The so-called Bush “doctrine” (which is simply the morality of a schoolyard applied to the international scene) is very simple. The United States reserves the right to attack anyone, anywhere, at any time, in defiance of any international law, if it feels such an attack serves its own strategic interests.

The US is a rogue state by any definition. It is not the equivalent of Hitler’s Germany or Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Bush is not a towering figure of evil. It’s simply a frightened, spoiled, giant, rich kid with way too many guns.

There is no short-term reason why a giant, spoiled, armed rich kid needs to listen to anyone else or follow anyone else’s rules. In the long term, I personally believe it’s to the US’s advantage to promote an international rule of law, but that’s not a view that Mr. Bush and I share.

Well folks, that answers 1/2 the question - what about the “what should be done about it” side of things?

Are we talking appeasement? Are we talking wait until a new government takes power and hope things change? What if they don’t? Should the international community take any sort of action over and above a bunch of pointless diplomatic protests that the Bush administration doesn’t seem to care much about?

>>”Should the international community take any sort of action over and above a bunch of pointless diplomatic protests that the Bush administration doesn’t seem to care much about? ”

There should be a formal condemnation of the U.S. by the UN General Assembly. I can’t see any other practical course of action beyond that.

In my view, a best case scenario involves the Bush administration coming to the realization that they seriously crossed the line here, and that no repetition of this incident can be allowed to occur.

Unfortunately, there’s a strong likelihood that this isn’t going to be the case. When I see John McCain defending the attack, that makes me very pessimistic.

For al Qaeda, Waziristan has become a downsized version of the former safe haven that was Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. The U.S. is understandably frustrated that this new al Qaeda stronghold exists within the borders of a country that claims to be an ally in the WoT. The most obvious solution would be for Musharraf to commit the Pakistani armed forces in a determined campaign to root out al Qaeda from the region. Failing that, he could give government approval, on a case by case basis, allowing the American military limited targeted strikes.

The problem is, Musharraf isn’t in a position to do either, without provoking serious domestic wrath. Musharraf is only too aware of the fact that is very survival is at stake, not simply his political survival.

I would say that heavy sanctions be placed on the US.

Of course this wont happen, but thats only because countries are too chickenshit to do it.

Imagine, if even 5 European countries sanctioned the US. Or just Canada, their economy would crash in no time.

Lets do it. Just for fun.

>>”If there was a standing agreement, or the Pakistani government was informed and either could not or would not act, then the US had the right.”

lrC, it isn’t sufficient that the U.S. ” inform ” the Pakistani government of an impending attack. They have to ask for, and receive, permission before any strike is carried out. I think that’s what you were getting at in your first paragraph, but your second paragraph seems to contradict that position.

For what its worth, you may be right concerning your other point. The U.S. has claimed that Pakistani government officials were informed of the air strike before it occurred. I just don’t see that this changes much, even if it is accurate.

I think a formal scolding is in order.

>lrC, it isn’t sufficient that the U.S. ” inform ” the Pakistani government of an impending attack.

I did not intend to imply the Pakistani government should be informed of an impending attack. What the Pakistani government would have to have been informed of was the presence of enemy combatants on Pakistani soil.

A nation has the right to pursue hostile combatants onto neutral soil if the neutral party will not or can not detain and disarm them.

If the US simply went in and notified the Pakistani government shortly beforehand of what was an impending fait accompli, that would be wrong.

There is one other mitigating possibility: if Pakistan at some point in the past (ie. the duration of the current conflict) had failed to meet its obligations as a sovereign nation with regard to belligerent parties on its soil, the US would be excused. It would not matter whether the Pakistanis were merely incompetent (could not) or complicit (would not).

>>”There is one other mitigating possibility: if Pakistan at some point in the past (ie. the duration of the current conflict) had failed to meet its obligations as a sovereign nation with regard to belligerent parties on its soil, the US would be excused. It would not matter whether the Pakistanis were merely incompetent (could not) or complicit (would not).”

