<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Cato @ Liberty &#187; unmanned aeriel drones</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/tag/unmanned-aeriel-drones/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org</link>
	<description>Cato Institute Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 21:19:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<cloud domain='www.cato-at-liberty.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />
		<item>
		<title>The Hazards of Expanding the War into Pakistan</title>
		<link>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-in-pakistan/</link>
		<comments>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-in-pakistan/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:48:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Malou Innocent</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Foreign Policy and National Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Balochi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Balochistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamabad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[military targets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NATO]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pashtun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[unmanned aeriel drones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[war]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=6375</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Malou Innocent</p>This morning, The New York Times reported that the Obama administration may expand the war in Afghanistan deeper into Pakistan in order to target Taliban safe havens in Balochistan. The war would have a very different character if the Pashtun and Balochi areas of western Pakistan did not act as de facto sanctuaries for the [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-in-pakistan/">The Hazards of Expanding the War into Pakistan</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Malou Innocent</p><p>This morning, <em>The New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/world/asia/18terror.html?_r=2&amp;partner=rss&amp;emc=rss">reported</a> that the Obama administration may expand the war in Afghanistan deeper into Pakistan in order to target <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/19/pakistan.alqaida">Taliban safe havens in Balochistan</a>.</p>
<p>The war would have a very different character if the Pashtun and Balochi areas of western Pakistan did not act as de facto sanctuaries for the leadership of al Qaeda and the Taliban. As I&#8217;ve written <a href="http://www.cato.org/pubs/articles/Should_the_United_States_Pursue_Militants_Inside_Pakistan.pdf#page=21">before</a>, NATO&#8217;s stalemate will continue so long as Pakistan is unable &#8212; or unwilling &#8212; to uproot militant sanctuaries.</p>
<p>But I&#8217;ve also <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/malou-innocent/what-obama-should-do-in-p_b_160515.html">argued</a> about the hazards of the United States using unmanned aerial drones to strike targets within Pakistan. These aerial strikes lead to collateral damage that undermines the authority of sitting Pakistani leaders, fuels violent religious extremism in a nuclear-armed Muslim-majority country and exacerbates anti-American sentiment even among the more moderate elements of the country.</p>
<p>U.S. policy in this region is beyond complicated. It&#8217;s a complete mess. Right now, more than three-quarters of provisions for U.S. and NATO troops must travel through Pakistan&#8217;s worsening security conditions to make it into land-locked Afghanistan. But after previous U.S. aerial drone strikes within Pakistan, leaders in Islamabad have more than once closed their main supply route.</p>
<p>As I argue in a forthcoming Cato policy analysis,</p>
<blockquote><p>Our dependence on [Pakistan] constrains the usefulness of their support&#8230; To make matters worse, Washington&#8217;s diminished leverage over Pakistan means that elements of its military and intelligence service will continue to take advantage of America&#8217;s dependence by failing to tackle terrorism more vigorously.</p></blockquote>
<p>Other routes for the Afghanistan mission are currently being considered, but the leaders of these countries bring their own problems, as other scholars have written both <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123673056934389523.html">here</a> and <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/3430796/nato-has-serious-supply-problems-in-afghanistan.thtml">here</a>.</p>
<p>For the foreseeable future, the war in Afghanistan will remain hostage to events inside Pakistan. And sadly, Washington&#8217;s attempts to stabilize Afghanistan will likely continue to destabilize Pakistan.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-in-pakistan/">The Hazards of Expanding the War into Pakistan</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/war-in-pakistan/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic page generated in 0.117 seconds. -->
<!-- Cached page generated by WP-Super-Cache on 2012-02-10 22:29:35 -->
<!-- Compression = gzip -->
