This is in reference to the column “Tragedy in Boston and disparity in death” by Aijaz Zaka Syed. In the article, the writer argues that the Americans are practicing double standards. They are creating a huge hue and cry when the Boston bombers struck, while they completely ignore the plight of the innocent victims killed in drone strikes.
The American president is duty bound to protect American citizens, no matter which nationality or religion the attackers belong to.
If the hostile elements are located within the territories of the US, the president orders security forces to apprehend them. Only as a last resort would they need to be eliminated.
On the other hand, if these people are located within the territories of any other country, such countries would be co-opted in apprehending them. Almost all countries would gladly assist in the task and would feel ashamed that such elements are hiding in their midst.
What would happen if a particular country refuses to take action under one pretext or the other?
Should the US president just close his eyes and wait for attacks to happen?
The US is not like India. For decades India has been appealing to the Pakistanis to prevent terrorists from using its territories to attack India, but it has fallen on deaf ears. The US knows that the Pakistanis would not take any action against such elements, so, they would need to do so themselves.
There has been a huge hullabaloo over the use of drones. How else would the US tackle these people? Can it station a large military unit and physically search for them? Will Pakistan give the permission?
In militancy and terrorist-hit regions, the military strategy is to rely on foot soldiers to physically search for individuals and neutralize them individually.
Drones, military jets, artillery and helicopter gun ships are called blunt weapons because they cannot be aimed with precision. If they are used against opponents, they result in too much collateral damage, which causes an outrage among human rights advocates. This is the reason why countries hesitate using them against their opponents.
But why are all the pundits screaming from the rooftops that innocent civilians are being killed by drone attacks? And what about the Pakistan military? They are fighting one faction of the Taleban inside Pakistan.
Despite the fact that this war is being fought inside Pakistan, the Pakistan Army and Pakistan Air Force are using blunt weapons like artillery, military jets and helicopter gun ships against the Taleban.
Obviously they would result in large-scale collateral casualties, i.e. civilians. After all, what is a drone? It is just a military aircraft without a pilot.
Contrast this with the performance of the Indian military. India has been facing insurgency and terrorists since independence in various parts of the country. In spite of this, India has not used blunt weapons to eliminate them.
People like Aijaz would do well to first campaign against the Pakistan military, which is causing heavy civilian casualties before complaining against drone strikes. — Suresh R. P., By e-mail
Disparity in death
