An interesting article in The Economist on Pakistan and the Taliban. The article points up the corrupt nature of Pakistan and the way in which the army is obsessed with India, rather than with maintaining the integrity of the state and the rule of law.
Good background.
Comments are closed.
 | pdm on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | adamsmith1922 on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | robertguyton on More prejudice re the Chi… |
 | Quintin Hogg on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| adamsmith1922 on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| robertguyton on A comment on the Crafar d… |
| pdm on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
| adamsmith1922 on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
| adamsmith1922 on ACT opts for oblivion |
| adamsmith1922 on Has National lost the plo… |
 | smttc on Has National lost the plo… |
| robertguyton on Has National lost the plo… |
| adamsmith1922 on Has National lost the plo… |
| robertguyton on ACT opts for oblivion |
| robertguyton on On Mallard’s hypocr… |
Frog Blog Homepaddock Keeping Stock Kiwiblog No Minister The Standard The Visible Hand in Economics BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition CNN Top Stories New York Times Salon.com – Original, independent news coverage and investigative reporting, and insightful commentary on politics and culture Wired News Top Stories
The action by the Pakistan Army carried out against the Pakistan Taliban springs from a background where the Pakistani government, for its part, seems both unwilling and incapable of taking concerted action to destroy Taliban forces and appears to have now acted as a result of Obama’s statement that they would no longer enjoy a “blank cheque”; they must show that they are fighting in good faith. The Obama statement follows on from a concern by despondent US military strategists for the situation in Pakistan, its impact on NATO’s capacity to stabilize the security situation in neighbouring Afghanistan and its deep seated worry that the Taliban/al-Qaida acquisition of nuclear weapons from Pakistan is a global security threat that must be prevented.
Of interest is the advice given in early April by White House adviser David Kilcullen – who advised Petreaus on his successful counter-insurgency campaign in Iraq – warned that Pakistan would fall in six months. Out of a growing worry of rising Pakistani destabilisation , particularly with the recent unification of command of Taliban forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan under the so-called Council of United Holy Warriors and their open collaboration with al-Qaida, is the considered opinion that Pakistan is now a far greater danger than Afghanistan.
As far as potentially changing the situation here, it is sobering to read an opinion piece regarding attitudes both by the US administration and by the Islamic world:
“SINCE HIS first moments in office, President Barack Obama has embarked on a policy course which rejects Bush’s belief that the quest for freedom is universal as so much American chauvinism. For Obama, Islamic hostility towards the West is caused by American arrogance, not the absence of freedom. And because American arrogance is the root of the problem, the solution must be American contrition. It is this view that propels Obama from one international apology tour to the next and causes him to air the CIA’s laundry in public. As far as he is concerned, the more apologetic he is, the more contrition he expresses for the actions of his predecessors, the greater the payoff will be.
And yet, as we see from the behavior of Lebanon, Turkey, Syria and Iran over the past week alone, Obama’s apologetics are not winning them over, but emboldening them to take more aggressive positions against the West. How can this be explained?
There is an alternative explanation for the behavior of the peoples of the Islamic world that actually can explain events, and has successfully forecast them. It has even engendered policy recommendations that might have mitigated both the popularity of Islamist parties and deterred these parties, once elected, from taking provocative steps against Western states and interests. Unfortunately, every time this explanation is raised, Western policy-makers head for the hills.
This explanation is really nothing more than an observation. It observes that the populations of Islamic countries and societies support Islamist parties like the AKP and Hizbullah and Hamas because they support what they stand for. This explanation notes that tens and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, Lebanese, Iranians, Turks, Egyptians and others voluntarily congregate in public venues and swoon when Islamist leaders tell them that Islam will defeat the West and promise the death of America and the death of Israel.
The jihadist message resonates with them. Their hearts and minds have already been won over. Contrary to what Western leaders as distinct as Bush and Obama believe, the hearts and minds of the Islamic world are not presently in play. From Beirut to the Taliban-controlled Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan, jihadists enjoy public support because the public supports their aim of defeating the West with bullets, with bombs, and with ballots.
It is too early to know how Obama will react when he like Bush is no longer able to deny that his strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world has failed. We don’t know if like Bush before him, he will simply ignore reality and pretend that nothing has happened; if he will blame his political opponents for not joining him in his contrition; or if he will cast about for another central organizing principle that will explain hostile Islamic behavior.
What is clear is that in the absence of Western – and specifically American – willingness to consider the possibility that what is happening in the Islamic world has next to nothing to do with either what the West embodies or what it has done, and everything to do with the resonance of the Islamist message within the Islamic world, will continue to be met with incoherent prattling and confusion.”