Email This to a Friend
Neither McCain Nor Obama Understands Pakistan
It's frightening to think that our next president will have a shallow grasp of this powder-keg country.
If the past three debates have shown us anything, it’s that there’s a disturbingly shallow grasp of that powder keg known as Pakistan.
The question posed by audience member Katie Hamm at Tuesday’s townhall debate seemed simple enough: “Should the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue al-Qaeda terrorists who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?” It was loaded with anti-war nuance, but interestingly enough was clearly aimed at the Democrat, Barack Obama, instead of the Republican. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will,” Obama said on the stump more than a year ago, igniting a campaign season worth of sound-bite fodder.
And what a year it’s been: the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, power struggle between the victorious opposition, no more Pervez in Pakistan, the election of Benazir’s widower (who seems to enjoy spending more time macking on Sarah Palin than fighting terrorism) as president, and the suicide bombing of the Marriott in Islamabad just hours after Asif Ali Zardari made his first speech as president to the parliament on Sept. 20.
But back to Barack’s debate answer:
Katie, it’s a terrific question and we have a difficult situation in Pakistan. I believe that part of the reason we have a difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down bin Laden and crushing al-Qaeda.
Did someone originally ask about sovereignty? That’s called question avoidance. Does he still think that simply greater troop levels can conquer the rugged Khyber Pass, find every nook and cranny hideaway in the Hindu Kush, and battle every tribal militia and teed-off local called into action because they feel that the Crusaders Part Deux have arrived? If he’s so opposed to the war in Iraq, and is drawing the anti-war vote, does he actually think that Afghanistan is any less of a quagmire?
But I do believe that we have to change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and militants.
What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in Pakistan, expand our nonmilitary aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Bridget Johnson is the online opinion editor, an opinion writer, and a blogger at the Rocky Mountain News.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
26 Comments
1. David:Quote: “It’s frightening to think that our next president will have a shallow grasp of this powder-keg country.”
Oct 10, 2008 - 9:53 am 2. tim maguire:Our current president already does.
Part of the problem is that both candidates are loath to admit that with Pakistan, there are no good or easy answers. It is a weak government with a nuclear bomb and lots of islamic radicals and sympathizers. I also think Obama hasn’t got the slightest clue what’s going on in that part of the world and that’s why his answers seem so dated.
Oct 10, 2008 - 10:04 am 3. vivo:Advice for Obama: forget Bin Laden, he’s dead.
Advice for McCain: you know Bin Laden is dead, that’s why you don’t push the issue. Help get the US from Iraq now, they know how to run their messy country. Don’t waste our money.
Oct 10, 2008 - 12:01 pm 4. dan:The FATA and NWFP of Pakistan have a population of approximately 30 million Pashtun and a political consciousness that only grudgingly acknowledges the political boundary between Pakistan and Afghanistan. In fact I just heard a report on this on NPR 2 hours ago about 20,000 refugees fleeing Pakistan into Afghanistan. “Is this because the border is drawn by the West?” asked the NPR correpsondent. “Yes, yes – absolutely,” replied the Pashtuni guy.
This is exactly the problem with the liberal critique of Pakistan/Afghanistan, which makes it both blind to reality and blind to what is actually the major shortcoming of the conservative interpretation.
The fact is the West not only created “the border,” the West created “the country” of “Pakistan.” In fact “Afghanistan” is, more than not, just a political-geographical void between the tenuous entity “Pakistan” and the more established, self-conscious kingdom of Persia that always tried and mostly failed to rule as far east (from their point of view) as the now-Afghan city of Herat. These people think of themselves Pashtun and Muslim well before they think of themselves as Afghanistanis or Pakistanis or “citizens.”
Liberals – I’m sorry to be so tendentious – above all do not understand just how different these people are from us. Read Churchill’s The Malakand Field Force written in the late 1890s: these are the same people, except now they use AK-47s instead of their 19th century predecessors. While liberals are so busy learning their muddled moralisms and manipulative histories they are also busy not learning about the actual Pakistan.
Pakistan is a muddle that looks like a problem. That is, Pakistan’s just a big goddamn mess that anyone trying to approach as a genuine nation-state is going to founder on. When the Pashtun area around the Khyber Pass was the most likely route the Russians would take into British India, the British used to control that border zone with these little detachments of mostly Muslim Indian or Sikh Indian soldiers led by British officers who would go out and punish the Mahdi armies that would spontaneously form amid this morass of warlike, idle barbarians. That’s sort of what we’re doing now, again. It’s not like there’s a “solution” to this problem; they’re not bourgois social-democrats just agitating for the right balance of judicial equity and economic opportunity for god’s sake.
