The Myth that the MSM Understands the Middle East
People ask me why I write so much and I explain that I don’t want to do so but keep coming across such important events, missed stories, and outrageous nonsense that I feel compelled to say something. So it is in this case.
Here’s the problem: a remarkable amount of what’s written on the Middle East in the mass media — and certainly the efforts to analyze it as opposed to reporting events — is nonsensical. It makes the region harder to understand. It misleads the reader.
An example is Anatol Lieven, “5 Myths about Pakistan,” Washington Post, June 5, 2011. Lieven is a professor at Kings College London and a senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has just written a book on Pakistan.
One of the techniques often employed in the creation of the Fantasy Middle East is to misstate totally the issues at stake. Note the use of that technique in Lieven’s article.
Alleged Myth One: “Pakistan is a U.S. ally in the war on terrorism.”
Pakistan, he writes, just follows its own interests. Sometimes it’s helpful and sometimes it isn’t. Fair enough, that’s what allies generally do. But the policy question is: whether Pakistan is helpful often enough to merit being treated like an ally and given huge amounts of aid. The answer is “no.” Neither the question nor the answer is addressed.
Incidentally, it’s pretty outrageous that Lieven suggests that Pakistan supports the Taliban because India is inciting other groups in Afghanistan to seize power. Yet since Pakistan’s policy has been the same for 30 years — it has long supported radical Islamist forces in Afghanistan — how can India be to blame for relatively recent policies? To bash India for Pakistan’s behavior in Afghanistan is absurd.
If a country supports to a major degree the two groups that attacked America on September 11 — the Taliban and al-Qaeda — plus is a major sponsor of terrorism against India, the answer to question 1 isn’t “Sometimes” but “Definitely not!”
Alleged Myth 2: “Pakistan is an ally of the Taliban.”
Again, Lieven turns this into a “straw man” argument. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, he says. But the real answer is “yes,” if one is talking about the Afghan Taliban, which is what the United States is mainly concerned about! It is only an enemy of the [Pakistani] Taliban that tries to take over Pakistan. So, again, Pakistan IS an ally of the [Afghan] Taliban, the group — along with al-Qaeda — that the United States gives it billions of dollars to fight against!
Alleged Myth 3: “Islamist revolution is coming to Pakistan.”
Why is this a myth? Because, says Lieven, less than one-fifth of Pakistanis view the Taliban favorably in a poll. As if, that’s the only Islamist group! He cites one Pew poll number but other polls and other questions show a remarkably high level of support for Islamism among Pakistanis. Putting such a spin on one item and leaving out others verges, to put it politely, on deliberate dishonesty.
Indeed, a recent Pew poll shows that Pakistanis support Islamism by a whopping 47 to 15 percent margin. Thus, this argument that Pakistanis don’t want Islamism is a total myth. That’s why Lieven misrepresents the issue to “prove” that Pakistanis don’t want the Taliban’s specific brand of Islamism.
I’m not saying that Pakistan will have a radical Islamist revolution. But it is certainly possible. If Turkey and Egypt can become Islamist, surely Pakistan could do so.
Alleged Myth 4: “Massive U.S. aid lets Washington dictate Pakistani policy.”
This one really made me angry. Nobody seriously argues such a thing. The real issue is whether the large amount of aid and support the United States gives Pakistan provides some American leverage to get Pakistan to do things that the United States wants and needs to be done. If this aid does no good at all then it shouldn’t be given in the first place.
The correct formulation is: Does giving Pakistan massive aid provide Washington with any ability at all to have the slightest effect on Pakistani policy? If billions of dollars cannot even get them to help find Osama bin Laden, what good are they?
Alleged Myth 5: “Pakistan, not Afghanistan, is the front in the war on terrorism.”
The front? I don’t know anyone who says this either. That’s just a phony issue. The real question is: Does Pakistan provide really positive aid in fighting terrorism or not? But if one frames the question in that way, the answer is not likely to be in the affirmative, which is presumably why this question isn’t asked.
So what’s the bottom line? The author writes what he’s been setting up for that entire misleading essay:
None of this means that the United States should pursue more aggressive policies against Pakistan to win the war on terrorism….Any U.S. action that endangered the stability of the Pakistani government would be insane.
In other words, U.S. policy is just fine and there’s no need to change anything. Who cares if they support the Taliban, hide al-Qaeda leaders, and launch terrorist attacks on India? Just keep sending them money and keep giving them support.
