Ponies for Pakistan

Roger Cohen deploys his mastery of geopolitics: "Given the nuclear-charged risks, the U.S. must stick with him and maintain aid for now, but with the insistence he move rapidly toward promised elections, restore an independent judiciary, work with Bhutto and get real about quashing the Taliban." But why would Musharraf do any of those things if he knows that our view is that given the nuclear-charges risks we must stick with him? Either we're going to continue granting Musharraf his direct cash transfers or else we're going to make aid conditional. Obviously, this is a difficult policy question. But Cohen's answer: keep giving him the money "but with the insistence" that he do some stuff is no answer at all.

In general, I'd say this is pretty typical of the sort of magical thinking that seems to have infested our foreign policy pundits. How many times have I read a column making an argument like "Iraq is all fucked up for reasons A, B, and C but given the price of failure we have no choice but to close our eyes and hope really hard that A, B, and C vanish for some reason"? It's really foolish, a way of trying to present oneself as wise and knowledgeable about difficult questions without putting anything out there that one can be held accountable for if things don't work out. "No, no," the pundit protests, "I said we needed a policy that works and had no costs this fiasco has nothing to do with me."

Comments

And, how about the way he inserts the phrase: "...get real about quashing the Taliban". Using regular, folksy language like this is a way to establish his "common sense, regular Joe" (no pun intended) credentials.

I seem to remember that McCain had a similar rhetorical gambit when he said that, if he were president, he would solve the Iraq problem by telling both sides to "cut the shit", or some lame-ass wording to that effect.

My God, these people are annoying.

Posted by Jim W | November 8, 2007 9:39 AM

Oops. Ignore the "(no pun intended)" remark. I thought his name was Joe.

Posted by Jim W | November 8, 2007 9:41 AM

I think we've got to cut off or drastically reduce aid. That money seems to me like the one lever we have to change Musharraf's behavior that doesn't necessarily put the "nuclear charged risks" into play.

Posted by southpaw | November 8, 2007 9:50 AM

Matthew's views of foreign policy are hilariously hypocritical.

When Bush wants to use sticks with respect to Iran, Matthew says "no, no, no, that's a terrible idea, we should be using diplomacy". When Bush wants to use diplomacy with Pakistan, Matthew says "no, no, no, that's a terrible idea, we should be using sticks".

Basically, the only constancy to Matthew's conception of foreign policy is that he's for whatever is the opposite of whatever Bush is doing. Does that make Matthew a partisan hack? Hmmm....

Posted by Al | November 8, 2007 9:55 AM

Re: "Basically, the only constancy to Matthew's conception of foreign policy is that he's for whatever is the opposite of whatever Bush is doing. Does that make Matthew a partisan hack? Hmmm...."

I'm not sure if it makes him a partisan hack, but it does make him correct about 99% of the time.

Posted by Jim W | November 8, 2007 10:06 AM

After an admittedly cursory review of your many Pakistan posts, it seems to me they're all of the "everything we've tried so far has been idiotic" variety, without any "this is what we ought to have done and do instead."

Pakistan is the worst kind of basket case. I know I don't have any good solutions to its problems, other than a few centuries of gradual change. My question is, what, precisely, do you believe we should have done differently and what, precisely, do you believe we should do now? ("Obviously, this is a difficult policy question" doesn't qualify.)

Posted by ostap | November 8, 2007 10:09 AM

Matthew's views of foreign policy are hilariously hypocritical.

You're over-interpreting. Yglesias didn't explicitly excepted himself from the criticism, and there's no reason to think he meant to do so implicitly.

Also, I think you're mischaracterizing his position on Iran.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 8, 2007 10:11 AM

Al:

When Bush wants to use sticks with respect to Iran, Matthew says "no, no, no, that's a terrible idea, we should be using diplomacy". When Bush wants to use diplomacy with Pakistan, Matthew says "no, no, no, that's a terrible idea, we should be using sticks".