And by the way Musharaf was the best thing Pakistan had going for it since its founding – go look it up. And a lot of that has to do with the fact of an American spotlight on him from early on (he led his coup in 1999). But these people are barbarians man, it’s long past time to just admit it and get on with it.
Oct 10, 2008 - 12:47 pm 5. Pope Linus:Nice post Dan. Some common sense on Pakistan could do us all some good.
Of course, it really won’t do us any good, since we’re about ready to elect a truly shallow dilettante to the White House. But hey, as long as he makes us feel good about ourselves, right?
Pakistan is a powder keg, and Musharraf had some success–early on–keeping a lid on things. And whether you liked him or not, keeping a lid on things was good for Pakistan, its neighbors, and the rest of the free world.
Now, I’d worry if I had relatives in India. There may not be a nuclear exchange in the next 10 or 20 years, but it’s not like relations between India and Pakistan are going to get rosier post-Musharraf.
Oct 10, 2008 - 12:56 pm 6. Marc Malone:What bugs me is the notion that people think that POTIS can just act militarily into Pakistani territory on the basis of “actionable intelligence” Guess what. If it’s in Pakistan, it’s not actionable.
Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Military action into a sovereign State IS an act of war. The POTUS cannot order such, period. It is an illegal order, and must not be obeyed. Such an order should also lead to impeachment.
If we want to go in, we must have the okay from Pakistan… in writing! We have to address the alliances with Pakistan, and with our NATO allies in Afghanistan.
I think Bush does understand, but is simply to weak to take appropriate action.
Oct 10, 2008 - 1:56 pm 7. Someone75:Marc:
It seems like a lot of people think Obama would be unwilling to take military action in the first place. I don’t think you’re one of those people, but some do. I think Obama is talking about Pakistan (or Pah-kist-ahn as he would say) just to let people know he’ll take the fight to the terrorists.
We have had the president go into war without congressional approval, as you know. In the case of the Korean war, it was the right thing to do. I’m okay with it if it’s an absolute emergency, and I’m sure both Obama and McCain would skip the congressional step and beg forgiveness later, if they thought there was a serious threat.
Oct 10, 2008 - 2:24 pm 8. thegr8_1:I don’t know if anyone here understands Pakistan. Perhaps John Bolton? Anyway I prefer McCain not a ringing endorsement, Obama cannot even pronounce Pakistan much less understand it.
A=Ayers
Oct 10, 2008 - 3:25 pm 9. Marc Malone:C=Communist
O=Obama
R=Ready?????
N=NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Someone75, it is NEVER the right thing to do, unless we are specifically attacked/declared war upon or our treaties specifically require it. In those situations, Congress has already given their stamp of approval, or at least the Senate had.
Oct 10, 2008 - 3:33 pm 10. Mary Madigan:No one does understand Pakistan. Pakistan doesn’t understand Pakistan.
Oct 10, 2008 - 3:58 pm 11. crossover:Its over,
McCain just said that we don’t have to fear Obama as our President.
“He is a good decent man!”
If I voted for Bush,
Oct 10, 2008 - 5:21 pm 12. TeamPlayer:will I be allowed to cross the Canadian border?
Good show John McCain:
Oct 10, 2008 - 5:23 pm 13. Chip:http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/10/mccain_gets_a_l.html
John McCain has a very keen understanding of Pakistan.
Does Obama even read the troop movement and USAFCENT reports?
McCain was all over Obama for his lame comments about Pakistan during the debate for good reason…
Why??? Because the US currently has Pakistan’s permission to enter their airspace for sorties and move US/NATO troops across the Pakistani border.
OBAMA IS POLITICAL LIAR OF THE WORST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE.
Oct 10, 2008 - 6:20 pm 14. Chip:John McCain has a very keen understanding of Pakistan.
Does Obama even read the troop movement and USAFCENT reports?
McCain was all over Obama for his lame comments about Pakistan during the debate for good reason…
Why??? Because the US currently has Pakistan’s permission to enter their airspace for sorties and move US/NATO troops across the Pakistani border.
OBAMA IS A POLITICAL LIAR OF THE WORST POSSIBLE MAGNITUDE.
Oct 10, 2008 - 6:23 pm 15. Chip:“Only Congress has the authority to declare war. Military action into a sovereign State IS an act of war. The POTUS cannot order such, period. It is an illegal order, and must not be obeyed. Such an order should also lead to impeachment.”
