PESHAWAR: The demand for a formal apology and, a guarantee that an attack like the Nato air strike on Salala will not take place, at least intentionally, is fair enough considering the extent of loss suffered by the Pakistani side.
However, war dynamics do not allow anyone to issue a guarantee that casualties would be restricted to a specific area and the possibility of error remains predominant. Wasn’t everything supposed to be fair in love and war including getting beaten up by your own ‘ally’? But then, this significant war principle ought to be applied to all and sundry in war. That Pakistan gets a good smacking by the international media and officials in Washington every time it fails to thwart a militant attack upon the allied forces shows that the rules are different for every stakeholder and certainly don’t draw on the fairness paradigm. Threats to block military and civilian assistance to Pakistan translate to a miniscule amount considering the sum already spent by the Pakistan government.
So, what ought to be done when the Isaf commander refuses point blank to issue a ‘guarantee’ that an attack of such a magnitude will not happen again? Surely an unrealistic demand! How does he propose to develop a ‘balanced relationship between Pakistan and Nato’ in this backdrop? Upon what pretext can this relationship possibly develop? The next best and acceptable option would be to at least issue an apology for such a blatant act of barbaric violence, something that the Pakistan Army and the people of Pakistan are expecting.
Professor Kabil Khan
Published in The Express Tribune, December 14th, 2011.
