Obama on Pakistan

The entire issue of Pakistan seems to have fallen off the radar once it turned out that Benazir Bhutto's assassination wasn't going to lead to a total breakdown over there. That was a good thing, but the lack of attention to Pakistan isn't a good thing. So it was nice to see Barack Obama offer some remarks on the subject during yesterday's Iraq speech:

The choice is not between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda. That is why we should dramatically increase our support for the Pakistani people – for education, economic development, and democratic institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in opportunity is our interest as well. That’s the promise that America must stand for.

This seems right to me. Making deals with the Musharrafs of the world, people who put themselves forward as the only alternative to radicalism, is a dangerous business. A dictator like that can't actually afford to see the forces of radicalism go into eclipse; he needs them because they're his whole rationale for attracting foreign support. Ultimately, that's not a path that leads the country anywhere productive.

Comments

Don't we already provide lots of financial aid to Pakistan?

Posted by Kurzbein | March 20, 2008 11:30 AM

It's a perfectly reasonable stance for Obama to take politically. Practically speaking, just about any government in Pakistan is going to have severe corruption issues. So actually getting said support to the people is, you know, problematic.

Posted by Jake | March 20, 2008 11:32 AM

One thing that's alwasy bugged me about US aid to Pakistan is how military officers get access to America, but civilias don't.

Almost any senior officer (including Kiyani) has had a stint at Leavenworth, the War College, or some other US military institution of higher learning. It creates a smarter, more capable Pakistani military.

On the flip side, the US doesn't provide the same access to election officials, water and power bureaucrats, civilian engineers, city planners, agricultural extention workers, journalists, lawywers, or politicians.

The big complaint about Pakistan is that the military is the country's only effective institution. So why does the US spend so much time and money making it more effective?

Posted by Ikram | March 20, 2008 11:33 AM

Meanwhile, somewhere Joseph Lieberman explains to John McCain who Musharraf is and reminds him he's not in al-Qaeda.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | March 20, 2008 11:34 AM

Radicalism, oppression and strife serve the U.S. needs. People will work regardless of the political situation in their nation. We'd continue to get cheap clothes from Malaysia if the entire nation was under martial law and rioting was rampant in the streets of every city. Stuff would still get made and exported. Cheaply made and exported. Now, if Malaysia was a progressive democracy, stable and prosperous, those same people willing to dodge bullets and cowering under an overseer's whip for 10 cents an hour might demand and get $2.00 an hour. No more cheap clothes. Walmart raises prices. U.S. standards of living go down. Everybody wants the prosperity and opportunities they see in America. Everybody can't have them. Somebody has to work for dirt wages for it all to function to our advantage. Our Civil War resulted in the elimination of slavery within our borders. However, we still want the rest of the world to pick our cotton and use the bathroom out back.

Posted by steve duncan | March 20, 2008 11:41 AM

where is the liiiiiink?

Posted by S. Lewis | March 20, 2008 11:49 AM

As the recent legislative elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda.

Exactly right. Which is why it was such a gaffe when Obama threatened to invade Pakistan a few months back.

Obama can promise to build all the schools in Pakistan he wants. They will not be any use in getting the Pakistani people on our side so lang as Obama thinks invading Pakistan is a good idea.

Posted by Al | March 20, 2008 11:49 AM

"On the flip side, the US doesn't provide the same access to election officials, water and power bureaucrats, civilian engineers, city planners, agricultural extention workers, journalists, lawywers, or politicians."

I hadn't heard that before, but I can't really say I'm surprised. If true, that policy is not very helpful to Pakistan. Or us. The extremists would have a much harder time convincing people that we are evil if we were to do things like give them electricity and clean water. People really like those sorts of things. And they are usually receptive to those that give them those things.

Posted by fostert | March 20, 2008 11:54 AM

Obama thinks invading Pakistan is a good idea.

Hey Al, here's a quick note: "Invading" is using an army to occupy an entire country by force of arms. Like we did in Iraq. It's not the same thing as "trying to kill Osama bin Laden even if it means crossing the Pakistani border, which is, technically, a violation of Pakistani sovereignity."

Later, when I have more time, I'll explain the meaning of "disingenuous."