Not if the legitimate government of Pakistan gives US/NATO forces permission to go in, which is currently the case.
Oct 10, 2008 - 7:00 pm 16. whiskey:The problem with Pakistan is that they have 100+ nukes, under tenuous control. Someone like a Zawahari could use tribal/clan connections to “borrow” one and boom! there goes NYC.
THAT is the problem. All other pale before it. With Obama, weak, indecisive, and pro-Muslim, it’s guaranteed. With McCain, less likely.
Oct 10, 2008 - 8:16 pm 17. Someone75:Marc:
Really? I figured you’d think it was okay, if it was necessary. I’m not for getting into unnecessary wars, but I can understand how some urgent situations require action.
How do you feel about willfully misleading congress to get us into a war? heh heh . . .
Oct 10, 2008 - 8:34 pm 18. Michael Lonie:“How do you feel about willfully misleading congress to get us into a war?”
Who did that? Not Dubya. He gave Congress the best intel he could get on Iraq and its nuke program. The estimate of the Bush Administration that Saddam was pursuing nukes and could not be allowed to get them was the same as that of the Clinton Administration. In any case there were other reasons for taking Saddam down, an essential cmapaign in the war against the jihadist terrorists, even if Obama is not sophisticated enough to understand them.
Oct 10, 2008 - 11:02 pm 19. ThinkPakistan:I think you are all missing something here. Pakistan and its people have regularly been used by the US government, both for its strategic position and with the thieving politicians they return to the Parliament. While Asif Zardari was living in the United States for the past 5 years, the US did nothing to uncover or seize the assets that he has purchased with laundered money in Florida, Texas and New York. If the US government had done that much, the tone of the Pakistani people would have changed.
Instead, Musharraf was forced to accept an agreement (National Reconcilitation Ordinance) absolving all corruption politicians of all their crimes and allowing them to participate in the February elections. The Bush administration even went as far as to demand that Benazir be the Prime Minister and Musharraf could stay President. All of this is in violation of the Constitution of Pakistan.
Also, I take objection to the reference that “they are all barbarians.” If Americans make their judgments based on what they see on the news, then you really have no clue as to what is and is not going on in Pakistan. Should be take the KKK, Neo Nazis and Sarah Palin’s religious right to be the norm of the American people? Are you all racists that can tolerate someone coming from another country and making a living in the US of A?
Categorizing all Pakistanis because of the .000000001% that support or participate in extremism is unfair. Pakistan struggles because our “elected” politicians come with Washington (PPP) and London’s (PML-Nawaz) approvals and tacit support of whatever they do. A little known fact, during Nawaz Sharif’s government, his supporters stormed the Supreme Court of Pakistan to make sure that a case couldn’t be heard against him. The Chief Justice was removed in his government also, but we didn’t hear anything from the corridors of power then.
Until Washington supports a true government of the people in Pakistan and helps to bring to justice the politicians that have stolen from Pakistan and hid the booty in the US and UK banks, Pakistan will not get better.
Give Pakistan a chance and you will see that is is a great, peace loving country. I should know, I live there.
Oct 11, 2008 - 5:13 am 20. ThinkPakistan:@Whiskey:
Pakistan doesn’t have 100+ nukes under tenuous control. Pakistan has maybe 50+ nukes, under one of the most secure regiments in the world. The US military after inspecting the facility signed off on it as “air-tight” during the Musharraf government.
This rumor about Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal falling into the hands of terrorists is just as possible as it happening in the United States. It’s good propaganda but there is no truth to it.
Oct 11, 2008 - 5:19 am 21. john from cinncinati:yes of course Americans in general are incapable of understanding world events,we don’t speak second languages and we have never traveled outside our county. rubes all of us, i can’t believe that as long as we have been in that area that no one has learned anything. the lawless areas were bombed by unknown (PREDATOR DRONES) aircraft and the new president says in a big announcement we will defend our sovereignty. he then immediately moves government troops into the”lawless area” with the consent of some of the tribes. some of the lawless tribes squawk about bigger government in their life and then the government begins kicking the ever loving stuffing out of them. So you think we had anything to do with that or it just happened? the rule of unintended consequences came into play. you think that maybe it was a good excuse to go after those happy go lucky talibums that murdered his wife. are we, being rubes, the only ones that forget what was said and done 6 months ago. i would guess that some radical islamist faction has worn out their welcome with the new president. the lawless tribes want someone to save them from somebody with bigger guns. whats that saying about security and freedom, they will end up with neither. what they are going to end up with is a new paradigm.