Wow, I hadn't realized we were giving $100 million every month to the Iranian military! You really learn something new every day.

Posted by grh | November 8, 2007 10:13 AM

Matthew's views of foreign policy are hilariously hypocritical

Er, no. Its your views that are hilarious. Mushy is our client and Bush's bff. Pakistan gets billions in cash/weapons from us even as it harbors OBL and his cronies. Instead of moving against them, his forces are busy beating up moderates and intellectuals who want democracy. Why the f*** would we use diplomacy with him?

Iran, we don't even have diplomatic relations with. We have imposed sanctions on them and not a day goes by without someone or the other from the administration threatening to bomb. Since we have zero leverage there and because only a madman would bomb Iran, diplomacy would be a good start.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 8, 2007 10:38 AM

ostap, I don't think Matt's posts on Pakistan have yet explored all the negative dimensions that have arisen from Bush's policy of perverse incentives that have kept Mushareff in power and Osama bin Laden alive, as a perpetual coyote and road runner cartoon with real life consequences. I went back to my own blog and dated my first criticism of this insanity to 2003. This was another disaster that anybody could see, except for serious people in D.C.

So, what to do about having helped entrenched a cycle that has lead, consistently, to dictatorships teetering on the brink of a revolution led by islamicists?

The U.S. can't undo what it has done. It can't go back to the earthquakes that struck Pakistan and try to outdo the efficiency of Islamicist groups in aiding the victims. It can't go back to Tora Bora and decide to really make an effort to capture or kill Osama bin Laden. It can't go back and pretend that Iraq's fictional efforts to obtain yellowcake are grounds for war, while Pakistan's real sales of nuclear material to north korea were grounds for pretending it didn't happen. We can go forward by making, say, the aid transparent. We can go forward by making contact with people outside the Pakistan military. We can even do simple things to start creating good will in the Middle East, such as getting the hell out of Iraq. But the point in time where we had a more than spectator's power to control events is really over.

On the domestic front, every day we can showcase the frivolousness, corruption and stupidity that was involved in the governing class' love affair with Mr. Mission Accomplished. We can ask why their is such an asymmetry between Bush's real and massive unpopularity in the nation at large and his real and massive popularity on the op ed page of the Washington Post. We can look for who benefited from the reign of this low wattage figure whose optimum talents should have brought him, in life, to no higher elevation than, say, the manager of a golf shop at a second tier country club in West Texas. We can re-define the way we look at the Middle East - not as an opportunity to display our hegemony, but as the forum in which we wisely strategize our evident loss of power and prestige by cleverly using diplomacy to manage many things we have opposed, including the entrance of Iran into the Middle Eastern system. And we can prepare to deal with a much more islamicist Pakistan.

Posted by roger | November 8, 2007 10:50 AM

Look, you just got to sit the guy down, and, as you hand him his 10 billion dollar check, tell him to "cut the bullshit." John McCain had this figured out a long time ago.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | November 8, 2007 10:51 AM

My question is, what, precisely, do you believe we should have done differently and what, precisely, do you believe we should do now?

Good question. One reason experts are so confused about Pakistan is because no one really paid much attention to it. We ignored the actions of Pakistan after the collapse of the Soviet expedition in Afghanistan. Meanwhile Pakistan created the Taliban, sold nuclear technology to rough states, and sponsored terrorism in India. We did nothing because we didn't care. Then 9/11 happened and people woke up. Bush gave his 'you are with us or against us' bs and Musharraf has been playing us ever since.

What can we do? Firstly never again unconditionally support a nation that sponsors terror even though the terror (at that time) may not be directed against us or our immediate friends. Secondly we need to make it clear to Musharraf that he needs to step down as dictator and hold free elections. Otherwise he looses our support and cash. Thirdly he needs to do something about OBL/AQ because if he doesn't, then we have to.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 8, 2007 11:04 AM

Diplomacy??... Musharraf???...its too late. Cut off the flow of dollars or make the dollars conditional on something Musharraf is gone. Off to Dubai with his cut.