Posted by James Gary | March 20, 2008 12:01 PM

Much better than him popping off about how he'd attack Pakistan if they didn't go after Al-Qaeda with sufficient zeal. I can't imagine all his happy talk would be enough to undo that kind of damage.

Posted by Phil | March 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Making deals with the Musharrafs of the world, people who put themselves forward as the only alternative to radicalism, is a dangerous business.

Not doing it is also a dangerous business.

The world is a dangerous place, and foreign affairs is often about choosing the least-sucky option.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | March 20, 2008 12:05 PM

Don't we already provide lots of financial aid to Pakistan?

Yes we do. In cash. To Musharraf and the military. I think what Obama is saying is that those billions might be better spent. Hard to believe he could have such a crazy notion, but there you go.

Posted by jonnybutter | March 20, 2008 12:08 PM

Not doing it is also a dangerous business.

The point here is that doing it or not doing can both be dangerous business. The point is that neither should be reflexive. Is that really so hard to understand?

Posted by jonnybutter | March 20, 2008 12:14 PM

"Much better than him popping off about how he'd attack Pakistan if they didn't go after Al-Qaeda with sufficient zeal."

You mean like Bush has done three times this year already? This typical of conservative philosophy: it's okay to do anything you want, it's just not okay to talk about it. Apparently Obama's words about attacking Pakistan are more dangerous than actually attacking Pakistan. It's the same mentality they used for racism. It was okay to mistreat blacks, but it wasn't okay for blacks to complain about it. Maybe that's why I'm not a conservative.

Posted by fostert | March 20, 2008 12:16 PM

Militarily, Obama didn't suggest doing anything more in Pakistan than what the current administration has actually done now on three recent occasions - launch attacks based on actionable intelligence on terrorist sites in Wazirstan.

Posted by Dan Kervick | March 20, 2008 12:28 PM

What's interesting is that the unelected governments of Muslim countries that we have the tightest relationships with where the argument is we need them to hold back the extremists are probably Saudia Arabia and Pakistan. Remind me again which countries the majority of the 9/11 high jackers came from?

If one wanted to be snarky one could say something like "your doing heck of a job there Abdullah..."

Posted by Eric k | March 20, 2008 12:57 PM

For your information Erik I believe no pakistani or only one was involved in the 9/11 hijack, they were mostly suadis and other arabs.

Posted by Hamza | March 20, 2008 1:13 PM

"Almost any senior officer (including Kiyani) has had a stint at Leavenworth, the War College, or some other US military institution of higher learning. It creates a smarter, more capable Pakistani military."

It is amazing how strongly we tied our military to Pakistan's.

On a side note, members of the Indian military aren't allowed to visit the US for personal reasons. A family friend from India hasn't been able to have much of his family visit him in the US over several decades because much of his family is in the military, so he has to go back to visit them. I have no idea if Indian military members can attend American military institutions though.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 1:20 PM

Americans have elected dictatorships. Once an American dictatorship is in power, it does what it pleases, much like any other dictatorship. The ONLY difference between an American dictatorship and any other is that an American one comes into power with a bit of fanfare. You are all murderers just the same, except that you murder in much, much larger scale.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 1:21 PM

Americans have elected dictatorships. Once an American dictatorship is in power, it does what it pleases, much like any other dictatorship. The ONLY difference between an American dictatorship and any other is that an American one comes into power with a bit of fanfare. You are all murderers just the same, except that you murder in much, much larger scale.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 1:22 PM

"For your information Erik I believe no pakistani or only one was involved in the 9/11 hijack, they were mostly suadis and other arabs.

Posted by Hamza | March 20, 2008 1:13 PM"

True Hamza. Then again, al-Qaida was founded in Pakistan, which does underscore Erik's irony point.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 1:25 PM

I am a moderate Pakistani as Obama mentioned in his comment about Pakistanis. Trust me he is right.. most of the people in Pakistan are moderate and they want a nice and peaceful life like everyone else. If US can monitor the aids they are sending to Pakistan to make sure that the money is being spent for the right cause like education, health care and development then I think that US will get more support from Pakistan. Obama Rocks and I wish him all the best in the elections.......