Precisely the same argument has and will be used to rationalize such things as:
- U.S. aid and support to the Palestinian Authority (even if it refuses to negotiate or make peace and brings Hamas into the government);
- Turkey (despite its regime’s growing support for Iran);
- Syria (the regime supposedly wants to reform itself and you can’t expect it to abandon the alliance with Iran so who cares if they shoot down thousands of unarmed citizens and help terrorist groups along with opposing U.S. policies and interests);
- Lebanon (even if Hizballah will be in the government and the country is dominated by Syria and Iran);
- And no doubt soon Egypt (with a radical nationalist-Islamist regime that will be against the United States).
You can easily adjust the five “myths” to suit each circumstance. Indeed, if Iran’s leaders didn’t keep “stubbornly” refusing to make some phony deal on their nuclear program the Obama administration and many “experts” would no doubt be advocating the same ideas about Iran, too.
Why was that article written? Like so many, to turn something obvious through “sophistication” into a brain-dead conclusion. Let’s state it briefly to make the point stand out:
High-ranking elements in Pakistan have just got caught hiding Osama bin Laden, the world’s number-one wanted terrorist who killed 3000 Americans on September 11, and have repeatedly been caught helping bin Laden’s enablers, the Afghan Taliban, and terrorists murdering people in India. No apology, no investigation, no change of policy by Pakistan.
The expert recommendation? U.S. policy toward Pakistan shouldn’t change at all.
This is the foolishness dressed up with deception and double-talk that so often substitutes for serious debate in America’s mass media today.
I would call the kind of article I’m analyzing here not only “misinformation” but ”anti-information.” In other words, the person reading it would be worse informed afterward than they were beforehand!
And the same goes for much — most? Almost all? — of the material of this nature in the mass media. Not only do we face this propaganda barrage but contrary opinions are generally barred from mass media publication or broadcast altogether.
What I’ve done with this article and others can be done with many of the items on the Middle East that appear daily in prestigious publications. It’s not just about getting details wrong, it’s about total misdirection. A few minutes of serious analysis can totally demolish what they are saying while exposing their hidden (wrong) assumptions.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.
Mr. Rubin,
Why is it that seemingly smart people engage in such ridiculous self-delusion? Is ideology so powerful that all traces of rational thought gets buried in a mudslide of wishful thinking?
Would be interested in your thoughts.
DD
Such “smart” people engage in such hyperbole usually to make themselves seem needed or valued in some way. Otherwise, their “peers” give them pokes and ridicule for not publishing something “sage”. It’s not even the tail wagging the dog…it’s the tail wagging itself just for the sake of wagging. Useless, empty rhetoric supposedly founded on some ethereal principle that the average rube is too engaged in Saturday Night Wrestlemania to understand. These are the people who use an obscure, little-known word in conversation and then look around to see who has a perplexed look. In fact, I’ve witnessed that very thing but the upshot was that the word-user/intellectual said, “What’s the matter, are you unfamiliar with the word?” and the listener said, “No, I know the word; It’s just that I’ve never heard it used so improperly before”, and then proceeded to tutor the speaker with the etymology, typical usage, various spellings and even translations into other languages, for, the speaker had encountered his very first LINGUIST. A woman of very credible ability as well.
It falls under the heading of “Those of you who think you know it all, are really annoying to those of us who do”, Which, of course can work both ways.
It’s quite possible that the US is going through a class-struggle period that many nations have gone through in their histories, sometimes repeatedly. But in this case it is all being presided over by none other than Hambone the First. He has done nothing if he hasn’t pit one faction of people in this nation against another. Mob mentality, like Coulter suggests in her new book. Yes, if everyone is doing it, it must be legit.
On the other side of the spectrum are those types who think they are incredibly smart when in fact they are pretty much dumb as a bag of hammers. Yet their curious character flaw is that they think they are so slick they can play people for just about anything with the right words and “style”. Hambone is a mixture of this. He’s not exactly stupid but he is intellectually lazy, learning early-on in his life that he can get what he wants with much less effort through manipulation of whoever he needs to get it from. I’m of a mind that his thunder-thigh’ed “wife” married the guy out of pity because he probably played the helpless pathetic, need-a-momma kind of guy we so often see these days. Her bossy instinct was to “make a man out of him” patterned after some imaginary picture she had in her head of what a “man” is. To her credit, she corralled him for later use. He’s no good on his own but she was unable to repair the damage done decades before she and he met.
So, end result is the perfect storm in dysfunctional. They don’t know how to act like adults because they’ve never been taught by any examples. Paying your bills on time, cleaning the gutters, shoveling the driveway, getting the kids off to school and helping them with homework, etc, etc. Their kids, sadly, will grow up to be as screwed up or more than they are.
