Borderline

Are we really supposed to believe the fact that Mike Huckabee referred to Afghanistan as being on Pakistan's "eastern" border rather than its "western" border shows he's not cut out to be president? This is the kind of mix-up people make all the time, and it's really hard to think of a situation in which it would cause a problem in practice. President Huckabee's sitting down there with the Joint Chiefs, they're talking about Afghanistan, and he says "we need to halt the flow of supplies from across the eastern border of Pakistan" and then, what, we accidentally start bombing India because nobody wanted to correct the president? That's silly. I bet we've had tons of people win elections who think that Sydney is the capital of Australia or who couldn't tell you which one is Latvia and which is Lithuania. It's not a big deal. I was in a geography bee when I was a kid, and I like the geography category in Trivial Pursuit but this stuff isn't the essence of grand strategy.

Meanwhile, it had always been my impression that Afghanistan was (roughly speaking) north of Pakistan, not west of it. Looking back at the map, you can see the border is a bit curvy so there's not a definitive answer, but if I were giving an schematic description I would say Pakistan is north of the Indian Ocean, west of India, east of Iran, and south of Afghanistan. The "western" description is defensible, but it's not nearly as clear-cut as the idea that Canada is across our northern border. To the press, though, not knowing that Afghanistan's west of Pakistan is a huge gaffe. And yet how many campaign reporters new this? Can we make them all take a trivia quiz? Or maybe we could replace the messy and absurd Iowa Caucuses by having the leading candidates all sit down for a game of Trivial Pursuit -- I'd watch that.

Comments

"Or maybe we could replace the messy and absurd Iowa Caucuses by having the leading candidates all sit down for a game of Trivial Pursuit -- I'd watch that."

Is this a sign you're not happy that your guy seems locked into third?

Posted by Petey | December 29, 2007 11:20 AM

What's going on here? Are you pushing for the Yglesias Award? It's already named after you, for God's sake.

The reason this is meaningful is because it's of a type. Not knowing Musharraf has ended martial law, thinking Pakistanis are a real threat for illegal immigration, not knowing about the NIE...clueless about big things, clueless about little.

Posted by Snoopy | December 29, 2007 11:28 AM

It is difficult to know if he just mis-spoke or if he really does think this is true. Since Huckabee has already established that he is a moron, this just feeds into the pre-existing narrative of him being a moron. People say things like north, east, and pro- when they mean south, west and anti- all of the time. Then again, I wouldn't put it past Huckabee to think that Russia is next to Brazil (either the country or the movie).

Posted by Reality Man | December 29, 2007 11:36 AM

Northwest is a perfectly fine direction, which best describes the position of Afgahanistan relative to Pakistan.

And I disagree that not knowing the geography is unimportant. We have just spend nearly 7 years with the man who confuses Australia and Austria. Not knowing geography is a bad sign. I guess you feel Bush's effect on the world has been superficial.

If someone at this point does not have a good grasp of the physical relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan, he just hasn't been paying attention. I think it is important for presidential candidates to pay attention. It's not like he was asked to locate Kyrgyzstan.

Posted by Mudge | December 29, 2007 11:43 AM

The bad thing about Huckabee's gaffe is that the country on Pakistan's east border is India. Not knowing that can't be a good thing.

Posted by kth | December 29, 2007 11:46 AM

I agree with Snoopy that you understate Huckabee's cluelessness by focusing so relentlessly on a geographical gaffe that could be minimized if it weren't accompanied by so many others. To me, a presidential candidate who goes from the assasination of a Pakistani opposition leader to worrying about new hordes of Pakistani illegal immigrants is not only moronic but mentally disturbed.

If you want to fault the MSM, it might be more appropriate for a so-called liberal blogger to note the superficial "haircut/traitor to his class" treatment received by Edwards or the "castrato-eunuch chorus" misogynist meme dished out to HRC. I can't find a similar recent example for Obama (there was the madrassa and Osama crap a while back) because they seem to have swooned for him in the last couple of months. At any rate, if you want to stick up for someone against the idiot press, do it for our guys and abandon the contrarian Slate-style crap of defending some poor misunderstood wingnut know-nothing.

Posted by scott | December 29, 2007 11:53 AM

To the press, though, not knowing that Afghanistan's west of Pakistan is a huge gaffe.

Okay, Matt. It's a terrible injustice. We get it. But if the press's reporting on the faux gaffe plays a small role in insuring the next presidient of the US doesn't think the earth is 6,732 years old, to the journalists of America I say "thank you!"