Posted by Zee | March 20, 2008 1:33 PM

All Americans are Democracy Fundamentalists and Extremists. Their entire nation is an extremist nation, believing ardently that their values are the right ones for the entire world. Well - it isn't. Most muslims don't want it. However extremist Osama Bin Laden is, he is just a small group, a small fraction of the world muslim population. As against this, United States of America is an entire nation, founded upon extremist democratic principles, one that allows women to go topless as per their own laws, one that allows people to be nude in beaches, one that allows everyone to have every kind of sexual relationship imaginable, one that allows it to destroy other nations in order to protect these freedoms for such pursuits and way of evil and vile life. America is morally void. Muslims do not want democracy. We only want that amount freedom as allowed under Islam. No more and no less.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 1:36 PM

Someone say something about nude women?

Posted by Tony | March 20, 2008 1:40 PM

"Then again, al-Qaida was founded in Pakistan, which does underscore Erik's irony point."

Actually al-Qaida (as we know it today) was founded in Sudan, which does underscore Reality Man's ignorance.

Posted by Factfinder | March 20, 2008 1:44 PM

one that allows women to go topless as per their own laws, one that allows people to be nude in beaches, one that allows everyone to have every kind of sexual relationship imaginable

Abdullah says this like it's a bad thing.

Posted by Al | March 20, 2008 1:48 PM

The very reason why people like Osama Bin laden are doing what they are doing is because of America's fundamentalist and extremist pursuits to install democracy everywhere. At the same time, America steals away for itself what is not theirs from other nations, using absolutely whatever means they deem necessary. It tries to show how great its values are, when muslims could not care less. We, muslims, are only concerned about our own values and we want nothing else other than our own values being practiced on our own soil. We also want to use our own assets in ways that benefit us. We do not want USA to make backhand deals with a few in power, installed by USA, so that USA can have it all cheap for itself. The moment people bring into power a government for themselves, so that the peoples interests are served, USA does everything in its power to bring about its downfall. Americans are all sickos.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 1:55 PM

Those are bad things, Al.

Regardless, Pakistan needs a man like Musharraf. I'm of South Asian ancestry so I know a bit about the situation there. Do not be fooled by the results of the recent 'election'. The country is on the edge of Islamic extremism, and Islamic extremism is very popular there. Liberal democracy can never work in a country like Pakistan (it just barely works for India) and only an authoritarian leader can keep the country can falling into chaos.

Posted by Hector | March 20, 2008 1:56 PM

Hamza,

I know the highhjackers almost all came form Saudia Arabia, which was my point with the heck of a job Abdullah. Sheesh I didn't know a snarky comment had to be footnoted...

We can expand though, Friend no 1, Saudia Arabia, contributed the majoirty of the highjackers and probably most of the funding for Al-Quaeda. Friend no 2, Pakistan, was seliing nuclear weapons know-how to anyone with a checkbook and is where Bin Laden has been living safely for several years.

Again, maybe trying a new approach isn't such a bad idea?

Posted by Eric k | March 20, 2008 1:59 PM

Women having the right to do what they want without fear of being controlled by some chauvinistic laws is not a bad thing.

Posted by Tony | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM

"Actually al-Qaida (as we know it today) was founded in Sudan, which does underscore Reality Man's ignorance.

Posted by Factfinder | March 20, 2008 1:44 PM"

That hinges much on the meaning of the words "as we know it today," which anyone can interpret in any way to make their point, which is basically arguing over semantics. AQ only came via invitation in 1992 (how can you invite a group into your country that doesn't exist yet?), but AQ in some form or another was in existence before then. The name al-Qaida likely was just adopted by the group after the CIA applied that name for the group just so they would have a proper noun to refer to. AQ today is more de-centralized than they were on 9/11, so it is now today as we knew it in the mid-1990's when it was in Sudan, thus AQ as we know it today is a product of fleeing Tora Bora in Afghanistan and moving to Pakistan.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 2:02 PM