Posted by tin foil | November 8, 2007 11:05 AM

Whatever your position on our pakistan policy in the past or your opinion of MY's posts, I think you have to concede that the idea Cohen advances is pretty ridiculous.

Our policy was aimed at stability and now our paid client is undermining that stability. Why, then, should we declare our continued payments to him sacrosanct?

Posted by southpaw | November 8, 2007 11:30 AM

President Bush:

"We have made it clear to all nations, if you harbor terrorists, you are just as guilty as the terrorists; you're an enemy of the United States, and you will be held to account."

And how long are we going to allow the world's worst leaders to develop and harbor the world's worst weapons, anyway?

Posted by croatoan | November 8, 2007 11:54 AM

Er, no. Its your views that are hilarious. Mushy is our client and Bush's bff. Pakistan gets billions in cash/weapons from us even as it harbors OBL and his cronies. Instead of moving against them, his forces are busy beating up moderates and intellectuals who want democracy. Why the f*** would we use diplomacy with him?

Iran, we don't even have diplomatic relations with. We have imposed sanctions on them and not a day goes by without someone or the other from the administration threatening to bomb. Since we have zero leverage there and because only a madman would bomb Iran, diplomacy would be a good start.

So, your point is we've got to use sticks against our friends and be very nasty to them so they get the point, but our enemies we should treat as nicely as we can and hope they come around. Got it.

Posted by Al | November 8, 2007 11:56 AM

Al, you're really being a tendentious idiot today. There is no solution to the Pakistan problem, which is why Matt hasn't advanced one. He certainly hasn't said we should "get tough" with Pakistan. He's only pointing out that wishful thinking is no solution.

Bottom line on Pakistan: this is not a new issue. We have been working with their military ever since we first funded the Mujahadin in Afghanistan. We turned a blind eye to their nuclear ambitions going back to the 1980s.

The only thing that has changed is that Bush's disastrous and hypocritical foreign policy has seriously damaged the internal stability of the country. But being a military dictatorship is not the issue. They are a military dictatorship? Fine. We support plenty of military dictatorships around the world. Given the importance of preventing the Pakistani bomb from getting into terrorist hands, our policy toward them needs to be governed by pragmatic considerations.

Posted by mq | November 8, 2007 12:03 PM

Al-
If by "getting very nasty" to our friends, you mean perhaps cutting off billions of dollars of money that we are currently flinging them, and by "treat as nicely as we can", you mean perhaps sending an envoy to talk to them, then yeah you got it Al.

Of course, in the real world, that's not how it would get interpreted.

Posted by Dean Chung | November 8, 2007 12:06 PM

The worst part of this farce is that Mr. O. bin Laden LIVES in Pakistan---actually, physically lives there. And everyone seems to know it. Only they pretend that they don't know where. I'm talking about the U.S. government, not necessarily the Pakistani, though they know too.

'WE should do this.' 'WE need to do that in Pakistan and in Iran too.' As if WE have any say in what's going to be done. Oh how silly of me, I just forgot Ms. Bhutto is consulting the people of Pakistan and Bush has his finger on the pulse of the U.S. public.

Posted by Quentin | November 8, 2007 12:12 PM

Right. Also, till Al came along, who would have guessed that Matt's idea of applying "sticks" to Pakistan was not to cut off its aid, but to threaten to start bombing it? (Since, you know, he's gotten quite sarcastic on that subject recently when certain Democratic candidates have hinted that they might be willing to consider it.)

Posted by BruceMoomaw | November 8, 2007 12:17 PM

Wanting to apply different approaches to vastly different cases (Pakistan and Iran) should not be misconstrued as hypocrisy.

On the other hand saying things like “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you", and then going ahead and turning a blind eye while a dictator oppresses the intellectual and democratic force of a nation... sounds like what to you?

