Quickhits
(AP) The Islamic militant group blamed by the Pakistani government for the Bhutto killing says it didn't do it. Bhutto's aides doubted the government's claims as well. (Perception matters more than truth at this point.)
(AP) "A glance at major violence in Pakistan." (A "glance?")
(WaPo) A brief look at the fear of the US foreign policy establishment that Pakistan's turmoil will affect Afghanistan.
(It hasn't already?)
(Reuters) Lebanon's presidential election has been delayed again over a post-election powersharing arrangement. The president's office has been vacant since Nov. 23.
(AFP) "Turkey said Friday it would continue its military operations against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq."
(AP) Baghdadis shop along sectarian lines.
(AP) "A glance at major violence in Pakistan." (A "glance?")
(WaPo) A brief look at the fear of the US foreign policy establishment that Pakistan's turmoil will affect Afghanistan.
(It hasn't already?)
(Reuters) Lebanon's presidential election has been delayed again over a post-election powersharing arrangement. The president's office has been vacant since Nov. 23.
(AFP) "Turkey said Friday it would continue its military operations against Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq."
(AP) Baghdadis shop along sectarian lines.
posted by mikevotes at
6:44 AM
9 Comments:
At the moment, a bit less than half of Afghanistan is in the hands of Taliban. The Federal Tribal Areas of Pakistan have never been under the control of the Pakistani government, and a general insurrection has now spread into the Swat Valley. Suddenly, the Administration has noticed that something is amiss.
But the central front of the GWOT is....Iraq?
Has anyone (besides myself) wondered WHERE the terrorists that we drive out of Iraq will go?
On top of this, the bulk of the military aid we have given to Pakistan has been used to buy weapons unsuited for an anti-terrorist campaign, but very well-suited for a war against India. That's not favourable to regional stability, is it?
This is another case where our putative allies have interests that run counter to our own. As long as the Bush Administration continues to look at the world as being comprised of those "with us" and those "against us", the media will continue to analyse through that lens, and the picture will get continually fuzzier.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 11:13 AM
To add, I think importantly, the Pashtun/Taleban strength is extending not only easterly into Swat, but also increasingly westerly into both the southern Helmand province and the Central west parts of Afghanistan just south of the major US presence.
And, I always saw the payments to Pakistan as bribes more than military assistance. You figure X % of that money is going straight into the pockets of the military leaders.
I would also mutate your argument a little to say that it's Musharraf's interests run counter to ours, not necessarily the country's.
Interestingly, Musharraf had found himself flanked from "the left" by Bhutto requiring him to appeal to the more "Islamic" to maintain power. If her death were to cut down the strength of that democratic resistance, it would likely give him a way to move more to the center.
Not to say he'd take it.
Lastly, I'm a bit amazed in the broader discussion that the idea that the US can control the leadership of Pakistan is thrown about with so little thought. Pakistan is a big country that could easily find another sponsor if it wanted.
By
mikevotes, at 1:57 PM
I don't know about Pakistan finding another sponsor. If they cut connections with the US they could quickly find themselves on the Axis of Evil list.
By
Anonymous, at 2:25 PM
"And, I always saw the payments to Pakistan as bribes more than military assistance."
We would be better off if that were the case. Instead, that money has been used to escalate the Indo-Paki arms race. One would think that $10 billion would receive some cursory oversight at least, but not in this case.
"Lastly, I'm a bit amazed in the broader discussion that the idea that the US can control the leadership of Pakistan is thrown about with so little thought."
Yes, there's the usual arrogance there. While it's disturbing, I'm not as amazed by it as I once was. What amazes me, though, is the notion, disproven by decades of history, that the Pakistani government controls much of anything in the first place. The military maintains order and keeps the economy going, but its allegiance is open to the highest bidder, not to any civilian control.
Remember, Musharraf himself said that the subtext of the "deal" of his "alliance" with the West was the threat of annihiliation if he refused. This "alliance" has done nothing positive for him politically and is unlikely to in future. He's done the absolute bare minimum to keep the aid flowing, while playing both sides. He's made a fortune, you can be sure, but his "interests" are up for grabs.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 4:10 PM
Anon, but what could the US do?
Are we going to openly attack Pakistan, 170 million people with nukes?
Us and what army?
...
Todd, I know the money has been mostly pointed east instead of west, but I stand by my point. It's Pakistan. All the money never makes it anywhere. Some bit of it always ends up in someone's pocket.
And you make a very good point about sitting atop the country rather than ruling it.
By
mikevotes, at 4:22 PM
Don't forget Pakistan is part of the British Commonwealth. That's a connection a lot of Pakistanis want to maintain. Many Pakistanis are British citizens. Breaking off relations with the West and forging a new one with say, China, might be a step too far.
By
Anonymous, at 5:49 PM
Fair argument.
By
mikevotes, at 6:33 PM
"It's Pakistan. All the money never makes it anywhere. Some bit of it always ends up in someone's pocket."
I'm not disputing that. Not in the least.
My point was it would have been better for all of it to end up in someone's pocket than to be used to start a new arms race with India. Only the defence contractors benefit from that situation.
The fighter planes and such were bought from the U.S.
We gave them $10 billion and they used about $7 billion to buy stuff from us that we should know was only useful in a conventional war, such as with their biggest foe, India.
WRT the Commonwealth, Pakistan would welcome an ultimatum from their former colonial masters. A lot of British would be thrilled to send the Pakistanis packing, as well. Britain played the Commonwealth card in the '70's over nukes, and Pakistan just chuckled.
We have no leverage beyond the military option. Any sanctions or aid cuts would be countered by China, who would dearly love to crush islamist power in their west. They already are the major weapons supplier for India, so they would love to play both sides.
If we had any other leverage with Pakistan, Bush would never have made the deal that Musharraf couldn't refuse.
By
Todd Dugdale , at 9:29 PM
Agreed.
By
mikevotes, at 10:04 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home