Submit your comments on this article |
India-Pakistan |
North Waziristan attacks |
2014-05-24 |
[DAWN] HIDEOUTS attacked, turbans killed, damage inflicted -- at least that is the official military version of events in North ![]() ...back at the wrecked scow, Agent 49 felt gingerly for his head. It was still there. He had been hoping differently... the human 'collateral damage' does come into view quickly enough with civilian casualties appearing in local clinics or before the cameras. More problematically, what do these retaliations achieve? As has happened over the past couple of days in North Waziristan, even when the military conducts search-and-clear operations, an opportunity is given beforehand for the local population to leave. Surely, most of the turbans melt away in the crowd or through other routes. Thereafter, the army tends to blow up homes and buildings associated with turbans -- leaving physical scars when the population does return. And what of the turbans themselves, the bulk of whom leave for other areas? That simply means another retaliation somewhere else is effectively already on the table. If the military's latest ad hocism in Fata is partly because of the government's insistence on dialogue being the preferred path, what is happening on the talks front? Surely, this dual policy of allowing the military to retaliate when directly attacked while the civilians try to pursue dialogue with the outlawed TTP is good for neither the military option nor the dialogue one. But can the army and civilians arrive at a more coherent policy? |
Posted by:Fred |
#1 If the military's latest ad hocism in Fata is partly because of the government's insistence on dialogue being the preferred path, what is happening on the talks front? Replace "turbans" with "mafia" and I think you have your answer. The mistake is treating these thugs like they are soldiers. |
Posted by: Squinty 2014-05-24 11:13 |