There might be some merit to that argument, lrC, if Pakistan was a co-belligerent, in league with al Qaeda. That isn’t the case. I think there’s a difference between aiding and abetting, and being unable or unwilling to act. In my view, Musharraf is more ” unable, ” to act than he he is “unwilling.”

throbbin, Canada placing sanctions on the US would hurt us more than them as they make up the bulk of our foreign trade. This is a situation where, IF we had even a quarter-decent relationship with them, PMPM could pick up the phone & say “WTF was that” and try to apply some moral pressure. Alas, that is not even vaguely an option.

At this point, about all that can happen is outright indignation from the world (not the UN, the OFF scandal among other things has seriously depleted their weight IMHO…but then again, I’m biased) and lots of outrage.

We DO need more info, though, as the comments above point out, before jumping on any one bandwagon.

“Mike, sovereign neutrals actually do have obligations they have to meet under international law; if they fail to meet those obligations, they lose some of their sovereignty.”

This sort of takes “blame the victim” to a whole new level, doesn’t it?

To answer the question:
If Pakistan had an agreement with the US then yes, if no then they shouldnt, but we dont live in a world that will do anything about it so the question is a mute point.

To rant:
We all know whats going on, the US is using their “leverage” with the IMF and their extensive foreign aid budget to nudge countries in a direction that they want (much like what they are doing with Pakistan). So if you are a country known to harbor terrorists or dont do anything to prevent it (ie Phillipines) then your foreign aid budget will be decreased and anothers increased. Every country does it, its just that the US plays with 100’s of Billions of dollars where Canada/France/Germany play with considerably less and as such they dont have as much leverage.

If a country is found to be harboring people that have attacked a sovereign country then I have no problem with it (ie if a political leader was assasinated in Canada and then fled to an unfriendly country like Syria or Lebanon - and they wouldnt play ball to return him you are damn right I would want the JTF or Airborne or whatever Military force we have that can kick a$$ to go in). Pakistan is on very murky waters where on one hand the official government glad-hands with the US while the “tribal” leaders glad-hand with those will to pay the most (in this case the terrorists).

MYK in Alberta.

Under international law, India’s obligation to stop attempting to neutralize the Pakistani army would kick in when a ceasefire or surrender were negotiated. There are no knock-down counts in war.

lrC, I’d also like to point out that al Qaeda and its affiliated franchises constitute an amorphous enemy, rather than a state-configured enemy. Unless I have it wrong, international law, as it relates to war, is overwhelmingly confined to hostilities between states.

>>”It would help if you retained a shred of an objective mind here and didn’t try to characterize what happened as a randomly-decided killing of non-combatants. As it stands, the Pakistani government has confirmed that one Abu Khabab al-Masri was present and killed. al-Masri is described as a bomb-maker and al-Qaeda’s go-to guy for WMD initiatives.”

lrC, it would help if you had a shred of a clue about where I stand on the WoT. I’m at a loss to explain why you apparently don’t. You comment here enough, so you should know that my views are close to your own. That makes your accusation of a lack of objectivity on my part quite ridiculous.

I’m aware that al Qaeda leadership targets were eliminated in the air strike. I have not characterized the strike as ” a randomly-decided killing of non-combatants.” It was anything but random, but it did kill non-combatants from an allied nation, and unless proof to the contrary arises, the attack was carried out without the permission of, and against the wishes of, the government of that allied nation. How deep do you have to twist yourself into the ground on this, lrC, before the laws of physics kick in and put a stop to your spin?

>>”If you read international law documents, you will find references to “belligerents” and “parties to a conflict”. In fact, the evolution of international law of armed conflict in recent decades (for example, the 1977 Additional Protocols I and II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions) has been to extend recognition and protections to non-state actors, provided they comply with some basic rules governing combatants in war.”

What do these protocols say about attacking ” belligerents” and ” parties to a conflict” in a non-belligerent neighbouring nation? The Geneva Convention governs the conduct of war. The UN Charter determines the legality of the conflict itself. Is there anything in the UN Charter that justifies the U.S. strike on the Pakistani village?