The war on terrorism pros and cons

The very week that the Christmas Day bomber conducted his abortive attack, U. One of the most senior Taliban commanders was recently confirmed as killed in a drone attack last fall. According to Vice President Biden, the Administration is racking up the kills.

The war on terrorism pros and cons

The agreement between Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and General Pervez Musharraf on setting up a joint working group on terrorism has come in for widespread criticism.

More than that, the prime minister's reference to Pakistan being a victim of terrorism has angered many. There are also allegations that the prime minister's change of attitude and certification of Pakistan as a victim of terrorism was due to US pressure.

On the other side, there are several arguments in favour of the working group. For one, General Musharraf has now accepted that terrorism is generated out of Pakistan. While he maintains that it is not State-sponsored he accepts that there are 'freelance' terrorists. Second, terrorism is being accepted as a core subject to be discussed in a dedicated mechanism between the two countries.

Third, acceptance of freelance terrorists and groups within Pakistan would call for discussion of various groups in Pakistan, their activities and action taken against them.

Fifth, by terming Pakistan a victim of terrorism and separating the linkage between the Pakistani State and terrorist groups Pakistan is made more accountable in regard to controlling terrorist activity in its territory.

Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in eating and the effectiveness of this mechanism will depend upon Pakistani bonafides. Pakistan has a record of a quarter of a century of outsmarting the US and the CIA on both nuclear proliferation and terrorism.

In fact, they continue to support the terrorist Al Qaeda and Taliban even as they manage to get certificates of cooperation in the war on terror from the US president. They could not have got their money from the drug trade, could not have got their arms and could not have trained their men without Pakistani help.

Yet Pakistan maintains its innocence and is to receive F aircraft as a reward for its cooperation in the war on terror. Even as the US air force was pounding Torah Borah mountains in Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden and his senior associates slipped into Pakistani territory and are safely esconced there ever since.

He implies that the US has not been competent enough to capture bin Laden in territory in which it operates. Having allowed the Taliban to regroup and surge in southern and eastern Afghanistan, he has concluded a ceasefire agreement in Waziristan which will make it a safe haven for the Taliban.

He claims to have the word of honour of tribal elders that the area would be free of Taliban activity. The history of Afghanistan and switching and reswitching of loyalties of tribal chieftains in that country would bear witness to the fact that such promises are of very little value.

A recently published book by BBC journalist Gordon Correra, Shopping for the Bomb reveals that the CIA and Western intelligence agencies were aware of Dr Khan's activities from onwards, and allowed him to carry on with his proliferation in the expectation that he would lead to the proliferating nations.

Despite this, General Musharraf gets away with his claim that A Q Khan operated on his own and the Pakistani government and the army were totally unaware of his proliferation activities.

At the same time Pakistan is acclaimed to be in the forefront of the fight against terrorism. President Clinton now reveals that the plan to train Pakistani commandos to capture bin Laden was vetoed by General Musharraf as the army chief.

Money transfer to the lead attacker Mohammed Atta was made by Omar Sheikh, the Pakistani terrorist exchanged in Kandahar hijack. The shoe bomber Richard Reid started his journey from Pakistan. Many of the terrorists who plotted the London transport system bombing were trained in Pakistan.

The main players in the latest plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic had all visited Pakistan and were trained in terrorist training camps there. In spite of all this the US is full of appreciation of Pakistan's role.

If Pakistan has rendered services to the US in the war on terrorism that would not be kept a secret. Yet Pakistan has been able to get away with its massive terrorist activity against the US.

The only logical conclusion possible in these circumstances is that the US is under Pakistani nuclear blackmail. Pakistan has been able to convince the US that any pressure on it would lead to weakening of General Musharraf and his possible replacement by a jhadi general, and consequent risks of nuclear weapons and material falling into the hands of jihadis.

Presumably, this blackmail has been effective and the US is prepared to put up with all Pakistani transgressions. At the same time Pakistan feels that if terrorism is brought to an end, the US will lose all interest in Pakistan.

Therefore terrorism has to be used an instrumentality to milk the US.A democracy cannot fight terrorists by using their methods. A democracy fights terrorism exactly because it is evil.

You do not fight evil by being evil. Yet a democracy should fight the terrorists successfully — there is no option of losing, only winning.

Apr 27,  · Best Answer: Pros & Cons: 1. It's not about killing and torturing people, it's about capturing perpetrators and bringing them to justice. Resolved. Terrorism or an act of violence/threat against the normal human behavior or belief. A man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter so the disadvantages completely depend on, what side you're looking at it from. Still taking a normal view and c.

The FBI is applying its efforts towards a greater understanding of the threat posed by each of these countries as they pertain to information that would further terrorism, espionage, proliferation.

Since the World Trade Center attacks of Sep. 11, and the subsequent "War on Terror," the United States has used unmanned aerial vehicles (aka drones) to kill suspected terrorists in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and other countries.

The war on terrorism pros and cons debuts its 50th issue website, http. Aug 17,  · Going back to the pros and cons of war, it seems from this discussion that for larger or stronger countries, conflict provides more pros and fewer cons which would seem to make wars more likely. As we see from the United States examples, geography and the location of enemies is a problem that can be overcome.

The pros and cons of wars - xkcd