March 27, 2008
PAKISTAN UPDATE....The Guardian reports that U.S. diplomat John Negroponte got a chilly reception in Pakistan earlier this week:
On Tuesday, senior coalition partner Nawaz Sharif gave the visiting Americans a public scolding for using Pakistan as a "killing field" and relying too much on [President Pervez] Musharraf.
....The body language between Negroponte and Sharif during their meeting on Tuesday spoke volumes: the Pakistani greeted the American with a starched handshake, and sat at a distance .
In blunt remarks afterwards, Sharif said he told Negroponte that Pakistan was no longer a one-man show. "Since 9/11, all decisions were taken by one man," he said. "Now we have a sovereign parliament and everything will be debated in the parliament."
The Washington Post reports on our response:
The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials.
....Thomas H. Johnson, a research professor at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif., said: "People inside the Beltway are aware that Musharraf's days are numbered, and so they recognize they may only have a few months to do this. Musharraf has . . . very few friends in the world — he probably has more inside the Beltway than in his own country."
That's a great way of improving our relationship with the new leadership in Pakistan, isn't it? We know they want us to cut back on bombing their territory, so we go ahead and increase our bombing of their territory instead in order to get in a few last licks. What a terrific way to demonstrate exactly what we think of those pesky elections they just held, eh?
—Kevin Drum 11:18 AM
Permalink
| Trackbacks
| Comments (33)
wait. we're attacking inside Pakistan?
someone needs to tell St BBQ so he can put a stop to this!
Posted by: cleek on March 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK
It's morning in Pakistan:
In blunt remarks afterwards, Sharif said he told Negroponte that Pakistan was no longer a one-man show. "Since 9/11, all decisions were taken by one man," he said. "Now we have a sovereign parliament and everything will be debated in the parliament."
Maybe we'll hear something similar from Congress soon.
Posted by: Boolaboola on March 27, 2008 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK
Like Mexico, we are dealing with a nation whose main industry is supplying uneducated Islamic workers to America to pay for Kevin's and George's constantly overblown government programs.
Posted by: Matt on March 27, 2008 at 11:39 AM | PERMALINK
Don't you hate it when you start Democracy on the march, and it actually goes places?
Posted by: thersites on March 27, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK
Why the outrage Kevin? Wasn't it Obama who said that he would bomb in Pakistan to get rid of Al Qaeda regardless of what the locals thought?
Posted by: optical weenie on March 27, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
Matt,
Like Mexico, we are dealing with a nation whose main industry is supplying uneducated Islamic workers
Which nation is Mexico dealing with?
Or do you mean Mexico is supplying uneducated Islamic workers?
Talk sense, man!
Posted by: thersites the blackguard on March 27, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK
Thersites the blackguard - you are wasting your time with Matt. His prior posts demonstrate that he obviously has a lot of jelly around the belly.
Posted by: optical weenie on March 27, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK
I know, Weenie. But sometimes a man's got to relax with some barrel fishin'.
Posted by: thersites the blackguard on March 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM | PERMALINK
"In blunt remarks afterwards, Sharif said he told Negroponte that Pakistan was no longer a one-man show. "Since 9/11, all decisions were taken by one man," he said. "Now we have a sovereign parliament and everything will be debated in the parliament."
_________________
It is interesting that he uses the phrase "sovereign parliament." Under a parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is usually given the task of handling day-to-day sovereignty issues. A sovereign parliament could create a problem similar to the "535 Secretaries of State" idea in the US.
Posted by: Trashhauler on March 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
Well, it was pointed out to me that St. John did not mean that we shouldn't strike at relevant targets in Pakistan, just that we shouldn't tell anyone beforehand.
So it's "roger, go at throttle up!"
Posted by: JM on March 27, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK
What a terrific way to demonstrate exactly what we think of those pesky elections they just held, eh?
Ah Kevin, don't you know that elections are only valid if they support this administrtion's policy?
Posted by: Keith G on March 27, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK
From the Guardian article:
"Yesterday the new prime minister, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said he warned President George Bush in a phone conversation that he would prioritise talking as well as shooting in the battle against Islamist extremism. 'He said that a comprehensive approach is required in this regard, specially combining a political approach with development,' a statement said.
But Gilani also reassured Bush that Pakistan would 'continue to fight against terrorism', it said."
______________________
Strangely enough, the article doesn't say anything about who in Parliament should be contacted before we do anything in Pakistan. According the the above, the new PM thinks he'll still have a job. Well, perhaps the Prime Minister hasn't yet received his orders from the "sovereign parliament."
Posted by: Trashhauler on March 27, 2008 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK
Mat Yglesias had an interesting observation on this yesterday.
It's the very nature of the imperialist project that we have embarked upon which forces us to rely upon local leaders who do not have local popular support.
I think that's a good thing, as due to the reliance on such leaders, any imperialist project is ultimately bound to fail.
Posted by: gregor on March 27, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINK
Pakistanis should prepare themselves for roaming death squads organized by the CIA. These death squads will not be attacking al-Qaeda. The US backed death squads will target Pakistanis not willing to accept American 'democratic' guidance and any religious leaders who happen to voice disagreement with their violence.
Asst. Sec. Negroponte will be disappointed to learn there are not very many Catholic nuns to rape and murder in Pakistan.
