Sense and Insensitivity in Pakistan

[lily]

Out with the old in Pakistan and soon in with the new in the United States. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/28/opinion/28fri1.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin)

Sense and Insensitivity in Pakistan


Published: March 28, 2008
Since winning parliamentary elections last month, the leaders of Pakistan's
new coalition government have shown good judgment: putting aside destructive
personal rivalries and moving quickly to revive their country's moribund
democracy.


Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, they have also made clear that they do
not trust the Bush administration, which bet everything on President Pervez
Musharraf's destructive authoritarian rule. And the new leaders are talking
about reviewing Pakistan's role in the Washington-led war on terrorism. That
is very worrying.

The Bush administration bullied and bought Mr. Musharraf's loyalty - and he
never stayed bought. It is unlikely that President Bush can now overcome
Pakistanis' visceral mistrust. But with the right mix of aid, attention and
humility, the administration can help strengthen the new government. With
more aid, and more humility, it can also argue the case for why fighting
extremism is in Pakistan's clear interest.

Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister and the leader of one party in the
coalition government, bluntly told American officials who visited Islamabad
this week that there would be no more "one-man show" in Pakistan. The new
government is working hard to marginalize Mr. Musharraf and undo his worst
abuses, starting with the release of judges detained last year.

Amid a bloody surge in suicide bombings, officials in Islamabad are also
talking about trying to negotiate a deal with local Taliban militants. They
don't seem to have a clear plan yet, but it is hard to see how they would be
more successful than Mr. Musharraf. His deal with tribal leaders in the
Afghan border region failed spectacularly as troops retreated to barracks
and extremists moved east toward Pakistan's more populated areas. Things
also got much worse in Afghanistan.

This is a risky course, and Washington will have to work hard to help the
government understand that - without provoking even more resentment and
mistrust.

There are other dangers ahead. Although Mr. Musharraf has pledged to work
with the new government, Mr. Sharif is demanding the president's
resignation, and some fear that if pushed, the former general might try
another coup. The new government is also going to have to work out a
relationship with the United States. Washington has given Islamabad more
than $10 billion since 9/11, and the new government will need continued
help.

President Bush can show his commitment to democracy and stability by
increasing nonmilitary aid for projects that would strengthen the country's
battered democratic institutions and improve Pakistanis' lives.

The administration proved, once again, how little it understands the basics
of diplomacy. On the day the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, was
sworn in, the two visiting American diplomats chose to meet with Mr.
Musharraf. That timing left the impression that Washington is still not
listening to Pakistanis.

Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It is next door to Afghanistan. Does
Washington need any more reasons to worry about what happens there? Or any
more proof that it cannot afford to keep making such mistakes?

[Go Fish]

"Amid a bloody surge in suicide bombings, officials in Islamabad are also
talking about trying to negotiate a deal with local Taliban militants."

Lily, that's called "surrender". We don't want the jihad to grow, we want it to go away. I'll go back and read that through a couple more times, but Pakistan surrendering to al Qaeda is NOT a good thing, whatever you think of Musharraf.

[lily]

Fish.........you picked that one sentence out of the whole article and think that's what I'm talking about?

The article is about the new Pakistani government and the soon to be new US government...........nothing more, nothing less.

[apdst]

The article is about the new Pakistani government and the soon to be new US government...........nothing more, nothing less.

So The Pak and United States governments are going to surrender to the bad guys? That's just fucking great!

I can't tell you how excited I am to hear that.

[lily]

What article are you reading, apdst?

[Go Fish]

The one I read implies that Musharraf is a Bush pogue, and therefore anything he does is wrong. That his opposition want to come to terms with the scumbag jihadi fucks that brought us 9/11 are noble and enlightened.
What am I missing here? Throw me a bone.

[lily]

The one I read implies that Musharraf is a Bush pogue, and therefore anything he does is wrong.

