Personal tools
 
Views

Debate: Unilateral US military strike inside Pakistan

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 17:55, 24 January 2008 (edit)
Rhaq09 (Talk | contribs)
(Yes)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 17:56, 24 January 2008 (edit)
Rhaq09 (Talk | contribs)

Next diff →
Line 48: Line 48:
|WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| |WRITE SUBQUESTION BETWEEN "=== ===" width="45%" bgcolor="#FFFAE0" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"|
====Yes==== ====Yes====
 +The Paksitani people seek a legitimate government that reflects its will, the U.S. has been aiding Musharaff, so on the political front the people are calling for democracy which has been stifled, yet a unilateral U.S. action will add insult to injury as it will be deemed a gross violation of their sovereignty and just another blow to the democratic movement of peoples to represent themselves.
 +
The Pakistani government may allow for a unilateral strike if Musharaff feels incapable of solving the terrorist threat or if his country is in the danger of losing nuclear weapons to terrorist hands. The Pakistani government may allow for a unilateral strike if Musharaff feels incapable of solving the terrorist threat or if his country is in the danger of losing nuclear weapons to terrorist hands.

Revision as of 17:56, 24 January 2008

Would the United States be justified in unilaterally striking terrorist targets inside Pakistan?

Contents

Background and Context of Debate:

Counter-terrorism: Is Pakistan failing to do enough, making US intervention necessary?

Yes

  • Pakistan is not doing enough to combat terrorism - Pakistan has not done enough to combat terrorism in its territories. The Taliban is operating freely in the border area with Afghanistan and Al Qaeda continues to operate with significant protections from Pakistanis. The US has a national security interest in intervening to see that the job is done right there.
  • The US must unilaterally intervene since Pakistan is not doing enough to find Bin Laden - President Musharraf said in early 2008, "We are not particularly looking for [Bin Laden]". But, most analysts continue to suggest that Bin Laden is most likely residing in the mountains in Pakistani territory. It would appear that Musharref does not consider the capture of Bin Laden to be a priority. Conversely, the United States views it to be a first priority in the war on terror; bringing the 9/11 mastermind to justice. If Musharraf is not willing to prioritize the capture of Bin Laden, then the United States would be justified in taking unilateral action to bring this terrorist mastermind to justice.


No

The Pakistani people do not like the radicals. They hate the radicals, they hate their government, and they hate the U.S. which is supporting its governmental dictator. The Pakistani people are victims of the terrorists and only 0.2% of the entire Pakistani population actually sympathizes with the Taliban and that support is one garnered by subversion. By easing a transition into democracy through setting benchmarks for Musharaff, the U.S. has a chance to befriend the Pakistani people and in doing so create a lasting alliance to combat our mutual enemy-Al Qaeda.

Pakistan is a key ally in the war on terror. Pakistan has captured over 700 suspected militant terrorists since 2001.


Pakistan government: Would the Pakistani government tolerate a unilateral US strike?

Yes

The Paksitani people seek a legitimate government that reflects its will, the U.S. has been aiding Musharaff, so on the political front the people are calling for democracy which has been stifled, yet a unilateral U.S. action will add insult to injury as it will be deemed a gross violation of their sovereignty and just another blow to the democratic movement of peoples to represent themselves.

The Pakistani government may allow for a unilateral strike if Musharaff feels incapable of solving the terrorist threat or if his country is in the danger of losing nuclear weapons to terrorist hands.

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

Musharaff's political grasp of the government is fleeting. The majority of his country has a negative opinion of him. If he allows for the U.S. to walk over the sovereignty of Pakistan he will lose what little control he has and that will in turn cause unparalleled civil unrest. The U.S. must create harmony and accord with the cynical Pakistani population if it seeks a true ally in the war on terror.


  • A unilateral US attack inside Pakistan would be strongly opposed by Pakistan - Responding to US proposals in early 2008 to allow increased CIA activities in Pakistan, President Musharraf condemned the idea, saying that it would breach Pakistan sovereignty. Given the clarity of Musharraf's opposition to the idea, it is clear that any US insistence to implement such attacks would seriously strain relations between the two countries. It is even possible that Musharraf would militarily resist such unilateral operation, as he has claimed that he would do.


Pakistani people: Would the Pakistani people react negatively?

Yes

The Pakistani people will react virulently to a U.S. unilateral action as it will be perceived as an invasion. Due to this perception the action will encourage the Pakistani people to flock to the propaganda of the Taliban tribesman in Waziristan. We ought not to create a rallying cry for the radical mullahs to start another war.

Click on the pencil icon and research and write arguments here

No

  • The Pakistani public would view a US unilateral strike as an invasion - In any country, but particularly in the Muslim world today, any US incursion into that countries' territory for any reason - even ostensibly for the purpose of protecting a country - will be viewed by a substantial portion of the population as an invasion. This could serve only inflame public perceptions of the US and its intentions in Pakistan and in the Muslim world in general. For the United States, this would only harm its war on terror.


Is aiding Pakistan's military a viable alternative to a unilateral strike?

Yes

No

We currently provide 25% of Pakistan's entire military budget and have provided over 10 billion dollars in aid since 2001. This aid has failed to be appropriated to the correct places and according to the New York Times, frontier troops are fighting in sandals in the snow wearing World War I era pith helmets. The funds apparently go to for Pakistan's competition with India and not for fighting terrorism outlining the aid's ineffectiveness.


Write Subquestion here...

Yes

No

US leaders:

Yes

  • Barack Obama, US Presidential Candidate, said in a 2007 speech to the Woodrow Wilson International Centre for Scholars in Washington,[1] - "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President [Pervez] Musharraf won't act, we will,"


No

Pro/con resources

Yes


No



References:

=See also

=External links

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.