But, for some reason they are considered “smart” and no one really knows why this is. I certainly don’t. I think they’re more angry than smart and more lazy than aware. And the author Lievan is right there among ‘em.
Excellent post. Kudos!
The “front” on the War on Terrorism is the Zionazi genocide of the Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Zionazis are slaughtering Muslims without mercy and the American military industrial complex is rolling in profits from the bloodshed. This is the sum and substance of Muslim anger against the United States. Their race has been slated for genocide by the Zionazi entity and it is American munitions that are being used to carry it out! If the Zionazi entity ceases to exist just like the first Nazis, there will be peace!
Yeah, I’ll take the troll bait. Cause that’s gotta be what this is.
1. Genocide? A singularly ineffective one if so. If they really were out for this goal, the death toll would likely be slightly higher. A grand opportunity was missed right after the Six-Days War, too… But there are several million in Gaza today; not very indicative of a ‘genocide’.
2. Peace in the region. Puh-lease. Just like that between Iran and Iraq? Or Iran and its own citizens? Or Syria and its own citizens? Or…
3. Zionazis? Projecting, maybe?
4. I really should not respond to trolls…
“Their race has been slated for genocide….”
Race??
What race?
Genocide, where?
Projection indeed.
It’s all been downhill with you lot since the Banu Qurayza mass murder.
Israel could wipe out the Palestinians in under an hour, even with conventional weapons. And they have had many opportunities, but have not done so each time. No nation I can think of has shown the restraint Israel has to an aggressive, murderous, suicidal enemy as the Palestinians have repeatedly shown themselves to be.
If the Muslims in the region simply left Israel alone for a couple decades, and did something useful instead of living off international aid, Israel would probably triple it’s economy in that time, contribute to science, art, and innovation, and become one of the greatest R&D labs in the world. The Palestinians would sell counterfeit T-shirts and stolen car parts and set up meth labs. But soon the self-hatred of the Muslims would become too intolerable, and they would once again blame the Jews for their circumstances, and start lobbing rockets into Jewish hospitals and universities.
Transference is a b*tch!
And how did comment 2 make it past the censor? Perhaps as an example of the mental distortion and IDS effecting a large part of the world?
Perhaps a vaccine?
Why are we involved in Pakistan? Can anyone explain this to me? We killed Bin Laden (or as my idiotic neocon neighbor like to say “we Seal Team 6′d him!”….what a maroon). Why are we still spending money in that area of the world? How does this benefit our children? How does this pay for education? How is this all creating jobs? Do these efforts act to green the Earth? Why are we bombing people when we could be spending “bomb” money on shovel-ready projects, like wind farms, solar, organic meat processors, and desert-scape fecal reclamation? What do we say to our grandchildren in 30 years when they want to know why is 115 degrees in Boston?? “Oh”, we’ll say, “we were busy bombing little brown kids in Pakistan so that Exxon-Mobile could maximize its profits.” Idiots, all of you……
LovelyEarth = Chicken little?
My Lord, ladies, and gentlemen…
What we have here is the perfect example of an Obamabot.
Beyond parody, so I won’t even try.
I can’t tell whether his comment is parody or real or both. He mentions the typical liberal talking points about Americans hating brown kids, global warming and education spending. He says that solar and wind power plants are “shovel-ready” like infrastructure, which I haven’t even heard Pelosi or Obama say. Then he mentions organic meat and “fecal reclamation”, which of course conservatives mention when they make fun of the prototypical liberal: a vegetarian and “recycler”. This guy is literally a caricature of a liberal that I can imagine a conservative talk host making fun of. I think he’s just trying to be funny.
He had me at “115 degrees in Boston”. LMAO that is. And yes, reading what the idiot wrote is one thing. Responding to it, quite another. But, I often thought…if it gets warmer on Earth…won’t that mean our energy needs will be less and therefore less “greenhouse gasses”? One would think that we would want it to be warmer in Boston and surrounding areas to make the growing season for corn longer so we can have more ethanol. Geez…
This is most likely Lovely Earth’s employer.
These are excellent points. I think the CEO’s of the oil companies that are destroying the earth are secretly building self-contained biospheres for themselves and their families while the rest of us die of exposure and starvation on a poisoned planet. I wonder if the two-bit propagandists they’ve hired to write for this website think they will be able to secure a place there?
