Selective Police Action Is the Best Approach to Dealing With Pakistan-Based Militants
With a new report from the US intelligence community suggesting that al-Qaeda has found a safe haven in tribal areas of Pakistan, there is increasing talk of war. The Washington Post, for example, suggested in an editorial today that we should bomb Pakistan in order to take out militant strongholds.
But the Post is way off base. An examination of what’s going on in Afghanistan shows that bombing as a counter-terrorism technique has proven a significant failure.
In Afghanistan, NATO’s heavy use of air power against suspected insurgents has resulted in numerous civilian casualties and led to a dramatic decline in popular support for occupation forces as well as for the Karzai government. In fact, Afghan officials have warned NATO repeatedly that bombing campaigns are inadvertently undermining their efforts to stabilize the country by increasing popular sympathy for the Taliban. It is no wonder — with new disgruntled recruits and many more sympathizers — that the Taliban has made such good progress recently.
Indeed, a major aerial assault on Pakistani tribal areas — allegedly to support Musharraf’s anti-terrorism efforts — would likely have similar (undesirable) effects.
Although it would undoubtedly lead to the destruction of infrastructure and the death of a number of militants, an aggressive bombing campaign in Pakistan would also rally popular support around radical groups in Pakistan, and, in the long-term, result in greater recruitment and more money flowing in to help the radicals’ cause. In addition, such an aggressive American intervention would undermine Pakistani popular support for counter-terrorism efforts (which, following the recent slate of attacks, is fairly high).
It is not a choice of bombing or doing nothing, however. There are other options.
Instead of an aerial campaign, selective police action in the Pakistan tribal areas should be relied upon to deal with militants. Rather than engaging in a devastating bombing campaign that would cause numerous civilian casualties and bolster support for the radicals’ cause, Taliban and al-Qaeda militants should be dealt with like any other group of criminals: they should be captured (preferably by multinational — rather than American — special forces), tried in international court, and sent to prison.
(Originally posted at Foreign Policy Watch.)
4 Responses to “Selective Police Action Is the Best Approach to Dealing With Pakistan-Based Militants”
That’s a great idea. Let me know when Pakistan agrees to a multinational force fighting dug-in insurgents door-to-door among a sympathetic populace in its mountain frontier.
I wonder what the results of a heavy air campaign is? Does the hawks and WaPo forget about Lebanon. Lind, PJ Lang and active military COIN experts all come out against the B-1 high altitude air strike approach. This only worked as an exception in Bosnia, it’s causing more harm than good in Afghanistan.
Bombing is counterproductive.
Pakistani ground forces have been badly bloodied in those areas, leading to Musharaff’s peace deal with the tribes. Getting other countries to contribute to any UN action is increasingly difficult.
The Americans can’t go into Pakistan.
Precision air strikes have resulted in a number or errors.
Special forces by themselves can do only limited missions.
I hear only vague hopes about Musharaff haveing finally seen the light,about the tribes, but he is tottering.
Doesn’t sound good. In fact, it sounds ominous.
What would happen in Saudis Arabia is security forces went into their equivalent of the Red Mosque? While no real friend, who is Musharaff any different than the Saudis?