Oct 11, 2008 - 6:00 am 22. Broadsword:here’s a shameless plug for GwB. his policy has not failed in Iraq, it has been successful. granted it has been mishandled and it was sketchy, but it looks like its gonna live. the Iraqi plan still has to bear fruit, and we are gonna have to wait to see if it is sweet. hopefully it will be successful beyond our wildest dreams.
“… report on this on NPR 2 hours ago about 20,000 refugees fleeing Pakistan into Afghanistan. ‘Is this because the border is drawn by the West?’ asked the NPR correpsondent. “Yes, yes – absolutely,” replied the Pashtuni guy.” How many people did NPR talk to in order to get this answer? Who knew the English speaker they found had the pulse of 20000 refugees?
Oct 11, 2008 - 6:05 am 23. Oscar Goesto:Malone wrote: “We have to address the alliances with Pakistan…” Do you have that address? Can’t we just email them?
Again, Mark M wrote: “Someone75, it is NEVER the right thing to do, unless we are specifically attacked/declared war upon…” Have you read or heard of Bin Laden’s 1996 fatwa is entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places” ? He “specifically” declared war on us, and “specifically” attacked us. “Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history.”
Leave Pakistan alone. It is just like 99% of the world, full of peace loving citizens who would like nothing better than to worry about daughter’s on dates, shopping congestion in malls, and what’s playing at the movies on Saturday night. America needs to withdraw militarily from the planet, period. Any other theory is lost in its own artifice of sophistry. America’s founders, as intellectual as Adams or as capitalistic as Washington, were men nonetheless united in their personal inner turmoils with power and its cautious administration, lest it overstep its boundaries and provoke reaction. Pure principles of international non-interference, independence, and disentanglement guided the founding conscience of America. Washington’s first major martial victory in 1776 was completely bloodless, as the British withdrew their forces after 9 years of occupying Boston. America rose in might from the 1700′ to the 1900’s exactly because it did not get involved in wars as the aggressor, which otherwise bankrupted nations like England and others over the centuries, in their expansive attempts to “control” the international political and commercial landscape by means of empires. If America resumed her anti-bellicose philosophical international leadership, the 99% of people on this planet would not support any local war machine of their own in power, and get on with their day to day lives as peace loving citizens in the pursuit of their own happiness. Believing that is not necessary. It is a calculable reality and truth that in every mathematical physical or sociological philosophical scenario: for avery action there is a reaction. Just because a stronger person can throw an apple harder away from the earth than a weaker one, and in the apple’s longer absence until the force of gravity returns it, does not mean that the mightier thrower has conquered the rules of the universe. So it goes with America’s, and once Britain’s, and the Austro-Hungarian’s, and the Roman, and other empires, for every military action there is, not in a day, not in a year, or maybe even for 100 years, but eventually, a reaction equal to the initial military action. In today’s nuclear terms, we can only pray Americans take the lead on this for the sake of the planet, which other nations will emulate, and once again become the peace-loving economical envy of the world, with ever lengthening line-ups of immigrants at here door to prove it. To emulate America as she is now is to invite military disregard for our boundaries, to invite our occupation, and to invite war with us.
Oct 11, 2008 - 9:01 am 24. Someone75:Michael:
Bush obviously misled congress, intentionally. It’s a matter of record. You can’t afford to be that naive. There’s a whole big world outside the shrinking sanctuary of neo-conservatism.
Oct 11, 2008 - 12:14 pm 25. Marc Malone:Someone75 – You give Bush too much credit. Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
Broadsword – Yes, Bin Laden declared war on us, but Pakistan did not.
We may not take military action in Pakistan. As I understand it, we have flyover and land travel permission. My understanding is that military action is specifically prohibited, except in self-defense. Basically, the agreement is to allow our supplies to travel from port through to Afghanistan.
This is why the Pakistani government has been protesting our cross-border raids, and promising to defend their sovereignity. I believe the tribal areas are specifically proscribed. The Right of Passage agreement is very limited. I don’t have full info on this stuff. Who knows what it is this week?
Oct 11, 2008 - 11:37 pm 26. deguello:Hey, Mcnumbskull, and the Ohole don’t understand anything about economics,history,taxes,literature etc.In post intellect,affirmative action America.ignorance and inability to understand current phenomena are petty irrelevancies.All you need is hope,cheap mortages,welfare and war,and the boobs will vote for you!
Oct 14, 2008 - 12:06 pm