Multiple Sources at Home and Abroad Shed Light On U.S.-Pakistan Relations

Drone issue puts strain on U.S.-Pakistan relationship

CNN's Pam Benson in Washington, Nasir Habib in Islamabad and Joe Sterling in Atlanta contributed information to this informative story about U.S.-Pakistan in recent years. Framed through a dispute over drone strikes on supposed terrorist targets, the three perspectives give a rounded view of a conflict abroad which has gained limited attention in the media.

Reporting from the ground in Islamabad provides the perspective of the military and government officials, in conjunction with quotes from each source respectively. They demonstrate how the Pakistani's view the conflict and their efforts against known or potential terrorist groups. In contrast, American sources demonstrate what American officials view as a frustratingly lax policy guiding Pakistani tactics in dealing with these terrorist groups. They justify their use of drones as a direct and tangible tactic.

Even so, the story delves into the underlying implications of the conflict and U.S. policies in Pakistan.Emphasis is placed on the threat to Pakistani sovereignty with regards to military operations within their country, as well as the blatant misunderstanding and miscommunication taking place between Pakistani officials, their public and U.S. military officials. This is especially important because the attacks have claimed innocent civilians, most recently 17 in an airstrike in North Waziristan. Civilian deaths are unacceptable and the U.S., in pursuit of what they deem to be an important military goal, seem to wave off the casualties as a war cost; a cost, while tragic, is necessary in pursuit of a larger goal.

The use of think-tank expert to sum up the impact of a potential withdraw placed the conflict into perspective, essentially surmising that even though a withdraw of U.S. military from the base in Pakistan would not necessarily alleviate the conflict as the U.S. assumed. Airstrikes could still be carried out from across the border in Afghanistan because the drones are operated wirelessly.

This accumulation of information from various sources demonstrates what fair coverage of a foreign affairs story should look like. Collaboration between journalists in different parts of the world can frame a conflict for public consumption without presenting a skewed or singular view of a foreign event. The article is informative and probative, demonstrating an investment in the topic and providing a reader with enough information to formulate their own conclusion on the U.S.-Pakistani conflict and relations.

Further, it's an in-depth view of U.S. policies and their impact on our relationships with other countries.

When the press spends time on stories like these, gaining multiple sources and world perspectives, they serve an extrasensory function for the President and Congress. By presenting objective and well-sourced stories about U.S. policies and conflicts abroad, the media either enhances or detracts from the legitimacy of these two branches through their reporting. Whether the outcome of that analysis is helpful or harmful to independent administration of duties on the part of the President or Congress varies, yet the people are well informed in order to make those judgments. A story doesn't have to focus on the President or Congress, nor does it have to be initiated by either side, in order to be relevant and noteworthy to the general public or to shed an informative light.

The public also gets the opportunity to critique and evaluate foreign policies in light of their implementation. This allows the public the opportunity to intelligently convey their support or opposition to particular actions, potentially influence substantive policy changes in those areas.

I'm not a scholar of foreign affairs, but it certainly informed me so that I could be knowledgeable in U.S.-Pakistan relations to some extent.