written.