Our Pakistani Allies

Hmmmm, the article you reference state's the civilians must remain in charge of the military, not the country as you say is an easily met stipulation. While I agree it's an admirable goal, telling another country how they must run their iternal affairs usually does NOT go over very well. Do you want us to tie aid to Honduras to the reinstatement of it's president that was LEGALLY, as far as Honduran law, removed? Why not use aid to get EVERY country to conduct it's internal business as we would like? Isn't that very similar to many of Bush's tactics you have previously panned? I'm not arguing Pakistan SHOULD be running its military this way, but that is the way they have chosen.

With friends like these, who needs enemies? What is our return on investment in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Does anyone actually feel any safer than they did eight years ago? The sooner we extradite ourselves from these quagmires the better.

Joe you should of all people know that "buying" favor in any country does not work. We have been doing it now for years and years. To what avail?
.
NADA!

Well the Pakistanis do have a point, I mean, its not really our money to give anyway. Our loanshark China never makes such demands...

In which I continue the debate over the matter of the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations & the national honor of the United States in Joe Klein's previous thread:
.
http://tinyurl.com/yfx9l2x

"Our Pakistani Allies"

Our ways are moral. Our ways are ethical. Our ways are godly. If god is with us, why would we need allies?
Right?
Haven't we had enough of this murderous Judeo-Christian hypocrisy already?

"Allies" in what - terror-izing villagers in their caves and mud huts? "Allies" in the torture, rape, murder and mutilation of kids, their mothers, their fathers, their grandparents?

If Israel wants it, why doesn't Israel go it alone?]
[Damm! Don't blogging geezers at TIME have a time-limit, a retirement age, an age to go to pasture?
[Or doesn't TIME pay a pension - a 401(K) - a golden, eh, psychedelic tin parachute?]]

[If Israel wants it, why doesn't Israel go it alone? Why do we have to be dragged into it - and pay the price with our tax-payers' toil, funds and the lives of our young people?]

The Pakistanis have always shown an eagerness to take our money and use it as they pleased. Perhaps they are reacting badly to the current set of conditions which impose accountability. They have never shown a reluctance in the past to take our cash and military equipment. So they dress it up an their need to show "independence". Also, the US plan to replicate our embassy in Islamabad on the Baghdad model has annoyed them no end. Fortress America in Islamabad? No way.

Joe, didn't I just see you talking with Andrea Mitchell? Thanks for telling her not to believe the GOP hype. Next time you visit could you remind her that she's allowed to question her Republican guests and doesn't simply have to sit there while they give the little lady a lesson on foreign affairs. She's prefaces every question to Democrats with that old convention that Democratic presidents typically have problems with wars and military -- hello where are the questions about the failed military and foreign policies promoted by the GOP over the last eight years? Give me a break, the neocons have championed disastrous causes and been wrong about everything and when she talks about this being the ninth year in Afghanistan its like she doesn't know that it was the GOP that was in charge for eight of those years. The GOP hacks oppose everything and the media needs to stop carrying water for these fools.

Joe,

Let's try some reactions on for size:

1. "They don't want our money. Let's leave. We can use the money on health care reform, and worker retraining, and balancing the budget."

2. "Those ingrateful wretches! We come to their country, bring all of our knowledge and enlightenment, teach them how to build an army and monitor all their territories from the sky, and in return all we ask is the unquestioned right to shoot missiles at gatherings of their citizens, killing them in groups of 5-50, without prior permission or notification, anywhere in their country. We should protest vigorously and insist they take even more money for schools and roads and stuff, and let us kill more people in their country"

Which makes more sense, Joe?

Hint: I'm not sure that you would look good dressed up like Lord Mountbatten.

Well, this is a different tack than our usual route with Pakistan. We usually pledge to work with our "allies" on our "common interest", and then -- lo and behold -- find that they've been funneling aid to the Taliban.

Fighting Afghanistan by *fixing* the Pakistani civilian government gets us closer to our desired result. But it also cuts out the real leadership of Pakistan, which is the army. Asking them to suspend ties with the Taliban is like asking them to give up control of their northwestern border. And dealing exclusively with the Pakistani civil authority is like overthrowing the government of Pakistan.

Keep it up, Mr. President, and you'll find Pakistan doesn't want to be our "friend" anymore. In some respects, I find it hilarious. But it probably means Pakistan will be dealing with the Chinese more directly from now on.

The only way for Obama to keep Pakistan on board is to promise a carrot -- US involvement in Kashmir. India ought to agree to that when hell freezes over.