I'm not sure what a pogue is, but I'll assume it's something like a puppet? If that's the meaning, then pretty much yes he is. Musharraf was our best buddy, until he decided he didn't want to listen to us anymore and struck out on his own, imprisoning anyone that spoke against him.

That his opposition want to come to terms with the scumbag jihadi fucks that brought us 9/11 are noble and enlightened.
What am I missing here? Throw me a bone.

Again I don't know what you mean, so I can only assume you mean this one paragraph?

Amid a bloody surge in suicide bombings, officials in Islamabad are also
talking about trying to negotiate a deal with local Taliban militants. They
don't seem to have a clear plan yet, but it is hard to see how they would be
more successful than Mr. Musharraf. His deal with tribal leaders in the
Afghan border region failed spectacularly as troops retreated to barracks
and extremists moved east toward Pakistan's more populated areas. Things
also got much worse in Afghanistan.

So let me see.......Musharraf made a pact with the tribal leaders that we would not go into their territory........Bush didn't like it, but did nothing about it and we respected Musharraf's pact.

Now there are new leaders, who don't respect Bush, won't be his puppet, since they want a true democracy.........they are trying to go into the tribal regions and see if they can get a better pact and somehow this is wrong?

Pakistan has new leaders, they don't want to listen to Bush, they see what he has already done, they are looking forward to working with the next president and to you, this equals they want to come to terms with "scumbag jihadi fucks that brought us 9/11"?

[Go Fish]

Well,.....yeah. I'd rather have a guy who is steadfastly committed to doing the hard stuff which will assure that our enemies don't succeed than a consortium of spineless nitwits who can claim plausible deniability after they've sold their children into slavery.
One of them Roman guys had something to say about this, if memory serves. Not that I was around back then.
Not that I expect any of them to deal with OUR next president. They'll be too busy trying to figure out how to conduct the next 9/11.

[lily]

Well,.....yeah. I'd rather have a guy who is steadfastly committed to doing the hard stuff which will assure that our enemies don't succeed than a consortium of spineless nitwits who can claim plausible deniability after they've sold their children into slavery.
One of them Roman guys had something to say about this, if memory serves. Not that I was around back then.


I'm not sure what hard stuff you're talking about, Fish........Musarraf's own people told him he had to give up being head of the Military.....even Bush agreed on this one, so he imprisoned all the judges and anyone that spoke out about it. I'm still convined that he hand Bhuto assainated..........but still did not crush the new Democracy that people want in Pakistan and the people voted him out.

The nit-wits you are talking about just got elected. They are trying to un-do all the bad things that Musharrif did at the end of his Presidency............even so much as trying to get a better deal with the tribal leaders. For the simple reason of they don't want to deal with Bush and are waiting for the new President, you are condening them.

I have no idea what slavery and the Romans have to do with anything.

[Go Fish]

Benazir Bhutto will always have a special place in my heart. In the 80's, she was as hot as any hotty which was excessively hot. I'm talking HAWT!
As far as "working" with the Taliban goes, it isn't like Musharraf hasn't been doing that. al Qaeda? Same thing. He'd have been a greasy, bloody smear a long time ago if he'd told them to get bent.
If you want to get to bin Laden, you have to go through Musharraf. Is he willingly protecting al Qaeda, or is he permitting the situation to exist in order to prevent all-out chaos in the region? I'm going with the latter. Has bin Laden been able to exert his influence over the people of Pakistan? You bet your ass he has. That's what he does. That's why the people who want to make concessions to al Qaeda were voted into office. Should we fly a midnight mission into Pakistan to evacuate Musharraf and his family to Madrid in exchange for targeting data and secret files? Yup.
It isn't like Musharraf being voted out is a good thing. We've made a few border incursions in pursuit of AQ which became public knowledge, and he did the requisite number of "Harrrumph"!'s, but it's really hard to maintain a semblance of authority and command when you know that half of your staff are willing to kill you because some scrawny, lanky diabetic with a Napoleon complex says so.
The incoming crew will certainly hand the country over to the architects of 9/11, and that's nothing to cheer about.