Pakistan Invades America — “Without Permission”

The U.S. State Department lodged a sharp protest over ongoing Pakistani missile strikes and ground raids today, saying the Islamic Republic was violating American sovereignty.

“We will try to convince Pakistan…to respect [the] sovereignty of the United States — and God willing, we will convince,” State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.1

The controversy stems from the Pakistan Army’s recent decision, leaked in a prominent Pakistani newspaper, to mount intensifying air attacks and new ground assaults against extremists hiding in American safe havens across the ocean.

American papers reported that under the new policy, the Pakistani military will no longer seek America’s permission in killing Americans, but will inform American diplomats about these killings as a friendly gesture between close allies.2

Pakistan Army General Ashfaq Kayani told reporters outside Islamabad late last night that the new strategy was justified. “We are working to prevent more attacks on the Pakistani people,” he said.3

The general’s stance signified strong Pakistani dissatisfaction with America’s reluctance to crack down on religious fundamentalists and neoconservatives, who, experts note, have deep ties to American intelligence services and military leaders. The largely unchecked extremists, experts observe, have used America to bolster the agenda of their ideological counterparts across the ocean in Israel, and to strike directly against Pakistan and other parts of the Muslim world.

“We have to strike them over there so that they cannot order strikes against us here at home,” General Kayani said, referring to American firepower that has terrorized hundreds of thousands of civilians on either side of the Pak-Afghan border and in the Middle East.

As Kayani spoke, new precision attacks and commando raids were being conducted against ranches in Texas, small towns in Alaska, the offices of AIPAC and energy-related lobbying firms in Washington, D.C. Commandos were also dispatched to America’s unruly federally-administered Bible Belt, where resentment of government authority runs high.

Several high-value targets were killed in the attacks. Local media outlets claimed 50 civilians were also killed, but these assertions could not be independently verified. Pakistani officials said they would send in their own team to investigate the claims, time permitting.

Seeking to assuage domestic concerns, American officials downplayed the actions of their staunch ally. “The nation should not be upset by the statement of Pakistani General Kayani,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino said in an official statement.4 “Pakistan respect U.S. sovereignty and looks at us as partners,” she added.5

Regimes allied to Pakistan, including those in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Palestine, expressed support for the new Pakistani strategy, citing the need to “remove and destroy” strongholds where key militants have masterminded attacks against their countries.6

Informed of this, Ambassador Patterson appeared unfazed, saying, “Pakistan respects American sovereignty.” She insisted that Pakistani officials provided her with assurances that “no such order had been given” for new rules of engagement.7 Finally, the ambassador explained, America had already carried out its own recent military offensive that left hundreds of rural Americans dead, relieving the need for further Pakistani intervention.

But in Islamabad, Pakistani corps commanders said their new strategy would see continued implementation in the coming weeks. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one commander said that as far as Pakistan was concerned, “most things have been settled in terms of how we’re going to proceed.”8

  1. Quote actually taken from Pakistani PM Yousaf Gilani. Reuters, Sept. 12, 2008. []
  2. It was actually the Pakistan daily, Dawn, which reported on the U.S. policy shift as follows: “Under this new policy, the US military will notify Pakistan’s government when it conducts raids, but will not seek its permission.” Sept. 12, 2008. Except for note 2, all the quoted statements are real quotes; only the roles have been switched. []
  3. Quote actually taken from US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. Dawn (Pakistan Daily), Sept. 12, 2008. []
  4. Quote actually taken from PM Gilani. (Source: note 3) []
  5. Quote actually taken from Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani. (Source: note 3)/footnote>

    U.S. officials also insisted no secret deal had been reached beforehand allowing Pakistanis to strike inside American territory. “Media reports about authorization for Pakistani raids into the U.S. are incorrect,” the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne Patterson, told Fox News last night. She added that the South Asian country had “no aggressive designs or postures” toward America.Quotes actually taken from Ambassador Haqqani. (Source: note 3) []

  6. Quote actually taken from U.S. ally and Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2008. []
  7. Quotes actually taken from Ambassador Haqqani. (Source: note 7) []
  8. Quote actually taken from anonymous U.S. official. (Source: note 7) []
M. Junaid Levesque-Alam blogs about America and Islam at Crossing the Crescent and writes about American Muslim identity for WireTap magazine. Co-founder of Left Hook, a youth journal that ran from Nov. 2003 to March 2006, he works as a communications coordinator for an anti-domestic violence agency in the NYC area. He can be reached at: junaidalam1 AT Read other articles by M. Junaid, or visit M. Junaid's website.

5 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Poilu said on September 18th, 2008 at 9:06am #

    Another excellent, biting parody of this Bizarro-Regime we call an “administration”. Kudos to M. Junaid for a remarkable feat of “reality inversion” that inescapably hammers home its point.

  2. Erroll said on September 18th, 2008 at 10:19am #

    On the [alleged] web site Crooks and Liars, a clip was played featuring the liberal radio and now television host Rachel Maddow being aghast that Pakistani soldiers dared to fire upon American soldiers. It apparently never crossed Maddow’s mind that the Pakistanis have every right to defend their homeland from the U.S. military. One wonders what the chances are that a similar satire like this excellent article would appear on a program like The Daily Show. I suspect slim to none, as even faux liberals like Jon Stewart, like his colleague Rachel Maddow, know better than to accuse the United States too blatantly of being militaristic.

  3. Gliscameria said on September 18th, 2008 at 4:32pm #

    That was completely believable.
    Let’s hope a google bot picks it up and spreads it like real news. =) It was an eye opener for sure.

    Wars are the power of the rich. Terrorism is the power of the poor.

  4. Alexandria said on September 18th, 2008 at 9:02pm #

    Wow! A Pakistani version of the the US. pre-emptive strike. Go Pakistan! Free the world of terrorists. After all America is killing your people without apology claiming you harbor terrorists. If the US wants it’s allies to stop terrorism, the first place to check is the place that started pointing fingers first.
    A great analogy: A cheating man accuses his faithful wife of cheating on him to justify cheating on her even more all the while realising he was the sourse of the problem.
    America is the problem. They gave money, weapons and backed up these terrorist groups for decades hopping to topple the Soviet Union, Then when the Soviet Union did topple, the terrorists felt they did not get enough recognition, so they made people understand how important they realy are by bringing fear and war to millions in every country. The US created the terreoists and the wife found out about the affair, now the US is trying to cover their tracks, but the bed is tainted by betrayl and infidelity. The US made it’s bed, now it is time to lay in it.

  5. fastfeat said on September 27th, 2008 at 8:10am #


    As a US citizen, I am ashamed of so many things done in the name of my country. I am equally ashamed of citizens who cannot put themselves in the shoes of others to try to see things from the perspectives of those who may be affected by policy decisions made in “their name.”

    Rarely does the flag offer adequate protection for the feet…