Posted by Jasper | December 29, 2007 12:07 PM

What's gotten into you, Matt? Not to mimic your writing style too much, but it's not really the kind of mix-up that people who take Middle East and Asia seriously make "all the time." Does Huckabee seem like the kind of guy who knows or cares a lot about Pakistan and Afghanistan? Does this disprove everyone's notion that he is that sort of guy, or accentuate that he does not know much about the region? Of course one can have the judgment etc. to take direction well, but that's the sort of thing that got us GWB. Right? Why don't we take basic ignorance on foreign policy seriously, for once? It cost us a lot in 2000.

Posted by Martin | December 29, 2007 12:09 PM

abandon the contrarian Slate-style crap of defending some poor misunderstood wingnut know-nothing.

But then how can you prove that you are "balanced" and "serious" and so NOT "angry?"

Posted by jim | December 29, 2007 12:16 PM

Is this a fucking joke?

Posted by Clark | December 29, 2007 12:26 PM

Well, one reason I think about Afghanistan being west of Pakistan rather than north is that the main road from Kabul to Islamabad (over the Khyber pass) is roughly east-west. People travelling between the most important cities in the respective countries travel east-west. That not definitive, of course, but is I think a factor.

Posted by Al | December 29, 2007 12:30 PM

"Well, one reason I think about Afghanistan being west of Pakistan rather than north is that the main road from Kabul to Islamabad (over the Khyber pass) is roughly east-west. People travelling between the most important cities in the respective countries travel east-west. That not definitive, of course, but is I think a factor."

Sure, but Karachi is Pakistan's major city.

Posted by Petey | December 29, 2007 12:32 PM

Are we choosing our president based on geographical knowledge now? If we are, it's a major step forward, and I'm a serious candidate. Namibia? N of SA, south of Angola. Suriname? Wedged between French Guiana and Normal Guyana. I could beat McCain, Clinton, and Obama combined in the capital game. Elect me for a better tomorrow!

Posted by foolishmortal | December 29, 2007 12:38 PM

Gotta agree with the posters above.

This wouldn't be a problem if Huck hadn't said at the same time that Pakistan was the second most common country of origin for illegal immigrants (not even CLOSE), and a whole pile of other factual inaccuracies.

Even more concerning were the policy recommendations that came out of his ignorance: his suggestion that we tighten the Mexican Border to control Pakistani immigration, because undocumented Pakistanis in the US present a terror threat. Both these assumptions--that Pakistanis will blow up US citizens in response to domestic problems, and that the main cause of Pakistanis being in this country illegally is because they are coming in through the Mexican border are just wrong, wrong, wrong. They generate a nice hysteria, but they're shit in terms of effective governance.

If Huckabee were just getting the details wrong, that would be excusable. But he's not. He's getting the big picture totally wrong, and he's suggesting policies that aren't just stupid, they're incredibly counterproductive.

I get that this has the feel of a "gotcha" moment. I mean, it IS a mistake anyone could make. But all the stories I've seen don't just talk about this gotcha--they list this mistake along with 5 or 6 other, far more significant mistakes, that Huckabee made in his policy recommendations for addressing Bhutto's death.

Your pointing at the icing on the cake and saying "but it's just icing! Who cares?" has the smell of too-clever contrarianism.

I think this is a situation when the media is actually getting the story right, and they should be lauded for it. The past 8 years have taught us that letting incredibly ignorant and stupid people set policy is a very dangerous thing for our nation's security, and the media is letting us all know that this Republican frontrunner doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, and it's leading him to make incredibly weird and counterproductive policy recommendations. They're giving the space to say "okay, here are the 5 whacked-out things Huckabee said, here's the real facts, you do the math."

This is in contrast to what they're doing to Obama on his comments, which is ridiculous and extremely bad "very serious people" journalism.

If you want to call out the media, call them out on what they're doing to Obama, not Huckabee.

Our "very serious" foreign policy experts have a vested interest in no one ever saying: "running into Iraq and failing to catch Osama bin Laden? Yeah, that's going to have serious consequences."

Going after Axelrod was their way of making sure that no one EVER says "hey, Osama bin Laden is a much bigger threat than Hussein, and we were real idiots to quit in Afghanistan so we could go after Hussein. Real, real idiots. Wow, what a strategic blunder, and the mess in Iraq is just the beginning of the price we're gonna pay for this mistake."

