May 3, 2011 - 5:57 am
May 11, 2010:
Hillary Clinton: Pakistani officials know where Osama bin Laden hiding
May 2, 2011:
No, wait:
And furthermore:
Ahhhh. But really, they had me at “buried at sea according to Islamic tradition.”
(And seriously: Did we also take pains to shoot him in the face according to Islamic tradition? Was it a culturally sensitive face-shooting?)
We all know saving face is important in that part of the world. And if you have two faces to save, it is just that much more work for our diplomatic corps(e). If only there were some hyper grammer so we Americans could figure which of their statements our leaders actually believe.
Well…as Madeline Albright explained the other evening, our relationship with Pakistan is complicated, perhaps the most complicated we have. Being an experienced diplomat, she managed to say this with a straight face. Being a bit less complex in my way of thinking, I have to wonder how any of this is acceptable and whether anyone in DC accepts the Pakistani’s protestations of surprise.
As I recall, when the Taliban provided official sanctuary and refused to hand over OBL, Mullah Omar and friends were given a B-2 calling card and dispossessed of their status as a government. Their refusal was treated as an act of war. If we are that fearful of consequences that might follow from acknowledging the Pakistani military, ISI and government as the duplicitous sponsors of state terrorism that they are (ask India if not Afghanistan for confirmation of that point), then we might just as well concede publically our willingness to be blackmailed because that’s exactly what our actions betray; our billions in “aid” nothing more than an annual payment of tribute.
The President spent months reassessing our commitment to Afghanistan after taking office. Do the circumstances surrounding OBL’s life and death not demand at least the same level of reassessment and scrutiny for our “relations” with Pakistan?
Cindy Sheehan is saying the whole thing is fake so the sea burial is a non-issue.
The two taps to the face pretty much answers the human shield question. These are guys that simultaneously shot 3 pirates at the same instant from the back of a moving boat. They normally shoot for the the largest part of the target, but if the largest part of the target is an ugly mug peeking from behind a burka, that’s where they’re going to hit.
For about 12 hours there I was kind of surprised at the professionalism of the administration. Looks like that administration has gone back into hiding.
“buried at sea according to Islamic tradition”
Where do you get this? No country would want a potential shrine to OBL on their soil so this was the only option. Why give muslims a tangible place to glorify OBL?
Walt C,
Yep. Now all the players are back to playing to the press to achieve their policy goals.
Another find example of leading from the rear. How about that hindmost?
“And seriously: Did we also take pains to shoot him in the face according to Islamic tradition? Was it a culturally sensitive face-shooting?”
Maybe Billy Joe Shaver was on the Seal Team.
Heh!
They’re trying to have it all ways with all people. The “Islamic traditional burial at sea” thing was an attempt to cover themselves with religious authorities, while at the same time not providing a shrine for followers to visit. Occasionally this has been done with criminals, traitors and the like, who are convicted and executed by one government or another, for this reason specifically.
It’s no surprise they did things this way (killed him and then immediately buried him at sea). And it’s no surprise that the Obama administration is screwing up the discussion after, being unable to speak with one voice and agree on something. The Pakistanis have been terribly embarrassed by this incident, obviously (and at one level it’s justice that they are; the guy was hiding in their midst, within sight of their military academy, for Pete’s sake!).
The thing is, we have only a few limited options at this point, in terms of dealing with the Taliban problem in the region. We can negotiate with them (something some liberals have been arguing for years, using the term “moderate Taliban” in a hopeful tone of voice. One imagines the “moderate Taliban” is in favor of allowing women to achieve a 3rd-grade education before returning home to their burqas and child-rearing. A second option is to hope that the Taliban somehow weakens or morphs without any influence from us; this seems unlikely, given how they achieved power the last time. The third option is to fight them, with surrogates or our own soldiers. Pretty much everyone in the states is now assuming that Bin Laden’s death means we can depart from Afghanistan; that means that surrogates will have to do most of our fighting (if not all of it) on the ground. In the region we’re talking about, if we don’t have the Pakistanis to use as surrogates we’re out of luck; there aren’t anywhere near enough Afghan soldiers, and besides much of the Islamist extremist movement we have a problem with is on the Paki side of the border anyway.
This means we either fight Pakistan, or ally with Pakistan to fight the Taliban and other Islamist extremists. And *that* means that yes, this is embarrassing for the Pakistani government, and yes we should try and minimize the damage, so that we can get on with our long-term goals (which after all are only partially fulfilled by killing this one guy). I know it’s annoying, but it’s the way it has to be. Fighting Pakistan itself would probably be beyond our capability right now, in that our country just wouldn’t stand for it. We have the technology and manpower, yes, but not the national will, and that’s more crucial than the other stuff.