Posted by Tomas | November 8, 2007 12:38 PM

Al's comments are drivel, but the Al franchise is nevertheless interesting, and there are things I'd like to know. Who hires the Al's? They've appeared for years, and I assume that they are run out of some GOP committee, but I wonder which one. Does today's al get some talking points at the beginning of the day? Is he paid by some quota? You'll notice that some of the Al's are taciturn, whereas this Al, for instance, is more vocal. Never too vocal, however. I presume this is to make sure that there's no departure from today's agenda. What qualifies one as an Al? Do you have to go to Regent college, or do you pass upward via some YAF connection - or does that matter at all? I imagine some Al's are probably personally liberal, but distribute right wing comments as part of the job. We know that Blackwater hired a p.r. agent that hired blog commenters - so it seems to be fashionable on the right - but is there any study, anywhere, that it actually works? Al's so far have not been very persuasive - at least, I've never seen an Al win a fight yet. On the other hand, I suppose it works insofar as a blogger mentions an Al.

One of these days, one of the Als should write a little tell all. It would be quite amusing. Although I supposed it would burn some bridges in the D.C. area, but who cares? I bet New York or New Yorker would be interested. And it would give us some look at how the right is responding to a media in formation. They are very good at manipulating our current media - which is sympathetic to the right, and positively partisan among the ownership of the media - but so far, even though they are touted by the Kurzes and Time magazine, etc., they haven't been too successful on the blogs. I think this is because it is a slower medium - you have to write things, and thus become more vulnerable.

My bet is "Al" is an insider joke - "Al" as in Al Gore.

Posted by roger | November 8, 2007 12:42 PM

Al, you're really being a tendentious idiot today. There is no solution to the Pakistan problem, which is why Matt hasn't advanced one. He certainly hasn't said we should "get tough" with Pakistan. He's only pointing out that wishful thinking is no solution.

Maybe you're right, mq. I can't figure out what Matthew's trying to say about Pakistan, but it certainly seemed to me that Matthew is opposed to the Bush administration's tactics of continuing our aid but engaging in diplomacy with Pakistan. I would have thought that Matthew would support what we're doing in Pakistan, given his emphasis on using diplomacy elsewhere. Hence my accusation of hypocrisy.

As it turns out, Bush's policy of using diplomacy while keeping our aid flowing looks like it is successful, and we're going to get what we're looking for in Pakistan - elections and Mussharaf to step down as Army leader.

Posted by Al | November 8, 2007 12:55 PM

I usually don't respond to the personal things, but I'd just ask roger to consider the possibility that this Al is just a bored lawyer with no ties to anybody. As to the other "Al's" out there, there are things I'd like to know too.

Posted by Al | November 8, 2007 1:01 PM

So, your point is we've got to use sticks against our friends and be very nasty to them so they get the point, but our enemies we should treat as nicely as we can and hope they come around. Got it.

My point is that Pakistan is no friend. At best it is a marriage of convenience. You consider a country that harbors OBL (directly or indirectly) to be a friend, then that’s fine. I don't. My other point is using policies that make sense. Diplomacy is not about being nice. It is about talking and looking for solutions, verses doing nothing other than empty threats to bomb.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 8, 2007 1:15 PM

"Al's comments are drivel, but the Al franchise is nevertheless interesting, and there are things I'd like to know."

In fairness, I must say that the "Al" who comments on the NBA posts is much more cogent than "Political Al".

Posted by Waingro | November 8, 2007 2:00 PM

Good point MY, but you know what makes it even worse? When those pundits also call it an "agonizing" situation, like they just could not handle all the furrow browing necessary to come to the conclusion of their piece, which is to keep doing what whatever Bush wants.

Posted by Joshua | November 8, 2007 2:50 PM

To Al, reducing a carrot is a stick, and a smaller stick is a carrot.