Axelrod started this argument, and it's an important one for our nation to have. But the very serious foreign policy experts don't want to own up to their errors, so they're simply silencing him, aided by the media which is turning this into an "attack" story rather than a substantive policy discussion.

Posted by anonymous | December 29, 2007 12:39 PM

Matt's point quite defensible, it seems to me. The major contenders for the Repub nomination make counter-factual statements routinely, (for example. that cutting taxes always increases government revenues) and the media pays no head. A minor geography slip and the media is all over the Huckster.

Of course Huck has some idiotic ideas and statements (6000 year old earth), he's a Republican and a God botherer! The increased scrutiny of his statements appear be the media's internalizing the message from the GOP power brokers in DC that Huck is not acceptable to them, so they are going to take him down a peg. And that's fine, in isolation, but what they are doing is slavishly promoting John McCain, the patron saint of perpetual war, in his place. Personally, I'd rather deal with the God botherer.

Posted by Jeff S. | December 29, 2007 12:43 PM

Too bad Bush didn't drop out of the race after he couldn't name Musharraf as being the leader of Pakistan back in 2000.

Imagine how much trouble we would have saved. I say crucify Huckabee over this so as to spare us Fucking Idiot Redux.

Posted by calipygian | December 29, 2007 1:00 PM

Of course one can have the judgment etc. to take direction well, but that's the sort of thing that got us GWB. Right? Why don't we take basic ignorance on foreign policy seriously, for once? It cost us a lot in 2000.
Posted by Martin

Martin's thinking shows the fallacy of those who expect all expertise to reside in one individual who ALONE in running the Country, makes calls based on his extensive knowledge of foreign countries, daily bread and dairy prices in America, and detailed knowledge of the highway fund allocation to Oregon and Missouri.

The truth is that some of our most successful foreign policy Presidents were foreign policy dunces. FDR kept a globe in his office mainly so he could find countries discussed, but he surrounded himself with foreign policy experts whose advice he weighed and usually came to the right call on. Reagan was a dunce. But an astute dunce. Nixon knew international affairs better than any 20th century President but wisely had the advice of the best academics, State Dept people, and international leaders on tap and he continually consulted them.
Great foreign policy failures resided in Presidents that knew enough about foreign policy to be dangerous, who refused to listen to others. Wilson, Jimmy Carter, LBJ, Dubya. Truman would have been a disaster, but smart Congressional leaders of both Parties with a better grasp than Harry did told him what needed to be done and Truman was savvy enough to listen and take their advice, and humble enough to do so.

Reagan and FDR in particular show that ignorance of all the "ooolies" of global geography, "name that leader", expound on the Peruvian economy doesn't matter as much as listening to the people that DO know and making good judgements from their advice. Who understand the relationships and interconnections of foreign policy to our economy and national security and how actions today affect alliances tomorrow..

The current crop has some people that would do very well listening to and assimilating the advice of excellent foreign policy people, synthesizing it, and making good decisions.(Romney, Edwards, Hillary - as long as she recognizes the limitations of having tea with First Ladies of 80 countries does not make her an expert in nations -) And some with very good foreign policy experience - Biden, Dodd, McCain who will listen to others to some extent or another. All, however, have a history of some horrifically bad foreign policy stances.

The truly bad ones, IMO, are Huckabee, Giuliani, and Obama. (Discounting Richardson as too stupid to matter).

1. Huckabee brings an empty plate of certainty and shallow knowledge to foreign policy.
2. Giuliani - "Evildoers! 9/11! Gotta invade Iran to save Israel!" (Repeat incessantly).
3. Obama brings the confidence of a 8th grader who claims he knows "all about sex, all over the world"....
"I lived in a foreign country where sex happened when I was 6 to 10 years old. I have a grandmother who lives in Africa in a town where sex happens and they have no running water. That gives me the knowledge and superior judgement about worldwide sex that all adults I meet lack. I point out that many of them have broken up with lovers and even divorced and have so indicted themselves as guilty of voting wrongly, whereas I don't vote and KNEW certain relationships were doomed to failure."

Posted by Chris Ford | December 29, 2007 2:25 PM

but it's not nearly as clear-cut as the idea that Canada is across our northern border.

Unless you live in Detroit...in which case you peer south across the river at Canada...

Posted by McKingford | December 29, 2007 2:59 PM

Aside from football in season, I don't watch TV, so I don't really know what the Villagers have decided is a gaffe.