Posted by: Brojo on March 27, 2008 at 12:51 PM | PERMALINK
Well, first of all, I wouldn't hang too much on those two words "sovereign parliament" - there is no such thing as a totally accurate translation. Even if he was speaking in English, he was thinking in Urdu. But whatever. Spin away.
Second - look for a couple of dead AQ types to surface. If Negroponte is on the ground, someone is dead or dying. Wonder what was in the sack that changed hands? Euros or diamonds? It sure as fuck wasn't dollars in this global economy.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on March 27, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK
To all of those pesky democracacies, "So?"
(another way of saying F*** y**).
Posted by: Neal on March 27, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK
Yeah, it's terrible. Presumably relations will be much improved when President Omaba invades the place.
Posted by: am on March 27, 2008 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK
That's a great way of improving our relationship with the new leadership in Pakistan, isn't it? We know they want us to cut back on bombing their territory, so we go ahead and increase our bombing of their territory instead in order to get in a few last licks. What a terrific way to demonstrate exactly what we think of those pesky elections they just held, eh?
Uh, Kevin, did you ever hear of these people called "terrorists"? You know, there's a group of them called Al Qaeda who killed thousands of our civilians on Sept. 11, and now they're in Pakistan, and they're still terrorists!!
As far as I'm concerned, Pakistan's comlplaints don't matter unless we're suppressing their people, or accidentally killing their civilians on a reckless scale. Pakistan should be thrilled just to be on our good side. If they want to do something to make the world a better place, they should try to convince people to solve the problems in their lives without murdering people, instead of pontificating to us.
Posted by: Swan on March 27, 2008 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK
That's a great way of improving our relationship with the new leadership in Pakistan, isn't it?
In the words of VP Cheney:
"So?"
Posted by: lBupkis on March 27, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK
Swan: accidentally killing their civilians on a reckless scale.
Is that like the Richter scale? What number of civilians killed falls below the reckless scale?
Moron.
Posted by: thersites on March 27, 2008 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK
"I wouldn't hang too much on those two words "sovereign parliament."
_____________________
I don't think I would, either, Blue Girl. I don't have any spin to give it. I'm just curious as to how Mr. Sharif expected that to work.
No spin, but here is some speculation. Mr Sharif is a major leader in the religious parties Perhaps it shouldn't be unexpected that he isn't disposed to be friendly with the US. Will he be happy if the new central government in Pakistan ever decides to exercise sovereignty over Waziristan?
Posted by: trashhauler on March 27, 2008 at 1:46 PM | PERMALINK
Any country in which a guy like John "Death Squad" Negroponte can have a long and distinguished career in government has lost its way. Evidently people in other countries have noticed.
Posted by: Joshua on March 27, 2008 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK
Well, trashhauler, I can see it. Pakistan is no-holds-barred right now, and when they fight to the death in that part of the world they mean it. The last time I let my imagination off the leash where they are concerned, I ended up under my granddaughters bed, sucking my thumb and clutching her blankie.
Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on March 27, 2008 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK
I think generally Kevin ought to stick to his strength, domestic politics, and stay away from foreign or military affairs. The "starchness" of a handshake and sitting positions are not the more sophisticated analyses. I also doubt that what is publicly said by either side it the most important part of the relationship.
Posted by: brian on March 27, 2008 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK
As far as I'm concerned, Pakistan's comlplaints don't matter
Blah, blah, blah...shut the fuck up, you little pest. The grownups are talking. Don't you have homework or something?
Posted by: volatile compound on March 27, 2008 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK
B-but I thought Gigolo John said we shouldn't do this!
"Sen. John McCain of Arizona, close to clinching the GOP nomination, called Sen. Barack Obama 'naive' today and...blasted him for advocating a bombing of Al Qaeda hide-outs in Pakistan," the Los Angeles Times reports.
"The best idea is not to broadcast what you're going to do, that's naive," said McCain, who also questioned the very notion of "bombing Pakistan without their permission." ...
LA Times, Feb. 21, 2008
Posted by: Stefan on March 27, 2008 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK
As far as I'm concerned, Pakistan's comlplaints don't matter
Blah, blah, blah...shut the fuck up, you little pest. The grownups are talking. Don't you have homework or something?
Posted by: volatile compound on March 27, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK
If they want to do something to make the world a better place...
They had their chance but let Negroponte get away.
Posted by: Brojo on March 27, 2008 at 2:09 PM | PERMALINK
"B-but I thought Gigolo John said we shouldn't do this!"
__________________
Presumably, we still have permission for ops in Pakistan.
Posted by: Trashhauler on March 27, 2008 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK
Swan,
Relax, Thersites just want to catch fish from a barrel today.
Posted by: optical weenie on March 27, 2008 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK
Sadly Bush's concentration on Iraq means we'll probably have to go into Pakistan one day for bin Laden or his successor and/or al-Queda as we did in Afghanistan. Long as the Israel lobby prevents any evenhanded policy towards the Musslemen, we'll face hostility.
Posted by: Luther on March 27, 2008 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK
I would guess that by the term "sovereign parliament" he is simply using sovereign in its proper sense i.e. the supreme source of power and authority in a nation.
In a parliamentary system, that authority is invested in parliament as a whole, not the prime minister or the government.
Posted by: MikeN on March 27, 2008 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK
im like very much usa iwant iam amrican ilive any waher but uiwant i am amricy
Posted by: abid on March 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK