Why Obama's Statement Was Irresponsible?
The emphasis of my last post is the rhetoric used by Obama. It is my interpretation of his statement. Interestingly, a day after this post, the US government requested permission to use force against terrorists in Pakistan or its borders and Musharraf strongly rejected this request. . They have clarified that they will not allow other countries, even their allies, to launch an attack on their land. Apparently even Pakistan’s government heard and disagreed with Obama’s statement, calling it irresponsible... The first bullet that gets shot in Pakistan by Americans will result in a huge mess. Anyone who has basic knowledge of the Eastern provinces in Pakistan, understands how vulnerable the central government is, especially considering they only have control over main roads.
The concept of ’war on terror’ should fought using various methods, not just using military force. All the US efforts since the notorious 9/11 attack, terrorism has intensified enormously: The Taliban are gaining power, Iraq is on the edge of a micro-tribal civil war, Palestine is experiencing new round of instability, and Hezbollah is enjoying their victory from their last struggle with Israel. Throw in the reorganization of Al-Qaeda, the rise of fundamentalism in Europe, and so on. Why? Because fighting against terrorism is not just about chasing and killing a few ‘token’ terrorists, showing off their dead bodies, and then claiming a victory in this war. Terrorism, when representing an ideology, mixed with frustration, hopelessness and hatred, is far more complicated to deal with than what Obama simplified in his speech Obviously what Obama says doesn’t imply using diplomacy or other peaceful methods.