Sunday, February 3, 2008
US Kills al-Qaeda Commander
Last week, a UAV killed a top al-Qaeda commander in Pakistan. He is apparently responsible for much of the violence in Afghanistan. The fact that he was killed in Pakistan is very interesting, because the president of Pakistan has repeatedly said that he will not allow the US to strike within his country. I think this poses an interesting question. To what degree can a country violate the sovereignty of another government in the name of fighting terrorism. I think it's interesting to imagine what it would be like if someone did that to America. Like if Spain killed a Basque leader somewhere in America. Obviously, the government would be upset. Of course, I whole-heartedly approve of killing terrorists. But shouldn't we also be careful to not step on the toes of friendly governments? I'm wondering what everyone else thinks about this. Do you think it's okay to disregard a government's sovereignty in the name of the global war on terror?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I feel that if a target is legitimate, that a country should work in conjuction with the country in which the target resides to capture or kill him. Going in without clearance from the host country is against international law, and aids in blemishing the name of the US in the eyes of other states who feel that their on soveriegnity could be overlooked in the name of fighting terrorism. The US will not like it if it is done to them.
Well, there's sovereignty and then there's autonomy. It's true that we (the USA) would the pretty angry if another nation violated our territory to hunt an enemy, but the fact that really matters is that we have the military power to translate our wrath into considerable pain for the offending state. Likewise, our unmatched power projection capabilities let us violate the sovereignty of other states without the fear of serious retaliation (i.e. Afghanistan 2002). It's not true that the USA should wantonly flaunt international law; indeed we should work to uphold it, but when our security is at stake and we have a clear target, we shouldn't worry about flexing our muscle. (There's that realist side of me coming out again). This is particularly true in western Pakistan, where the government isn't really exercising any sovereign authority anyways. The obvious disclaimer is that these arguments can be taken too far very easily, which I recognize, but in this specific instance I think we did the right thing.
I think that if a state refuses to make a legitimate effort to find and stop a terrorist (or terrorism in general), the US has the right to go after those terrorists who pose a threat the security of the United States. The US should not suffer because other countries aren't willing to crack-down on terrorism. I do believe the US should try to work with the country in which the terrorist resides, but if necessary, I think the US should be able to take out targets who are a threat. Obviously the US shouldn't go around invading whichever country it wants to, but the US has a right to defend itself.
Post a Comment