Throbbin Yobbin & Lovely Earth;
You both might want to read another column on PJM this morning. It is titled “How Not To Appear Crazy On The Internet”.
Thank You.
cheers
eon
Those pills they give you are to help with those delusions.
TY,
You forgot to blame the Zionazis for poisoning the planet! If you want to be a good little troll, you better get with the program and remember your talking points.
@4…TY
Regarding TY’s feeble attempt at sarcasm:
“…the two-bit propagandists they’ve hired to write for this website…”
See 1389′s reply to Lovely Earth
“This is most likely Lovely Earth’s employer.”,
and Buraq’s hack.
Just how many are there inside your head? I saw your “Pilgrims landing at Mount Rushmore,” on another topic, thinking it sarcastic and funny. With this post, I’m thinking you might have been serious.
If you think that Anatol Lieven was bad on Pakistan you should have seen Fareed Zakaria, the Newsweek editor, commenting on Netanyahu’s speech to congress. Zakaria said that the speech proved that Netanyahu was unwilling to make concessions for peace. I wonder if any of the other 50 million viewers of the speech and Zakaria failed to understand the obvious, that Zakaria is blatant fraud. And this guy is the editor of a major news magazine!
I have no idea what credentials Mr. Lieven has to qualify himself as an authority on Pakistan policies, but his article is certainly misinformation, either deliberate or based on woeful ignorance and the embracing of the “moral equivalence” posture of the RDP – the Running Dog Press. Thirty years ago V.S. Naipaul wrote “Among the Believers: an Islamic journey.” The dead hand of Islamic regression was already heavy on Pakistan. Twelve years ago he published “Beyond Belief: Isllmic excursions among the converted peoples”, further revealing out Islam’s insistence on stripping all culture to a blind obedience to the primitive Prophet of the Arab past, reduces all societies it invades to serfdom.
There is only one big myth about Pakistan(and Islam) That it has any policy, domestic or foreign,other than enforcing a theocratic hegemony. Pakistan “knows” that the U.S.A. has no future in the middle east and regards our tolerance and lack of spine, in religious belief and in foreign policy. as contemptible and deserving of being taken advantage of. They cooperate, as you point out, where it helps them control internal enemies. They applaud and support the Taliban, Hamas and Hezbollah and all jihadists elsewhere. They are as intransigent as the Palestinian Authority. Probably 90% of Pakistanis support Islam; their differences relate to which branch
We are their enemy and they are dedicated to defeating us. They will take our money and play our silly “negotiating” games. The RDP refuses to accept this and embraces “niceness” as a Foreign Policy. I doubt that a change of Administration in 2012 will alter their “message.”
Oh if only it were so simple.
Of course, the resolution is not simple: it is frightening. But unless you start from this “inconvenient truth” you are empowering them. The mullahs have got us figured out, and we’re playing by their rules. I don’t think the Israelis will.
People like Lleven, Zakaria, and the vast majority of pundits and ‘scholars’ in the MSM never delve deeply into a subject. Why bother when everyone in your intended audience knows how intelligent and knowledgeable you are? So instead they scratch the surface for tid bits and factoids or make things up to support their agenda. They certainly do not expect their fans to fact check them. You see these intellectual giants have no interest in enlightening or informing readers. Their purpose is burnish their mythical acumen in the eyes of their adoring audience.
Throbbin Yobbin is probably a troll. But there is a slight possibility that TY is here to practice for the dreamed of day when he/she is the senior editorial writer of the New York Times. And my, oh my, what a terrible genocide when the population of the victims actually grows. Try google TY, you’ll find a more than a few unbiased sources.
The Post regularly prints these ’5 myth’ columns — all of which are filled with lies and half-truths. The ‘myths’ are either actually true or are statements that no one actually believes (strawmen). Several months ago the Post ran a column by the ‘ground-zero mosque’ imam that was just a farrago of nonsense and falsehood. The Post editorial staff really needs to go.
Oh hell. The MSM doesn’t even understand the Middle West of their own country and continent.
zhombre, How right you are, but we peasants in fly over country offer them reciprocity.
great article Mr Rubin.
…keep writing.
It’s the hill man, if you want anything done right, don’t tell them and just go ahead and do it. I figure it is best not develop any strategies and just let them do it all, as they only change the strategy anyway to suit their own purpose, mainly carpet bagging. So we all just waste our time, in fact that is one way to cut down on the budget, because if a strategy is developed and it takes time and then they do what they want anyway what is the point. We could put all staff on three day weeks.
There are some good people on the hill that think of the country first but I could count them on my hand. If the hill was listened to we would have lost Iraq, now that same influence is being used and listened to so it can only lead to disaster.
