Petraeus Admits US Airstrikes in Pakistan Worsen the Situation 9

I have been explaining that US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and particularly bombings of civilian areas by drones, is causing a strengthening of fundamentalism in Pakistan.

There has been authoritative confirmation of this from an unlikely source. US General Petraeus has been giving evidence in support of Obama’s fight against the American Civil Liberties Union, to suppress further photos and videos of torture of prisoners, apparently including rape.

Petraeus’ evidence says that to release the torture material would further inflame opinion against the United States, when it is already inflamed by bombings and civilian casualties and anti-Americanism can be measured as increasing:

Public support for the U.S. is declining in Pakistan because of military strikes there that the U.S. conducts from Afghanistan, according to the top American commander in the Middle East.

“Most polling data reflects” an increase in anti-U.S. sentiment, General David Petraeus said, without identifying the source of the polling.

Pakistanis are angered by “cross-border operations and reported drone strikes” that they believe “cause unacceptable civilian casualties,” Petraeus wrote in court papers supporting President Barack Obama’s decision not to release photographs showing the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan

The big question is, why does the US continue with a military strategy which they acknowledge is counterproductive and destabilising Pakistan?

Interestingly, apart from the Bloomberg report, there was almost no mainstream media coverage of this aspect of Petraeus’ evidence. His statement that to release the torture visual material would endanger US troops was widely reported, but almost nobody reported his views on the effect of US bombing on public opinion in Pakistan.

Petraeus has since been on Fox News and rather stunned them by arguing strongly for the closure of Guantanamo and respect for the rule of law – including the international law of armed conflict (he referenced the Geneva Conventions).

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

9 thoughts on “Petraeus Admits US Airstrikes in Pakistan Worsen the Situation

  • edwin

    The big question is, why does the US continue with a military strategy which they acknowledge is counterproductive and destabilising Pakistan?

    I wonder if the problem is with the word strategy. Does the US have any strategy at all or are they caught in a perpetual cycle of counter reaction?

  • dreoilin

    IMO, the US would be quite happy to destabalise Pakistan, and put in a puppet Government as they did (and are now trying to ‘correct’) in Afghanistan. Hence the dollars. The whole thing is a sham. They are not in Afghanistan because of any concern about women’s rights, or drugs, or training camps for “Al Quaeda”. We’re simply watching the start of (what will be called) the Energy Wars of the 21st century.

    It sickens me. I’m a news junkie but sometimes lately I have to turn everything off. I flicked on Sky and saw the news of the French plane gone down in the Atlantic. Compassion kicked in for the poor people on board, but at the same time I thought “Bloody hell, this is all I need.” It seems like there is little to be jolly about except the weather.

    I have lost all faith and/or hope I ever had about Obama.

    Somebody tell me I’m wrong about Pakistan. It might cheer me up.

  • Jason

    The reason for the US being happy to destabilise Pakistan is staring you in the face – it’s the policy, stupid 😉

    This is all looking like Problem Reaction Solution in excelsis, ever since 9/11 produced a new global enemy (concentrated in… well, wherever the US needs to go). As has been noted, the appropriate numbers of “Al Qaida” emerge from Central Casting on cue, are “neutralised” by the US, while causing massive depopulation of civilians, etc.

    What does it matter if you create a few real terrorists to go along with your plans, roll them all into the policy, in fact, they’re highly useful, just draw them to the appropriate locations with magnetising airstrikes, they add verisimilitude, don’t you know…

    I never thought life would be quite so much like a William S. Burroughs novel, but this Pakistani stuff is the strongest batch yet. Turn on the news networks, the psyops are so heavy it’s untrue, there actually appears to be no international news anymore that is NOT focused on the Middle East (occasional lampooning of Chavez aside, N Korea this week)

  • Abe Rene

    The Americans must believe that their air strikes bring them more benefit than harm in terms of weakening the militants’ position. If I were General Petraeus, I wouldn’t want material released which would increase Taleban recruitment. But in the long term they will have to get the Pakistani army and people on their side. The first of these appears to be happening in Swat, presumably because the Pakistani army now feels itself threatened, but the second will be threatened by any raids into Pakistan that result in civilian deaths.

  • dreoilin

    “but the second will be threatened by any raids into Pakistan that result in civilian deaths”

    Will be? They’ve already killed civilians in Pakistan with their unmanned drones.

  • dreoilin

    And to think idiot-me got all choked up the night Obama was elected. I should have seen what was coming. A good-looking articulate Bush.

  • George Dutton

    General Petraeus = All things to all men.

    He is left,he is right,he is all things to all men.

    The true General Petraeus has both eyes on a political future…me thinks.

    General Petraeus = Deceiver of Fools.

Comments are closed.