When did we declare war on Pakistan?

[ZeroPointMachine]

Under what authority does the CIA order airstrikes on a Pakistani village without the approval of the Pakistani government?

Why the hell does the CIA need Predator UAVs armed with Hellfire missles in the first place.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Under what authority does the CIA order airstrikes on a Pakistani village without the approval of the Pakistani government?

Why the hell does the CIA need Predator UAVs armed with Hellfire missles in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]
Strange things can happen in times of war. Don't expect it all to be transparent.

[jokerthief]

[ QUOTE ]
Under what authority does the CIA order airstrikes on a Pakistani village without the approval of the Pakistani government?


[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt Pakistan didn't sign off on this strike before it was executed despite what they say.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Under what authority does the CIA order airstrikes on a Pakistani village without the approval of the Pakistani government?


[/ QUOTE ]

I highly doubt Pakistan didn't sign off on this strike before it was executed despite what they say.

[/ QUOTE ]

I higly doubt that we are getting sign off from Pakistan on every operation we run in there. More likely we have some form of blanket agreement that allows us to operate and allows them to deny they knew of any particular strike.

[Cyrus]

We're supposed to attack the small stacks lest they grow up to be big stacks !

Old farts might recall that as soon as it became known that Dick Nixon started (illegally) bombing Cambodia, there was general outcry among voters, media and Congressmen. But the times they are a-changin'.

[Myrtle]

[ QUOTE ]
We're supposed to attack the small stacks lest they grow up to be big stacks !

Old farts might recall that as soon as it became known that Dick Nixon started (illegally) bombing Cambodia, there was general outcry among voters, media and Congressmen. But the times they are a-changin'.

[/ QUOTE ]


....the times thet are a changin?...Well Cy, yes & no, the best this old fart can remember.

I don't seee a legitimate comparison between those 2 events.

The indiscriminate carpet bombing and agent Orange attacks on a neutral Cambodia, and both the inital denial and then the attempted cover-up of this illegal act by the Nixon administration is one thing.

A one time, surgical strike to attempt to cripple the leadership of Al Qaeda is something entirely different, methinks.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't seee a legitimate comparison between those 2 events [, Pakistan bombing and Cambodia bombing].
<font color="white"> . </font>
The indiscriminate carpet bombing and agent Orange attacks on a neutral Cambodia, and both the inital denial and then the attempted cover-up of this illegal act by the Nixon administration is one thing. A one-time, surgical strike to attempt to cripple the leadership of Al Qaeda is something entirely different, methinks.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should remember that the public and Congessional outrage predated the subsequent revelations that the Cambodia bombing was more intense than initially claimed, began long before Congress was appraised and used various "interesting substances". The public, the media and Congress were upset because the United States was conducting military operations inside a neutral country ANDwithout the permission by nor the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

When the news broke out, the Nixon administration, as well, tried to pass it off as a "limited campaign" that would soon be over, a campaign that was "only" targeting the Ho trail.

And last time I checked, Pakistan is a "neutral" country!

...Hey! I think I spotted Osama bin-Laden having coffee with his lieutenant outside a Champs Elysées bistro. Somebody call somebody!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
And last time I checked, Pakistan is a "neutral" country!

...Hey! I think I spotted Osama bin-Laden having coffee with his lieutenant outside a Champs Elysées bistro. Somebody call somebody!

[/ QUOTE ]

When terrorists are not sponsered/supported directly by a state and provided haven, they depend upon the inability or unwillingness of 3rd party states like Pakistan to provide that haven, even if not intentionally. One of pillars of our policy on the War on Terror is to deny terrorists those havens. So Paksistan and other countries can either put their own house in order, allow us to do so openly if they cannot, allow us to do so with a wink and a nod as is the case in Pakistan regardless of official government outrage on this matter, or . . . we will just do it anyway. We wouldn't allow some narcoterrorist to keep taking pot shots across the border from Mexico at us, and we shouldn't allow same from 3 or 10 countries over either.

[Ray Zee]

good post and so right as long as we are very dilligent in making sure our targets are properly identified. and i think in this case they did, though maybe not getting the primary target.

as to the war though, if we pulled out of iraq there would be no more attacks from the iraqi people as their attacks are only about us being there. so there really is no war in iraq as you cannot call something a war when if you leave its over.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
One of pillars of our policy on the War on Terror is to deny terrorists those havens. So Pakistan and other countries can either put their own house in order, allow us to do so openly if they cannot, allow us to do so with a wink and a nod as is the case in Pakistan regardless of official government outrage on this matter, or . . . we will just do it anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, just as long as you understand that you are re-writing the rules of the game this way.

One of the basic tenets of world diplomacy (aka getting along) is that the various sides join in agreements (ie rules of engagement) without conceding principles but on the basis of common ground and reciprocity. As soon as you declare that you will pursue an "enemy" across frontiers without any legitimate authority to do so (other than national security), you legitimize the reciprocal equivalent actions of an adversary, who will also define "enemy" and "pursuit" on his own merry terms.

The recent bombing strike against the Pakistani objectives may well have been correct from a military point of view (and legitimate from a security point of view). I'm arguing the larger picture. The United States is currently running roughshod over everything and everyone. This is not without its risks.

Are the risks out-weighing the benefits? Are you sure of that?