But from what's been said elsewhere in the blogosphere, I was under the impression that this was a pretty minor gaffe, with the biggie being what Huck said about Pakistanis sneaking into the U.S. from Mexico.

And there's no denying the level of ignorance implied by that one. It's easy enough to switch east for west - in your mind, in a verbal slip-up, whatever. But there's absolutely NO reason to connect the unrest in Pakistan with illegal immigration into the U.S. None. It's the sort of thing you'd only say if you had no idea of what was going on outside our borders.

So it seems fair enough to me to crucify Huckabee over that one, and skip the east-west bit. Al Gore never said anything remotely like that.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | December 29, 2007 3:00 PM

I disagree, Matt. Not knowing the relative locations of P'stan and A'stan probably means he doesn't know anything about India's role in the region. (or probably that India is IN the region.)

Posted by Zach | December 29, 2007 3:51 PM

If we're going to have the candidates play a game, instead of Trivial Pursuit, make it Jeopardy. Wouldn't it be great to see some Republicans with negative scores after guessing that the oldest species on Earth was 5000 years old?

Posted by Tim | December 29, 2007 4:18 PM

Are we really supposed to believe the fact that Mike Huckabee referred to Afghanistan as being on Pakistan's "eastern" border rather than its "western" border shows he's not cut out to be president?

Who has said it makes Huck unqualified to be President? Maybe I've been inattentive, but it certainly doesn't seem like it's been a big story. It isn't necessary for something to be disqualifying for it to be reported or discussed.

Posted by Ronnie Pudding | December 29, 2007 5:25 PM

If the attack on Huckabee is effective then it should be employed. Those who wish not to employ effective attacks on right-wing extremists might as well join their side publically.

Posted by rda | December 29, 2007 5:50 PM

It's like the old story of the fellow negotiating with the hooker: "We have already established what you are, miss; I am trying to fix a price".

We already know Hucker is ignorant; we are feeling for the depth, or lack thereof, here.

Posted by Hedley Lamarr | December 29, 2007 6:05 PM

Hey, Matt? Those lines that go from the lower left to the upper right on your map? Those are lines of longitude and they run north-south. You have to tilt the map so that they're straight up and down before you can draw any conclusions about whether Afghanistan is west or north of Pakistan.

Now, even after you do that, you could continue to say that Afghanistan is north of the chunk of Pakistan that stretches over to Iran. And that's true. But few people live in that section. Most Pakistanis live along the Indus River, which is east of Afghanistan for its entire length. See http://www.worldtradepress.com/Population_Map_Pakistan.html

Posted by Bloix | December 29, 2007 6:23 PM

Cut Matt some slack. I've said it before and I'll say it again-- The candidate we fear is McCain. Beating up on Huckabee during the primaries accomplishes nothing except increasing the likelihood of McCain winning the nomination.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 29, 2007 7:06 PM

...it's not nearly as clear-cut as the idea that Canada is across our northern border.

Canada is to the east. Russia is to the west.

I live in Alaska.

Posted by Grumpy | December 29, 2007 8:13 PM

Thanks for the map. I wasn't aware that Pakistan wrapped around Afghanistan or that Pakistan shared a border with Iran as well.

Learn something new every day.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | December 29, 2007 9:58 PM

Looks like joined together they'd make a nice symmetrical mushroom-shaped sort of country. Let's kick the colonialism into full gear and make it happen.

Posted by jack lecou | December 30, 2007 1:13 AM

Some of the borders on the map Yglesias posted are disputed. Here's the version on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:LocationPakistan.svg

Notice that on this version of the map, Pakistan shares a border with China and there is an additional area marked off within the Chinese border.

Here is a close up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kashmir_map.jpg

Both maps can be found on Wikipedia's entry on Pakistan, if the links don't work.

Look closely at the proximity of the Northwest Frontier province (where Osama Bin Laden is reputedly holed up) to the parts of Kashmir province that are claimed by India, Pakistan and China. Keep in mind that all three of these are nuclear powers and have threatened to go to war over this before.

[wingnut] Hey! Do ya know what would be a great idea? If the U.S. get went in and bombed the crap out of Pakistan. We'd be sure to get Osama that way, hey? [/wingnut]

Based on comments made by the presidential candidates this year, I wonder if any of them is actually aware of where Afghanistan and Pakistan are relative to each other.

Posted by Splitting Image | December 30, 2007 10:20 AM