Article

2005-07-28 Afghanistan/South Asia

US should support democratic forces in Pakistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-07-28 00:00|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Saw the headline, laughed, clicked, saw the inline comments, laughed much harder - so I'm not alone in not having a clue WTF this is about...

Reading the article, well, if the US Institute of Peace (a Federal entity, believe it or not) is to be believed, the piece was written by an ex-PakiWaki diplodink - now a Sr Fellow, heh - and I have incredibly serious doubts, all the US can do is be vewy vewy gentle and make kissy-kissy nummy-nummy sounds to PakiWakiLand. Nothing else will do. *eye roll*

Example:
Hussain maintains that US policy choices towards Pakistan are âcomplex and imperfect.â Though Pakistan is not a failed state nor a failing or a rogue state, it has had to varying degrees tendencies of all three. On top of that, it is a nuclear power. Pakistan is now not only a challenge but also a crucial partner in the war on terrorism. The United States faces a great balancing act in its relations with Pakistan. âIt must work with President Pervez Musharraf but not identify with his personal ambitions, nudge him to democratise but not discourage his strong hand, and advance US nonproliferation objectives but not lose Pakistanâs support in the war on terrorism,â he suggests. He sees new threats and opportunities for US foreign policy in South Asia.

He describes an utterly dysfunctional morass in PakiWakiLand, puts everything on Musharraf, then sort of washes his hands of the whole lot. The last 4 paragraphs are what passes for "meat" - and have to rank among the least useful examples of uber-ass-coverage hand-wringing I've see in some time. There is a distinct dearth of solutions, and the few that are offhandedly put forward are couched in typical vague diplo BS - i.e. nothing conclusive or actionable. Worthless drivel. Boy, I sure am glad I'm picking up the tab for this Wank-o-tute.

Why, after reading the piece and the background on USIP, do I get the very distinct impression the USIP is likely the alternative to the Saudi Retirement Program for State Dept fuckups and half-wits - and "specially invited" washouts like Hussain?

Pfeh. I got yer nummy-nummy's right here, Hussain.

Posted by .com 2005-07-28 02:52|| 2005-07-28 02:52|| Front Page Top

#2 Pfeh. I got yer nummy-nummy's right here, Hussain

Just be sure to rinse your mouth and wash your hands afterwards, .com.

Posted by too true 2005-07-28 09:58|| 2005-07-28 09:58|| Front Page Top

#3 Though Pakistan is not a failed state

I think we can argue that. At least half of their territory is NOT subject to government control, and the government doesn't even claim to have a monopoly on the use of force eminating from their territory.

They're very, very close to being a failed state.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-28 10:09|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-28 10:09|| Front Page Top

#4 Trust in the Force!

Posted by gromgoru 2005-07-28 14:35|| 2005-07-28 14:35|| Front Page Top

09:43 Tholuns Shomogum7813
09:30 Ulomonter Thaviter6771
09:27 Ulomonter Thaviter6771
00:01 Jennie Taliaferro
23:59 trailing wife
23:55 Mike Sylwester
23:53 Mike Sylwester
23:51 trailing wife
23:47 Jennie Taliaferro
23:46 Jennie Taliaferro
23:44 Mike Sylwester
23:42 Frank G
23:34 Mike Sylwester
23:32 Mike Sylwester
23:31 Mike Sylwester
23:21 trailing wife
23:15 Frank G
23:15 bigjim-ky
23:13 Frank G
23:11 Mike Sylwester
23:11 bigjim-ky
23:08 Mike Sylwester
23:07 trailing wife
23:05 Mike Sylwester