An issue affecting two or more countries - Article Example

While CIA provided information from the satellites about abandoned soviet trucks and weapon depots for the Taliban, ISI transferred the information to the men on ground (Coll p. 291) making it possible for the Taliban to conquer Afghanistan with astonishing speed uniting the country for the benefit of Pakistan, United States and Saudi Arabia (Reeve p. 191). After the September 11 attacks, US invaded the Taliban controlled Afghanistan asking all countries to cut off Taliban support. Pakistan ordered the Taliban embassy to be closed in 2001, allied with the US and supported the invasion by providing its forward military bases.

The hard war in Afghanistan followed up by a bloody insurgency caused US to lose unprecedented amount of war founds trying to control Afghan territory. Adding to the troubles were lack of understanding of terrain and psyche of the local people. The overwhelming force and technology, while allowed the US to have complete air superiority and highly reinforced military bases in the region, could still not help them achieve actual victory and control over the territory outside their bases. The insurgency caused alot of contention between USA and Pakistan as allies and the US still ended up blaming Pakistan for supporting Afghan Taliban after calling it their top non-NATO ally.

This paper compares and contrasts BBC reports and The Washington Post with respect to the US allegations and Pakistani denials. BBC reports Pakistan being accused of playing a double game by the US (Collyns). After interviewing a few prisoners, according to BBC, the US officials concluded that Pakistan was actively supporting Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan for a hidden agenda. This can be seen as a fallacy of composition created from a single point of view being viewed as the resulting aim of country’s net actions.

Pakistani ISI has been a powerful element both in the country and in its defense against the enemy powers when it came to proxy wars. The BBC uses the circumstantial prisoner witnesses to support the accusation by the US officials. While attributing repeated denials to Pakistan in two instances, the report suggests the US accusations overly weighed and further states them as a fact by presenting a BBC documentary to back up the accusations as facts. This strains the neutral point of view of the report which should be there in an international news article fully attributing views to their actual sources and not stating contentions opinions or conflicting truths as facts.

Furthermore, in addition to the US accusations, the BBC report itself alleges that Pakistan has helped and harboured Afghan Taliban in its territory stating it as a ‘plain to see’ fact (Collyns). The Washington Post, on the other hand, also attributes accusations to the US and denials to Pakistan but keeps it to that (Leiby). The report can be contrasted with that of BBC’s in a clear cut way. As a clear contrast to the BBC report, this report presents quotations of US accusations in text with conflicting quotations of Pakistani denials making it more balanced and neutral in its point of view.

The Washington Post report also uses the BBC report as a reference but puts it in a more neutral way without any presumptions. The BBC excerpts are quoted to tell the US side of the story while the Pakistani foreign minister is clearly attributed to have categorically put