Al - you are free to have your values in USA. If you think its good to have the freedom to do whatever you please, do it in USA. We, muslims, think such personal freedoms and practices are bad and we most certainly do not share such values. Nor do we want it. You are all morally devoid. We do not want your values on our lands. An entire nation has been occupied, and its people thrown everywhere. Its called Palestine. So, some of them, having no other weapon of serious firepower, just strap themselves to bombs, and try to cause as much damage as they can to their enemy. You call this terrorism. yet, you, as a people, as a nation, are willing to unleash weapons of massive terror if you perceive any threat whatever - even though such threats are far too often no where but in your minds. So, if someone today forcibly took just an inch of American soil, you are actually prepared to destroy that power in totality. In actual fact, even when your national boundaries are not even threatened, you do it all the same. So every palestinian is absolutely justified when they practice the same doctrine - the only difference is that they don't have the nuclear bomb. When they do, and they surely will, you will be the first to taste it. Americans are sickos.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 2:13 PM

Holy shit, I agree with Al. Nude beaches for all!

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM

If the American government is too cruel towards the Muslim world right now, just imagine what it'll be like if a nuke is actually dropped on American soil.

Posted by Too many bombs | March 20, 2008 2:20 PM

"We, muslims, think such personal freedoms and practices are bad and we most certainly do not share such values."

You have to love the use of the royal "we" here. Apparently Abdullah speaks for a billion people.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 2:24 PM

The United States is in actual fact, the biggest nuclear weapons proliferator in the entire world. It also sells weapons that are so deadly that one wonders why there is any need for nuclear bombs. Of course, it sells it only to allies. And that makes it all fine and well!! It is this same preposterous power that then tries to police a non-proliferation treaty, so that others can't make bombs to defend themselves and their allies against this power, called the USA, which in essence, is really evil.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 2:26 PM

Abdullah, if you want to actually convince people that your point of view is right, calling their entire country evil and devoid of morals is probably a bad way to go about it. Just a thought.

Posted by Reality Man | March 20, 2008 2:29 PM

Abdullah,

Though I have little liking for Islam, I think you have a point. You guys should be able to run your own show the way you like it. I certainly don't want the US telling other countries how to run their business. Though I deplore what the Shariah law says about women's rights, I am not going to try to change the Muslim world. You guys follow your own path and let us follow ours.

The problem comes when Muslims are trying to EXPAND the frontiers of the Islamic world. That is unacceptable and must be fought against. Spain is Christian territory and must remain Christian territory. The same way with Lebanon, Armenia, Ethiopia. How can you justify the fact that Lebanon, which was FOUNDED as a Christian State, is now majority Muslim. How can you justify that Muslims are trying to Islamize the rest of the world.

Posted by Hector | March 20, 2008 2:32 PM

You Americans know you are all sickos. You could not care less about anyone else but yourselves.

"If the American government is too cruel towards the Muslim world right now, just imagine what it'll be like if a nuke is actually dropped on American soil."

When muslims do, it won't be one.
Wait in patience. All good things come to those who wait.

This is Abdullah signing off.
Americans are all sickos.

Posted by Abdullah | March 20, 2008 2:33 PM

i must you americans are really stupid people as you do not know what else is happening in the world as you the people elected a man like bush to a second term and then you remember new orleans how can you people tell the world how to live when your insitutes are corrupt and racist

Posted by taz | March 20, 2008 2:47 PM

I'm a young Pakistani, and its unfortunate that over the past 60 years, American leaders and policy makers have supported dictatorial regimes in Pakistan. 98% percent of people 160 million are moderate and progressive people and want to live their lives by their own choice. Obama is right, America and American people need to support the 160 million people rather than an individual, who governs, makes stupid decisions and then leaves the country in a mess. America MUST STOP supporting military rulers in Pakistan, its the duty of American people to remind that to their government.