But Afghanistan will not be their greatest bungle that is yet to come and it will be the new posture for Asia Pacific.
This force posture in the Asia Pacific, while containment and an Asia alliance which is basically an alliance of primary first chain island ‘holders’ , those at the edge of the SEA and Pacific Rim nations sounds good in theory in practical application it is going to problematic.
How do you create a solid foundation of an alliance with members whom are in dispute with each other ( the only party with a unified position is the PRC). Now this all depends on how you define the first chain and second chain islands. Anyway the first chain island holders and those further from distance in the SEA do not see it as strategic concern, then those in the Pacific Rim not see the first chain islands, or the issues that face the nations on the edge on of the SEA as their strategic concern.
So at three tiers allies of the great alliance to contain the PRC are disputes, with their own short term view. The comes the issue of defense spending and procurement of allies to increase and maintain a level of deterrent.
So if the status quo of the US carrying the burden is no longer sustainable, each tier of the nations in the region are in dispute and the foundation is not solid, the issue of defense spending and procurement.
Then we are told the super base at Guam is not sustainable, so we do not have a fall back option to protect the US mainland via our force projection. We are told we need to have less overseas bases, which leads us to consolidate and create super bases.
What is the solution and how is that going to work, they can all work it out I am going to get drunk. There is no point developing strategy because they all change it anyway.
Simply no point, there is no point to it.
The globalists/clintonistas/united nazis are reluctant to declare Pak a non-ally because Pak’s secular elite has bent over backward to please these one-world filthy dreamer perverts, would you believe it, there are 3 available genders on Pak ideas, male, female and other… On the other hand most of the non-elite population in Pak are Mohammedans and more and more pro-Salafi and pro-Jihad, especially as they see how the west forces all countries into their perverted one-world plans.
So there are no good guys.
that should read Pak IDs, something selfcorrected it?
With all due respect to Mr. Rubin’s great literacy and ordinarily reliable political judgements, Pakistan isn’t in the Middle East. It’s in South Asia.
West of Pakistan lies Afghanistan, which is also in South Asia, not the Middle East. Further west (and north) of Afghanistan lies who knows what former Soviet ‘stans, which are generally considered to be within Central Asia, not the Middle East. Then there’s Iran and Turkey which are arguably in the Middle East, but only arguably.
Israel is in Asia too. semantics anyone.
much of the “middle east” is in Asia. things that fail for 500 Alex?
Yes, the Middle East is in Asia, and so is Pakistan. The point that was being made is that Pakistan is not in the Middle East.
This kind of makes the writer of the above column look like he doesn’t know what he is talking about.
..it will be easier to remember when the entire area is under the caliphate.
@16 HPH – I’ve been reading Barry Rubin for a number of years. I’m sure his description of Pakistan being in the Middle East is simply short hand for the conflict between Islam and the West and not a bungling of geographic areas. I wouldn’t be put off by it nor consider it a failing on his part.
The nefarious Muslim agenda as a whole, and the Pakistani agenda in particular, is being promoted in the US State Department via Hillary Clinton and her ever-present “body woman,” namely Huma Abedin. Yes, THAT Huma Abedin – the purportedly pregnant wife of the infamous Anthony Weiner.
More about her here:
Sleeping with the Enemy
The MSM understands very little, not even their own ugly selves. Not why they support and whore for a party dangerously immoral and selfish, not why they sell out their mythical journalistic principles, and not why they and their party lust for power, power to harm and diminish their fellow citizens. An ugly Self is a Self by choice unexamined.
So do you think there’s a chance these degenerates are going to grasp international affairs through blinkered vision and feeble minds ??
Mr. Rubin, if the make-believe media were indeed ‘mainstream’, Couric wouldn’t have been 86′d, as well as Olbermann (speaking of Keith, that dude has been ‘moved’ to the ‘Hoth System’, so to speak. How’s life on Pluto nowadays, Keith?), Sanchez’s, Schulz’s and the like wouldn’t be going into vapor-like diatribes on a nearly-daily basis!
Nope, they’d be living the good life with the 2nd Amendment being kaput nationwide, whereas the entire country would be like Chicago.. much to their chagrin.
Chris Matthews would be considered a good journalist and not a Daffy Duck impressionist with the political intellect of a dung beetle.
