Letters to the Editor
-
@Dirigo
I agree with only some of what Allison is saying. The Pakistani ISI pretty much installed the Afghani Taliban government, that's true. The government, through the ISI has had a very longstanding policy of promoting cross-border terrorism as a regional foreign policy. Even under Bhutto, that went on, albeit more because she was like John Kennedy with respect to her clandestine operatives (remember he basically allowed the Bay of Pigs to unfold because he didn't really spend the time to understand what the CIA was doing).
It isn't really a stretch to assume that there's an equivalent faction in lots of countries, Pakistan included, that map to the neocons here. That faction in Pakistan is spread through the military and ISI and some civilian sectors, but mostly in the ISI. And in the Punjabi zamindars and their militias who support the radical ISI stuff.
The Pakistanis in general would prefer a Pushtun government in Kabul. First off, there are a lot of ethnic Pushtuns in Pakistan, and not a lot of Tajiks. Second off, some of them would say it was traditional. "Why do you think they call it Afghanistan?" ('Afghan' is Persian for Pushtun/Pakhtun/Pathan, whatever). It's about regional hegemony in South Asia, it's almost never about global conflict. The U.S. doesn't understand regional hegemony. It thinks the whole world is the Middle East, and all wars are the Cold War.
But as Waleed Ziad pointed out in his op-ed piece, (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/opinion/16ziad.html?pagewanted=2&ref=opinion) the Taliban are polling very, very low, as are al Qaeda. And the American war on terror is polling very, very low.
In this country, that is a logical antinome. In Pakistan, it is not. Allison seems not to have noticed that some things have changed extremely fundamentally since November 3rd. But that happened in India when Indira Gandhi called the Emergency there too. South Asians are very feisty about their democracies, even when they aren't functioning too well.
I corresponded with a friend of mine who runs a foreign policy think tank (if that's the word outside the U.S.) in India, and he said what Ziad said, only a lot more harshly. If the U.S. wants to play a role in that part of the world, they should make up their minds to really engage, understand, and do what is needed by the people there, not what they think is needed. And not just show up telling people what to do when it suits them and disappearing when it's all boring and about poor uneducated people and not about global clashes of civilizations.
-
Cowering
You'll be cowering on your knees back in the alley! McCain is a man's manly man kind of man!
Mmmmmmmmmmm........ is that English Leather?
Mmmmmmmmmmm.......... let's off some hadji's!
-
@MrEdCT
UT has been infested with pseudo-Jewbaiting anonymice for some time. They are provocateurs, trying to make this place look like a hotbed of anti-Semitism... primarily because there is the occasional post somewhat critical of Israel.
People tend to ignore them for the same reason you don't swat at every mosquito you see: you're not going to get rid of them, and it's not like they care, anyway.
-
Update
No, Obama told us what McCain is planning to do. That's worse.
Funny how you can't tell the enemy about how we spy on their communications and financial dealings, but articles about how cool the Predator is are A-OK.
Selective secrecy.
-
java
May need to update your Java.
-
Ondelette
Well, I'm just going to have to go back to my Kipling and Kristol.
-
Many excellent comments in this thread
For myself, I'm more distressed that the US political atmosphere requires military posturing as a major test for a candidate. I realize strutting, medals and threats are the Neocon legacy & the status quo, but I find it distressing nonetheless.
McCain & Clinton are finally well aware that their long DC experience is not the asset their Advisors-in-the-Bubble anticipated. Trying to diminish Obama as naive in desperation will remain the focus.
Now perhaps one of the supine MSM will ask the candidates what they would do AFTER all the macho bombing. Surely Afghanistan & Iraq are stellar examples of what not to do (brought to you by our sponsor, longtime DC experience).
Do any of the candidates intend to continue funding the State Department, or is that an entitlement eating up Pentagon funds?
-
since we're gabbing about McCain
Anybody notice McCain voted against the ban on waterboarding, even though he is on record as opposing waterboarding?
Watch the contortions ...
-
@Baldie et al - re: Waterboarding
Please read "The Great Guantanamo Puppet Theater," by Scott Horton, one of his "No Comment" postings, up this morning at harpers.org.
-
re: Java NE to Javascript
FYI:
Java and Javascript are two completely different languages. Nothing really in common other than the name. We can thank MS and the old Netscape for that confusion.
Java = a OOP C++ like true-blue programming language, albeit executed via an interpreter rather than compiled into native binaries.
Javascript = a general all-purpose *scripting* language using standard BASIC like structures and english syntax.
Scripting has come a long, long way but Javascript is hugely different than a programming language like Java.
To Silence:
It could probably help to offer more info. Like operating-system, browser being used, etc. Your simple description doesn't offer one much to render any help.
YMMV
-
@Dirigo
We crossed on the last round.
Thanks. I'm reading your reponse as I pose another question, and as I do, defer to your expertise because it seems obvious that you've lived in Pakistan, or have done business there somehow over a period of time.
No. I have a lot of friends from all over Asia, including Pakistan, and I have South Asian in-laws, some of whom put me in touch with well informed people, or are well informed themselves. That makes me read a lot and worry a lot when things happen, but also at other times. It hasn't been that long since the standing joke was the only thing covered in the U.S. press on South Asia was "bus plunges."
Also, in my ignorance, I will concede to some "ugly Americanism" in the sense that the Pak masses might seem to me to be "lumpen prols."
Obviously, in order to develop such weapons and to provide some modicum of democratic government, even if it has authoritarian tendencies in a formal military way, there is an elite that can make things work.
Yet, in your analysis of the vote the other day, you suggested turnout was low - maybe only around 30 percent. And, if I got it right, you said perhaps 60 percent or more of the population as a whole is illiterate.
So ... ?
The population is 80 percent illiterate, and there is an elite. The elite can just as easily screw things up as make them work, just like here. The ballots have symbols for each party or candidate, and getting ready for the election includes informing your supporters of the symbols. That's how the illiterate vote. There's a mournful tale on one of the metroblogs about a fellow blogger who ran for office, who's symbol was a whistle, and didn't get any votes. This situation makes political rallies and street campaigning totally indispensable, since that's also how you inform your constituency on how to vote for you.
The reasons for the low turnout were: vote-rigging, in the form of people not being on the rolls (and then being on secret lists that were 'voted for'), apathy -- some people felt it didn't make a difference so why bother, boycott -- some people were angry that their candidates weren't on the ballot (Imran Khan, for instance) or they felt the election was illegal, and intimidation -- women were prevented from voting in some places, and bombs were going off. It really was dangerous in some places -- 24 people were killed and 200 injured on election day, including candidates.
On your first point, now that there is a lot of flow of information, it isn't really that difficult to amass a lot of information about a culture or country, even about their day-to-day lives, in a relatively short amount of time anymore. I do have the advantage of having lived in another country that wasn't at all western, and having spent my time when I visit Asia largely "in culture" and not in the hotels. So when I look at a picture, I do know what the sounds, smells, and general feel is there. To me, it makes it so very difficult to understand how our leaders and press people can botch understanding other cultures so often. I have a friend who was a high ranking diplomat for the U.S. and he complained about always seeing the same tours and the same hotels whenever he went places. But it takes probably no more than a few days of immersing oneself in the hundreds of newspapers and blogs in Asia to start to get a good feel for situations there, why can't anyone at the State department or in the White House ever get it right? Are they afraid of going native or something?
I feel like shaking them sometimes and saying You're not getting the small picture! Their big picture ideal, that the big picture is always more important than the details, is getting in their way. Sometimes you need to think locally to act globally.