Many if not most of my Pakistani interlocutors do not believe that the Pakistani military is using either martial law or U.S. assistance for "counter-terrorism." They believe it is using it to perpetuate its own power in the service of a national security project that serves neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan and is doing great harm to both.

Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog. Comment basically means the substantially pro-Taleban Pakistani military/security apparatus is using US aid and martial law to hold onto their power, in a country that overall does not support radical Islam. Let's hope Bush/Cheney don't use the same tactic here in 2008.

So where are the graduates of the Southern Asian Institute at the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia ending up, if not at the State Department?

“I despise ideologues masquerading as objective journalists.” - Bill O'Reilly, March 30, 2007

You liberals and your reality-based reality bias!

This is another bold Bush move, trying to take the traditional American tack by propping up a strongman, but this time the violent coup is like the sugar plum fairies next to the political masses.

So what WE are actually doing is shooting ourself in the foot. But it happened a few years ago when Pakistan remained one of the only friendly regimes in that hemisphere and Bush didn't get his nap. Or whatever impedes the vision thing.

Next we'll be surprised to learn there are exremists in the Pakistani military, and that they might have access to weapons of mass destruction. Nukes or something.

Todd, Todd, Todd, get with the program. This is the 21st century not the dark ages. We don't need any expertise on Pakistan or any other country. We now go directly to God for instructions. And, we are oh so fortunate that God and Bush are on a first name basis. Wouldn't you like to know Bush's cute nickname for God? Well, maybe if you ask nicely enough I might tell you.

Hoppy in Sacramento

This is a battle of good vs. evil. Bush's gut tells him he is doing god's work. God and good win. Eventually. It may be more apparent after we are all dead.

You're kidding right? Are you referring to the "knowledge" they got when a friend who watched Lawrence of Arabia one time talked to them or would you mean the stuff they just "know"?

A few back door deals with Chalabi types over the years does not constitute a working knowledge base. If you think it does then get in line at the water cooler, your country needs you...

Mr. Bush's appointments should be viewed along with the back-lit illumination of their underlying intent. Wolfowitz, a primary architect of the War on Iraq was kicked up to head the World Bank. Condeleeza Rice was given Secretary of State, even though during her tenure as NSA, America learned the brand-new oxymoron: National Security. During his time as U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Zoelick sat idly by while China kicked our butts, playing our game, by our own rules in our home stadium, as Hu Jintao swept across South America securing long-term commodities contracts and promising foreign aid. Zoelick was promoted to be Deputy Secretary of State, and promoted again to be head of the World Bank.

Do not be confused though, these were not just more of the same incomprehensible acts by Our Administration of Lowered Expectations. They were instead, an integral part of planned policy, intended to provide the Bush base of supporters hope for the future. Mr. Bush succeeded at this goal by proving once and for all that The Peter Principle is naught but a fantasy, promulgated by liberals.

People can and do get promoted well beyond their level of incompetence. GW Bush was certain of this, because it has been a lesson from life, learned over and over again. His cut-n-runaways from his own incompetent miserable failures transformed into springboards enabling him to slack it up to another level.

That isn't exactly the truth, as America's relationship with Pakistan has run hot and cold throughout that period. They have been an ally of expedience only. Nixon used the stupidity of the Pakistani Generals, for his own ball-busting purposes, in their early 70's war on India, in which they lost all of their territory East of India, and were about to lose the whole country. India was beholden to the USSR at that time, and Pakistan to China. Nixon told Leonid Brezhnev to call off their Calcutta clients or he'd stop the flow of western manufactured goods into the Soviet Union. He then laughed it off as a way to get China and Russia looking sideways at each other. Carter refused to deal with Zia ul-Haq, until it was evident that the Soviet Union was headed into Afghanistan. Clinton did not warmly embrace Musharraf after the democratically elected government was overthrown and he was put in charge. Bush couldn't even offer up Musharraf's name in a four-part quiz of South/Central Asian leaders given by a reporter in 2000.

Here's another one, from Juan Cole's Global Affairs blog.

Anonymous said...

Might I add that what we are seeing in these areas is not a 'Pakistani' insurgency. To understand why this is occurring where it is, one must look back to how the British made peace with Imperial Russia, namely settling on the deal which formed the Durand Line.
This line split the Emirate of Afghanistan into two. As a result what we call NWFP, was once part of Afghanistan, and the people there consider it to be still as such.
When Musharraf sent troops into this area to 'establish control' the word in the area went out the the 'Pakistanis were invading Afghanistan!'.
NWFP is not a part of Pakistan in any real sense. But the army of Pakistan (Musharraf) won't give NWFP province to Afghanistan, and this is a very real fear on the army's part, that Karzai is after NWFP.
Twice the Pakistanis have invaded NWFP twice they have been beaten. This is a disaster for Musharraf. The men from the Punjab don't want to fight with the Afghans, they don't care what happens there, its not that important to them.

The Taliban are not based in NWFP they are based in Quetta, in Pakistan. They have offices you can go and see them meet them.
The ISI and the Taliban work together, to prevent the freedom of NWFP, by making a simple deal, 'we put you in power, you keep Pakistan together'.

They all STILL support terrorism in Kashmir which where this all began and of course if NWFP split from Pakistan imagine the damage that would do to the legitimate cause in Kashmir where most of the Kashmiri's would vote to join Pakistan but for Indian human rights abuses and anti-democracy attitude there.

I think that Musharraf is taking the worst of all roads, in his efforts, he is hastening the day when the ISI/Taliban, NWFP issues and Kashmir will all converge and only God knows what will happen. One thing is for sure, I would be crapping myself if I lived in New Dehli during that time.

Does the ISI envision taking on the army, or is the army split in opinion? One thing is for sure, the bourgoise of Pakistan are not being listened to, and that in itself is a danger to stability. Suddenly the market for revolutionary groups looking for sympathizers just got very much bigger. For a long while it looked like the Pakistani middle-classes could have tolerated Musharraf in his dictatorship as long as THEY were left alone, now though that hope is gone.
Events in Pakistan may change dramatically soon.