Interesting editorial in itself but it fails to repudiate Obama’s short sighted approach to the situation in Pakistan and Afghanistan: to differentiate between the good and bad terrorists. American and NATO presence in the region must have an express purpose and that is to root out the threat of terrorism. The Obama team can be likened to the Bush team ion one fundamental way: the Bush administration had ideologues with parochial and black and white views; the current Obama team is composed of members of similar disposition – ideologues, albeit of a different stripe. The problem is that they are so committed to one way of thinking that they cannot see the bigger picture…that short term pains must be endured to bring about long term and lasting solutions. There must be a clear political vision of how the current administration sees the world. The modified Pakistan funding bill being considered by the US Congress and US administration - if passed in its current form with India-specific modifications – can quite plausibly be interpreted by the people of India as the US explicitly enabling and funding Pakistan to continue sponsoring terrorism against the people of India. After all, the original proposed Congressional bill as sponsored by House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard L. Berman required that (1) Pakistan stop all Kashmiri militant groups from operating from Pakistani soil and that (2) Pakistan give an undertaking that it will not allow its territory to be used for any armed attack against or inside India. The reasons these two conditions were included in that proposed bill were plainly and simply that Pakistan – without any shred of doubt – was activity engaged in both (1) and (2). Now, to make Pakistan happy both of these India-specific conditions are explicitly waived in the modified funding bill being sponsored by Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee John Kerry and Republican Richard Lugar. In essence, it seems that as the leader of the free world the US is about to issue a multi-billion dollar check to the leaders of Pakistan to explicitly authorize them - i.e. as per the “allowed to attack India” modifications made to the Pakistan funding bill - to continue to pursue its policy of terrorist warfare against India. If this were to happen, well then, it would be safe to say that India, the US and the free world at large have a fundamental problem in anti-terror strategy that is soon about to result in a significantly enhanced global terrorist threat viz-a-viz the one existing now. We shouldn’t given the level of corruptness in both the Afghan and Pakistani government, why on earth would we assume that any money that we give them would be used for anything constructive? Instead of giving money to a corrupt government, we should work with the UN and NGOs to build schools in Pakistan ourselves. Would the Pakistani government really object?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/06/opinion/06wed1.html?scp=1&sq=Mr.%20Obama,%20Mr.%20Zardari%20and%20Mr.%20Karzai%20&st=cse
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The right way is the wrong way?
ReplyDeleteIn my classmate's blog "Mr. Obama, Mr. Zardari and Mr. Karzai; she gives a very interesting account of the terrorist problem that is facing Pakistan. This enormous amount of money that the U.S. is about to give Pakistan; (a broke government that has been said may not be able to fund military operations by the end of this month, unless the U.S. provides aid) leaves out the question of India.
This is where I have to disagree with Miss Rehana's argument. She states that the current administration is compared to the Bush Administration because of their "parochial way of thinking." What narrow-minded views is the author trying to establish? What black and white views? The issue is simple: Pakistan has let terrorists get within 60 miles of of its capitol. Pakistan is one of the few countries in the World with nuclear capability. While I understand that there is conflict between India and Pakistan, I would pose the question: Can India pay its military? Yes. Are terrorists at the doorstep of New Delhi? No. The conflict with India and Pakistan is a problem, but the conflict that Pakistan has with keeping its own country secure is an even greater problem. The author makes the assumption that this money will be used to carry out terrorist missions in India. However Defense Secretary Gates has pledged to Congress that he would provide specific goals in judging whether or not this aid is being used as it should be by Pakistan. Security, development and governance are the three concerns of the U.S. Miss Rehana gives a very weak solution to her argument. Do not provide financial aid to Pakistan, and instead allow the UN or Non-Govermental Organizations to build schools in Pakistan. A noble effort yes, but I doubt UN workers or ANY non-governmental organization would want to go into a broke country with militants on one side and India on the other, in short: there would be chaos. The irony of the situation is that Pakistan will not even allow U.S. forces to train their military on their soil. Pakistani soldiers have to come to the U.S. to be trained in counter-insurgency techniques. Isn't that a little bit of parochial thinking as well? In the end, each of these countries are linked together, the actions that the U.S. does will have an effect on each country in this region, its impossible to control the outcome. What it comes down to is Pakistan's Nuclear capability and the U.S. not wanting that compromised. While I don't like the idea of the U.S. giving money to a corrupt Government, what alternative is there at this point? Chaos?