Obama’s ‘civilian police force’ he’d spoke of in ’08 would be implemented, etc etc.,
Instead the Breitbart’s, Drudge’s, Tim Carney’s, Mike Barone’s, Labash’s, Charles Payne’s, Ed Morissey’s, Malkin’s, Coulter’s, Cavuto’s, Gregory Kane’s and the numerous respected contributors in various other sites/blogs and of course here at PJM (sorry Mr. Navarrette, you didn’t make my cut, but I dig the racist fiction sold as ‘racial justice’ you espouse from time-to-time. Ring the bell, cabron!) will ALWAYS bring reason and infinitely more respect to differing views/takes.
What the ‘MSM’ truly is IMO is ideological, cheerleaders for counter-productivity and sloth. Using their overwhelming emotions and attempt to sell it as facts. Obviously, much to their disappointment the majority of our citizenry aren’t buying..
Mr. Rubin, I agree with much you say.
But I may differ slightly when you say about Myth 1:
I may not entirely agree that Pakistan isn’t “helpful enough to merit being treated like an ally.”
Our entire enterprise in Afghanistan depends on the Paks allowing us to ship supplies from the port at Karachi north then west into Afghanistan along Pakistani roads that stretch for hundreds of miles.
If I understand correctly, something like 70% of our supplies take that route, and without it, there just isn’t any other way to supply our people. (If you check out a map, you’ll see that: i) Karachi is the nearest ocean port to Afghanistan; and ii) the much longer overland routes to the north of Afghanistan would have to pass through the largely un-roaded “-stans.”)
Also, I’m not sure we’re shoveling all that much money into Pakistan, either. Hasn’t it been something like $30 — $50 billion over the past decade or so? If I’m right, that’s 3 – 5 billion a year.
Now, that’s more than you or I may have in either of our bank accounts, but it’s a rounding error in the scope of our federal budget.
JFWIW
BLOC
Barry Rubin you make some valid points with your article. Our American problem is we have become way to PC. America does not have any real allies except for Israel in the middle east. While America is trying to eradicate the islamic problem in the middle east we are under the illusion the muslims are helping us. While the islamist are building mosque`s here in America to over throw our government and our way of life, oh that`s right I am not suppose to say that. As far as the MSM, most of them are given a script to write or talk about, for this they are paid very well for really doing nothing or what they are told to do! America still has the time to do what is really needed to be done for us to have world peace. It has to be done very soon or all is lost. Pull our troops out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Saudi Arabia, Korea, Japan and the rest of the middle east and tell Pakistan to go to hell. But keep our military ready to strike any time anywhere. Then watch these countries squirm and crawl back to America seeking our military support, then maybe America will be appreciated and respected again! Just get Obama out, start drilling and using our own energy resources. Put someone in office with leadership and courage to do the job!
eyes open
Comments by skip gainer reflects what appears to be the average Yanks (Americans) view of the world and their involvement in it. America doesn’t have any “real allies”?? And reckons to pull out their troops out of those places and go home would be a good idea. The statistics of Afghanistan might help him to think globally instead of just USA. The latest fatalities in that country alone include US (1610), Britain (371), Canada (156), France (59), Germany (53), Denmark (40), Italy (36), Spain (31) Poland (27), Australia (27) The stats in the other countries he mentions would be readily available. How long would the great USA be able to “protect” the world without all these friends (Allies)
In my readings of Pakistan I’ve developed the hypothesis that much of the terror in Pakistan consists of “own goals” at least tolerated if not encouraged by the military. Whether this is fair or not, the Pakistani military is not accountable to democratic institutions, be it executive, legislative, or judicial, and past attempts to bring it into line have been hampered by direct U.S. aid to the military. Cutting off aid, then, will strengthen Pakistan’s democracy, not weaken it. Furthermore, the tax-collection system in Pakistan is ineffective and foreign aid makes up the difference. Cutting off the aid flow will simultaneously compel parliamentary debate and increase citizen interest.
As for negative effects on the U.S.-led WOT: I can’t think that any Pakistan might pose would outweigh the advantages of an aid cut-off.
The TRUTH about Pakistan:
1. Pakistan is for all intents and purposes an ENEMY Nation with regard to the US.
2. Pakistan is the Most DANGEROUS Nation on the face of the earth, They Have Nuclear Weapons, a weak government and a broadly Islamist leaning population – i.e. “NITRO meet GLYCERINE.”
3. Pakistan by most measures is a “Failed State” economically as well as Politically.
That is all and quite enough.
Dr. Shalit
Hello, I think that I saw you visited my site thus I came to “return the favorâ€.I am attempting to find things to enhance my web site!I suppose its ok to use some of your ideas!!