Al-Qaida was created in Pakistan, with the support of AMERICA and Saudi Arabian money. After the soviets left the Afghanistan, US never cared about these people, and the dictator who was involved in all this was blown up in a C-130 plane, including the American ambassador.

and about the women issue, We had first woman prime minister of the Muslim world (Benazir Bhutto), and yesterday another woman was elected as the speaker of the National Assembly (Dr. Fahmida Mirza). Pakistani women are included in the regular army and we also have women in Pakistan air force as fighter pilots.

women and men working together in many fields of life is a common norm here in Pakistan, but sometimes, out of ignorance, westerners do compare us with the Arabs on this issue, which is a bit unfair

cheers,
IMRAN

Posted by Imran | March 20, 2008 3:19 PM

I like how Obama has matured over the course of the campaign; his remarks are more thoughtful than the preemptive striking he alluded to months ago. Its a more cooperative and inclusive approach to fighting Al-Qaeda in Pakistan. As it stands, "that child" in Pak does not know that America desires a better life for him/her, and in many instances may believe the converse. The reason Gen Musharraf is so unpopular in Pak is not because he is a dictator. If he were so then free and fair elections that ousted him would not be possible. The reason he is unpopular is because he was, under great pressure from the west, vigorously pursuing western foreign policy agendas, often at the cost of many Pakistani lives. His govt was certainly not perfect, but relatively speaking his government has proved to be the most progressive, secular, and least corrupt government in Pakistan's history. A policy in line with Obama's remarks above is by far the best approach to the Pak problem. Not only will it be met with more success, but it will not be political suicide on Pak leadership's side to cooperate (as was the case with Musharraf). It will take the important first steps in forging a truly mutually beneficial relationship.

Posted by Shaun S Ali | March 20, 2008 3:39 PM

Well Obama is naive on Pakistan. The nexus of Zardari and Sharif is a recipe for instability, which eventually will lead to the economic issues Pakistan faced in the 90s with the added burden of terrorism. If Musharraf is not around to pick up the pieces when these two corrupt and incompetent leaders turn on each other; Pakistan is the next Iraq! Democracy in a country with greater than 50% illiteracy, feudal & tribal culture, and active socialists (lawyers movement) is a dangerous mix. Throw radical Islamists in the mix and you have nothing but trouble. Musharraf was the force that kept the balance!

Posted by S Ali Shah | March 20, 2008 3:50 PM

These so-called elected leaders will lead to the destruction of Pakistan. The politicians, lawyers, and vested groups don't even believe that Pakistan is facing a threat and terrorism, but rather they are focused on power for themselves. We really need someone like Musharraf to stick around...the politicians and lawyers are going to be too busy taking aim at each other to focus on real issues. God help us! The future for the world looks difficult.

Posted by Nadeem Ahmed | March 20, 2008 3:59 PM

These so-called elected leaders will lead to the destruction of Pakistan. The politicians, lawyers, and vested groups don't even believe that Pakistan is facing a threat and terrorism, but rather they are focused on power for themselves. We really need someone like Musharraf to save Pakistan...the politicians and lawyers are going to be too busy taking aim at each other to focus on real issues. God help us!

Posted by Nadeem Ahmed | March 20, 2008 4:01 PM

These so-called elected leaders will lead to the destruction of Pakistan. The politicians, lawyers, and vested groups don't even believe that Pakistan is facing a threat and terrorism, but rather they are focused on power for themselves. We really need someone like Musharraf to save Pakistan...the politicians and lawyers are going to be too busy taking aim at each other to focus on real issues. God help us!

Posted by Nadeem Ahmed | March 20, 2008 4:01 PM

I agree with Imran and I agree with most of Abdullah's points.
Most of the American people are ignorant(there are few exceptions) and I can say this because I live in United States. Many Americans think that Pakistanis are Radical and extremists when our own Pakistani President is helping USA. Musharraf is capturing innocent Pakistanis and handing them to United States. There are many Pakistani civilians missing and they are believed to be captured without charges and tortured.
I believe that Pakistani Politians are very corrupt and they are easily brainwashed by Westerners. If Pakistani politicians would have been smart and wouldn't have listened to Bush than there wouldn't be bomb blasts in Pakistani everyday. Because of Bush and his so called "War on Terror", innocent Pakistanis are killed in tehir own country.
Westerns think that Muslim women are forced to wear hijabs, veils in Muslim countries and they see this as a sign of opression. What's their problem if women want to wear hijab? Hijabs are sign of Modesty and not opression. Westerns coutnries proudly say that they have democratic government and everyone is equal. How can this be when there is all sort of racism against Muslims in these countries. My history teacher was saying few days that in US constitution its written that there is freedom of Religion granted for all peopel living in United States but is it true for Muslim people? Just people Muslims women wear modest clothes and they don't wear tight shear clothes then there is no reason for westerns to pick on them, make fun of them and be racist to them.
Well I don't get this Obama. One day he says that he wants to bomb Pakistan and the other day he wants to approve conditions for Pakistanis. I hope he sticks to what he says and doesn't change his opinion the next day because Pakistanis deserve financial aid.

