Bombing Pakistan Would Not Be a Good Idea, Whatever the Weekly Standard Says


Defiantly refusing to draw the obvious conclusion from yesterday’s terrorist plot revelations–namely, that rigorous, decidated, internationally cooperative police work is our best weapon in fighting terror; or at least it seems to have yielded better results than, say, invading, occupying, and getting stuck indefinitely in Muslim countries–the Weekly Standard floats the notion of military strikes…on Pakistan.

Pakistan’s willingness to fight terrorism has been uneven. While President Musharraf’s regime has provided some key al Qaeda leaders and actionable intelligence in the past, it has also arguably not done enough to crack down on al Qaeda’s rear bases on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border (and on other terrorists operating on its soil). But if the early reporting is right, Pakistan has now provided crucial cooperation in stopping the largest planned attack since 9/11.

It will be interesting to follow the details of the plotters’ ties to Pakistan. Who did they meet with? Why hadn’t Pakistan arrested those terrorists previously? Will the U.S. and U.K. pressure Pakistan to arrest those terrorists now, if they have not yet? Or, will the U.S. and U.K. attempt more aggressive measures, as they did earlier this year when America bombed a home thought to have housed al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri?

Pakistan has now been the launching pad for one major attack and one planned attack on British soil. And while the Pakistanis have proven increasingly willing to cooperate with American and British counterterrorism officials, it is clear that a substantive al Qaeda network still operates from there.

Pakistan is not our friend, granted. And Musharraf is playing–perforce–a double game. But if you want to make it even harder for him to pitch in in the war on terror, sure, bomb his country. Way to shore a guy up! And aside from the specifics of Pakistan, it’s not my impression that the military-first approach has worked out all that well for us so far…

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.