Question: what do Hillary Clinton, Madeleine Albright, Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden have in common? Answer: Pakistan.
Hillary Clinton is rumored to be a top contender for the next Secretary of State. Chris Cilliza at the Fix rounds up the rumors. A New York Times story suggesting that she has decided to accept the offer and cryptic non-denials from the Obama camp are fueling the fire. As Secretary of State, one of Hillary Clinton’s top priorities will be what to do with Pakistan, which Barack Obama characterized, along with Afghanistan, as being “the central front of terrorism”.
One proxy indicator for Hillary’s thinking on Pakistan are the views of Madeleine Albright who gets a headache just contemplating it. Albright recently expostulated, “Pakistan. Pakistan has everything that gives you an international migraine. It has nuclear weapons, corruption, poverty, extremism, a terrible financial situation, a government that’s just come in that’s not very strong, and it is in a location that is absolutely essential in terms of dealing with Afghanistan.” To be fair the Pakistanis get a headache thinking about Pakistan too. The New York Times reports a rampant rumor in Islamabad that America is working for the dissolution of Pakistan as a way of making the problem go away.
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — A redrawn map of South Asia has been making the rounds among Pakistani elites. It shows their country truncated, reduced to an elongated sliver of land with the big bulk of India to the east, and an enlarged Afghanistan to the west.
That the map was first circulated as a theoretical exercise in some American neoconservative circles matters little here. It has fueled a belief among Pakistanis, including members of the armed forces, that what the United States really wants is the breakup of Pakistan, the only Muslim country with nuclear arms.
“One of the biggest fears of the Pakistani military planners is the collaboration between India and Afghanistan to destroy Pakistan,” said a senior Pakistani government official involved in strategic planning, who insisted on anonymity as per diplomatic custom. “Some people feel the United States is colluding in this.”
So great is the paranoia that even Barack Obama is being suspected of perfidy despite his view, published in Foreign Affairs, that “if Pakistan can look towards the east with confidence, it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the Taliban,” meaning that if America can persuade India to make nice with Pakistan, Islamabad can be persuaded to take a tougher line on al-Qaeda. But the problem with that, as the NYT itself points out, is that it threatens to link Kashmir to the Taliban question, a prospect even the writer of the article quails at.
Of course there’s always the chance that Pakistan will need no help in breaking up; the inherent instability of that country may cause it to fall apart without any prompting from “neo-conservatives” or cabals in America. It could just happen on its own. In fact one of the greatest unsolved challenges facing traditional diplomacy is what to do “countries” all over the world that are simply cracking up. Diplomats just don’t know what to do with them. The State Department and other diplomatic institutions are designed to deal with other states and when forced to deal with a chaotic regions crisscrossed by warring tribes and infested with bandits and religious fanatics they find that their diplomatic medicine cabinet has no balm for it.
Perhaps the Obama administration, instead of building a “civilian national security force” to duplicate the military should create a Non-State Department to mirror the diplomatic establishment. Just as nations need ways to accredit ambassadors to other, functioning nations, they need ways to exchange — not necessarily credentials, but something — with the regions dominated by pirates, gangs of child soldiers, religious madmen and marauding hordes of armed men. At the very least a Non-State Department could come up with a new set of rules that are more appropriate to the situation.
Migraine headaches. What to do with them?
embedded by Embedded VideoYouTube Direkt
Tip Jar
Originally built in 1901, this walkway, called El Camino del Rey, now serves as an aproach to Makinodromo, the famous climbing sector of El Chorro in Spain’s Andalucia.
(Scroll down a little, then click the video)
One must recognize that Pakistan majority are not extremist radical muslims. They elected a make-up wearing bejeweled Benazir Bhutto . Even the USA has not had a female President yet. I don’t think the key is Kashmir. I think its Israel. The one common thread that connects moderate and radical muslims together is US Support of Israel. Time to stop supporting 6 Million at the expense of 1.2 Billion. Makes no sense.
I think there is an oil pipeline in that scene somewhere. I listened to the Audio Commentary on Tears of the Sun and I remember the director, Antoine Fuqua, saying there were those who wanted to put a rant against “big oil” in the movie but he said that was not the movie he wanted to make — one that says these problems were some how all the fault of the West. I thought that was a good decision on his part.
There are fewer than 2 million Jews on the planet and someone correct me if I am wrong, please, but I recall reading that several different places. Sacrificing the minority to placate the majority runs contrary to everything we stand for and have built as a nation. Since the bottom line of “support” is money, it is time for the obscene wealth of the Arab oil states to be shared with their brothers. The aid given to Israel is like pennys compared to oil sales by the Arabs. “Supporting 6 million at the expense of 1.2 billion” assumes that all of the 1.2 billion are helpless and impoverished. It is time for the 1.2 billion to take a critical look at how their religion is impacting their lives in the material world. The scapegoating of Jews has done nothing but bring hardship on themselves yet they refuse to own up to it.