Posted by Njorl | November 8, 2007 2:54 PM

To Al, reducing a carrot is a stick, and a smaller stick is a carrot. Obviously, if we want to be cruel to Iran, we should give them a lot of aid and cut it off.

Posted by Njorl | November 8, 2007 2:55 PM

One must say that Al, whoever he is, puts in serious thought on being stupid. The analog to cutting off our economic aid to Pakistan is not BOMBING Iran; it's putting intense economic pressure on Iran through sanctions -- and neither Yglesias nor anyone else I'm aware of in this country opposes THAT.

Posted by BruceMoomaw | November 8, 2007 3:42 PM

As much as I oppose "sticks" in respect to Iran, if we were giving some serious money at this moment, it would be a good reason to stop.

Musharraf allowed us to make a number of arrests in Pakistan, and to torture the guys and/or move out of Pakistan. This is actually one reason for his political problems. He used arbitrary arrests, torture and disappearance a bit to much after we encouraged him to do "just in few cases", Pakistani Supreme Court, although duly packed by Musharraf himself, found exception to it and issued a couple hundereds restraining orders, Mushy dismissed the chief justice and things went generally downhill from there.

I understand that we hope to make a few more of arbitrary arrests in Pakistan, plus we would like Musharraf to keep bothering Taliban in Waziristan which is hardly a priority for the general. Probably there is no profit in mantaining law and order among such contumacious folks who probably try to intimidate law and order people sent from Islamabad rather then bribe them..

But at some point we have to check the logic of further expenditures. Is Pakistan a useful ally or a sponge for our money making all the right noises and a lot of pretending without actually delivering anything of value?

I think that cutting off aid to Pakistan will not be painful at all, it is a large country with substancial trade and revenue, and if they purchase a bit less of military hardware, it probably be only for the better. So it is a low cost gesture, ha, negative cost for us! And I think that we should do some gesture beside a speach or two.

I would do it all over the place. Egypt beats up opposition, Israel expands settlements etc. while receing our aid -- cut it down. If the receipients remain contumly, well, we save a bit of cash. If not, we achieve something. Win-win.

Similarly, we should be more open to make changes in positive directions. Our policy is to treat certain parties with hostility almost regardless what they are doing and to treat other parties favorably, again, without any conditions.

If you thing hard how American foreign policy operates, it is amazing. Only the sole remaining superpower can afford such shit without much bad consequences. There is a lot of rhetoric, and no wonder, people are paid to do it, but in actuality, our foreign policy is like a set of hobbies of a rich guy. "Today we will be hunting ducks." "Why ducks and why today?" "You cretin, every year on this day we hunt ducks because we have such a tradition, and dammit, I like it! Next week, wooodchucks, then quail, then ducks again. But no deer -- every Joe Sixpack hunts deer, I hate it".

"Sir, in recent years the number of ducks is declining while deer are an increasing nuisance."

"Get out of here! Give me a new assistant who is not brainwashed by anti-Deeritic lobby! Duck appeaser!"

Posted by piotr | November 8, 2007 3:53 PM

Regarding Roger's post, the presence of 'Al' on other sites I read argue in favor of Roger's assumptions. Do lawyers really have that much time on their hands? I hope he's not billing clients for these blog comments. On the other hand, what would be the Republican committee motivation for the basketball comments? Do you suppose its just for authenticity?

Posted by mpowell | November 8, 2007 4:57 PM

When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Then you see someone with both a hammer and a screwdriver and you call them a hypocrite for using both tools. MY is against bombing Iran, but MY would have been in favor of bombing Hitler. Hypocrite!

"As it turns out, Bush's policy of using diplomacy while keeping our aid flowing looks like it is successful, and we're going to get what we're looking for in Pakistan - elections and Mussharaf to step down as Army leader.

Posted by Al | November 8, 2007 12:55 PM"

Wow, you really don't know anything about Pakistani politics and how things work behind the scenes there, do you?

Posted by Reality Man | November 8, 2007 7:32 PM