In a development that has shocked precisely no one who has ever glanced at a map of South Asia, the United Nations has confirmed that Pakistani airstrikes have killed 28 Afghan civilians. The strikes, which were apparently meant to target 'militant hideouts', instead managed to hit a rather significant number of soft targets: women, children, and the general concept of 'collateral damage'. The British government, in a display of diplomatic vigour that usually reserves itself for aggressive tea pricing, has called for restraint.
Restraint, of course, being the polite English cousin of 'we'll write a strongly worded letter while making no meaningful impact'. The UN, meanwhile, has 'expressed concern', which is effectively the international community's version of 'thoughts and prayers'. One can only imagine the scene at the UN briefing: a spokesperson, after consulting with a Ouija board and a damp squib, read out a statement urging 'all parties to de-escalate'.
Because clearly, the problem here is a lack of escalation. This is not war. This is a grim pantomime where Pakistani generals play cowboys, Afghan villages play targets, and the UN plays the world's most useless referee.
The British call for restraint is a masterclass in futility: a noise made to sound important, like a champagne cork popping in a hurricane. And what of the 28? They will be reduced to a statistic, a footnote in a UN report that will gather dust in a Geneva basement while drones hum overhead.
The only thing truly surgical about this strike is the precision with which it ignored the actual problem: a conflict that neither side wants to end, because ending it would mean admitting they started it. So here we are, watching the same tired script, the same dead bodies, the same appeals to a conscience that died in the last century. The only question left: who will be first to offer 'full cooperation' with an investigation that will conclude nothing, save that some people are very good at killing other people without consequence?