Dennis: Bullshit.
Islam is not compatible with modernity.
Bhutto’s election was by her party. Pak is a parliamentary system.
Israel is. Get over it.
Goesh. There are 2 Million Jews in NYC.
Some pundit, I don’t recall who, said that these countries are like the panhandler you encounter each morning on the way to work. You give the guy 25 cents but you know that the only thing that would possibly help would be to take him home with you, put him up in your spare room, feed him well, give him some decent clothes, and get him some medical help. And you would never do that; too much trouble.
It’s much, much worse with failed countries than with failed people. If you took the bum home with you most of your friends would both admire you and think you nuts. Your neighbors would admire you and start looking for a new house in a different part of town. No one would picket your house with signs that said “Get the Bum Out Of Richard’s House!” or claim that taking him in was a sign of your racism or cultural imperialism or whatever.
But the same people that claim to be so concerned over the plight of the bums on the international street are also those most likely to scream when you take one of them under your wing and try to straighten out the place – like say, Iraq.
In fact, John and Cindy McCain adopted a child from a third world country and that got them no discernable traction; the only comment I recall hearing was aback guy who said it was an obvious case of pandering to blacks. And of course, the child is not even black.
That paragon of right-wing (or ((gasp!)) neo-con) orthodoxy, Bianca Jagger, wrote an excellent piece (sorry, I don’t have a link, I read it several years ago but I am sure it is still available) about the terrible massacre at Srebinica. One terrible fact among many terrible facts is that the massacre (however unintentionally) was aided and abetted by the UN – in fact, one could argue the massacre would not have occurred without the UN’s presence and actions…er, well, presence. How and why could the UN, an apparent bringer of hope and safety, become accessory to murder and mayhem of the worst sort for those doomed people?
Well, I guess I “hope” these things don’t happen again.
I believe something similar happened in Rwanda.
K – The UN’s baleful presence in the Bosnian wars is very effectively dramatized in the 2001 movie “No-Man’s Land”. Many people carry on about this movie as being an anti-war piece, but I think they’re missing the point. The real villians of this story are the UN and a news media that can only be described as parasitic.
Somewhat off-topic, but I often think the UN is Sparta without the discipline, we are Athens without a Pericles and OPEC/Palestine are the Corinthians in full browbeating voice.
Wretchard is right on the money when he writes “Non-State”. That’s exactly the problem, isn’t it?
The problem stems from the penchant that 19th colonialists had for drawing lines around areas on a map and giving that area a name. Somehow these places are expected to function as countries. Often they are filled with people that hate their “countymen” more than they hate their enemies. What we are seeing now is the unwinding of that colonial creation and it’s most unfortunate step-child the Sykes-Picot Agreement.
I try to think of failed states the way a capitalist thinks of failed companies, we would be best in the long run to just let them go entirely to pieces and see what assembles out of the remains. Diplomats cannot see past the current state structures (which have been frozen with their current borders by the UN) and thus are unwilling to allow states to die. Humanitarians are loath to stand by while millions (billions) die during the re-organization. Thus we keep trying to maintain the current model through various life-support tactics. I am afraid that the patients are terminal and will pass away despite best efforts. Hopefully the rest of the world does not become infected while providing treatemnt. Non-states are not the future they are the first step toward a future with radically different borders.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 11/24/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
Tears of the Sun – excellent film, and one that will be increasingly relevant in years ahead. The movie raises profound questions about how much blood and treasure the West should expend by stepping in the middle of civil wars in the undeveloped world.
Whatever you may feel about Iraq, I would state unequivocally that Saddam was an enemy and threat to the United States. Sure, arguments are present that no casus belli existed, the threat wasn’t imminent, etc., and those are perfectly valid arguments. However, the clear fact remains that the U.S. had a direct national security interest in Saddam’s Iraq.
What we may see a return with an Obama administration is the Bosnian-Mogadishu-Lebanon syndrome, where Western soldiers are sent into backwater combat zones with vague and impossible orders like “maintain stability” and “prevent genocide.” Without total commitment by the nation-state sponsoring the military intervention, such expeditions and peace-keeping missions are doomed to failure.
As a citizen of the world, would Obama feel a need to act as its policeman? Would he send U.S. troops into situations where the U.S. has no real interest to protect? We know the Left hates the military and abhors intervention, but those were the “neo-con” interventions and the “neo-con” military deployments. Does anyone really think that the Left would hesitate to spend American lives to prop up Chavez’s border, or for “peace-keeping” missions to protect the Palestinians? After all, when you get down to it, the only Western lives being lost are those ignorant-Republican-warmongering-fascist soldiers.
Pakistan has already broken up once during its short history. The other region which was formerly in Pakistan is now Bangladesh. This was achieved with a great deal of savage violence, riots and murder, even though the two are 1,000 miles apart and both Muslim.
I read something recently that discussed the how and why of America being able to kill off so many top Taliban / Al-Queda types. It said that Petraeus had flown the new Pakistani commander in charge of their military (who replaced Musharref) to an American aircraft carrier, whereupon said Paki commander was presented with proof that ISI and the Pakistan military are and have been in active cahoots with Al-Queda.
The article mentioned a “heated” discussion (mental picture of an aircraft carrier rolling from side to side), but the Paki commander was promising to be more helpful in the future when he left the aircraft carrier. Left unsaid (at least in the article) was what the “or else” would consist of. Anon, and American missiles have been able to pinpoint and target high-value terrorist targets who residing within Pakistan.
I’m also reading that Mullah Omar has been offered asylum in Saudi Arabia both by Karzai and Abdullah (with Bush’s blessings). I guess the Saud’s figure their nutsoid imam’s can out-crazy him so what harm could it do to bring him in from the cold of Pakistan.
Pakistan is running scared. And they should be. Good.
The British had a “Non-State Department” to deal with lawless non-state “regions dominated by pirates, gangs of child soldiers, religious madmen and marauding hordes of armed men” they called it the Colonial Office. The UN Trusteeship Council was supposed to fill the same roll on behalf of “all peace loving nations. “We have spent the last 40 years going in exactly the wrong direction. We now give the rights of Prisoners of War to Unlawful Combatants, entertain refugee applications from terrorists and pirates, and treat the representatives of a criminal legal fiction called the Palestine Authority with more courtesy than is offered to a sovereign state.
In creating Pakistan, it was once hoped that Islam would be be able to shine forth as the guiding light of mankind, unfettered by other religions and able to spread its wings and fly full of Islamic glory as an example to all the world.
Instead of being a positive role model, they have given us the Taliban and AQ Khan. What would happen if the country dissolved could be a great disaster, but the greater disaster would be for Islam itself. For eventually from the ashes would rise a people now aware of the pitfalls and traps of the extreme. I think most of the Pakistani’s and indeed the majority of Muslims already know the evil, vile and inhuman nature of Al Qaeda, and the tendency if they follow the extreme, to become evil, vile and inhuman like them. It is not a place many fancy, despite the promise of a better life after this one. It is an illness that, like a tumor, needs to be removed from the host.
Some would have us believe that Israel is made from the same vile stock. That belief does not hold up as true, when given facts and the disinfecting nature of sunlight. The greater risk. If the majority of Pakistani’s can be led to play nice with India, and the Muslim Indians can stay calm, the resolution of the extremes in Pakistan and Afghanistan can be accomplished. But it will require a firm strong and unwavering hand of justice. I am still watching to see indications of firmness, signs of strength and will to justice necessary in the yet to be for real administration of “Oh”.
I think I saw a hint of being serious, but then, after proposing Governor Nipolitano for DHS, I can’t be sure.
I’m glad that Anton brings up Sykes-Picot and the proposition that all this south/central-asian instability is the result of strategic greed.
this is absurd. the problem with these “countries” is that they are not countries at all. to wit:
to the tribal mind, a modern “country” is something like a contemporary Native American reservation filled with people whose entire worldview and vocabulary still presumes that “te world” is the proper object of their consideration. Whereas previously their expansive primitive sense included the whole of the Asiatic landmass, and in reality they could ride as far as their military prowess would carry them, now they are confined to such things like “district adminstrations,” are hemmed in by the effrontery of a national military, are the object of strategic and tactical disinformation campaigns, are forced to parly with the “big tribe” just a couple hundred kilometers to the east in Islamabad. at this they constantly chafe.
to the feudal mind working at the small plot or on the manor of his contemporary lord, politics is country Islam, bread, and the master.
to the elite, they inhabit and plunder – consistent with feudal might/makes/right – what “national infrastructure,” created by the British, that hasn’t been completely co-opted by (1) the tribes or (2) the feudal estates.
and then there is the army.
and then there is the intelligence agency.
the point is, these are not countries because these political boundaries do not comprise populations which ultimately gel enough to be regarded as a cohesive unit. this is not the fault of the colonial/imperial powers: the alternative to the imposition of modern national political and administrative boundaries is just a vast land mass differentiated only by the ability of regional warlords to impose their will in more or less real time. it is not some other, more rational, political organization.
at some point in the later roman empire the emperor of rome decided to pay the ransom for the shah of persia, who had been captured by some horse-&-archer barbarian horde or other. why would he rescue his arch strategic enemy like this? “who else would i be able to appeal to?” was the answer.
the absence of national organization is not reason and compassion and justice, it is chaos and poverty and tribal chauvanism. the problem with pakistan is not too much imperial legacy, it is too *little.*