Posted by S. | March 20, 2008 4:06 PM

well done MR hector or how the hell u r. Support musharraf no matter what happens to pakistan or this world because we pakistani are not humans or we does not understand democracy even after the feb 18 election result? Well i damn care if any one thinks that we are extrimist or what ever. Pakistani are supporters of democracy and want their country to be a democratic one, and no metter any one believes or not but Mr musharraf has no future he should say bye bye now otherwise people might kick him in the arabian sea.

Posted by m bilal | March 20, 2008 4:15 PM

If you listen to his speech today, he corrects the "Bomb Pakistan" mis-characterization.

And yes, most Americans are ignorant. We get it. It's wrong of anyone to paint the entire nation that way. Just read the usual comments of this blog, minus the idiot neocons. We all hate how corrupt our government is.

Posted by Monster | March 20, 2008 4:17 PM

Hector said: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_on_pakistan.php#comment-1557125

`Regardless, Pakistan needs a man like Musharraf. I'm of South Asian ancestry so I know a bit about the situation there. Do not be fooled by the results of the recent 'election'. The country is on the edge of Islamic extremism, and Islamic extremism is very popular there. Liberal democracy can never work in a country like Pakistan (it just barely works for India) and only an authoritarian leader can keep the country can falling into chaos.`

Hector, do you know what Ziaul Haq did to Pakistan? Ziaul Haq was yet another military dictator supported by US for its purposes of fighting war against Russia. Ziaul Haq helped create monster organizations which are now biting everyone in the behind. Musharraf has done nothing against that radicalism tree of which Zia sowed the seeds. Musharraf only fires a bullet here and there to show progress against terrorism/extremism. Why is that suicide bombing has only gone up in Musharraf regime? Ever thought about that?

Posted by Tariq | March 20, 2008 4:52 PM

Hector said: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/obama_on_pakistan.php#comment-1557125

`Regardless, Pakistan needs a man like Musharraf. I'm of South Asian ancestry so I know a bit about the situation there. Do not be fooled by the results of the recent 'election'. The country is on the edge of Islamic extremism, and Islamic extremism is very popular there. Liberal democracy can never work in a country like Pakistan (it just barely works for India) and only an authoritarian leader can keep the country can falling into chaos.`

Hector, do you know what Ziaul Haq did to Pakistan? Ziaul Haq was yet another military dictator supported by US for its purposes of fighting war against Russia. Ziaul Haq helped create monster organizations which are now biting everyone in the behind. Musharraf has done nothing against that radicalism tree of which Zia sowed the seeds. Musharraf only fires a bullet here and there to show progress against terrorism/extremism. Why is that suicide bombing has only gone up in Musharraf regime? Ever thought about that?

Posted by Tariq | March 20, 2008 4:55 PM

for those who say that musharraf government is least corrupt are damn wrong. he failed to deliver on the real issues of the people.
War against terror is a part, just is just a part, not the whole thing, that people of Pakistan are against musharraf.

few examples are flour crisis, sugar crisis, energy crisis, the biggest port city of Karachi only get 12 hrs of electricity in most of its parts. That person is a incompetent ruler, he only know how to save his ass. His secularism was shown to the world, when the cultural minister (female) did some parachute jumping in France, and then hugged her coach. When the pictures were released in press, his government demanded resignation from the minister. The sort of ruler who bans/unbans private television channels at his will. Grow up guys, gone are the days in military rule in Pakistan.

Democracy is the only way forward, and whenever someone says the democracy should prevail in Pakistan, some fools show up and accuse of those demanding as perusing self interests. The basic rules of the government are same for every country. and those who still think that zardari, nawaz will still behave like 90's, I think they haven't grown in their thinking and are still stuck in 90's themselves. Get along, this is 21st century, and people of Pakistan have a bright future in it, except for the MILITARY.

Posted by Imran | March 20, 2008 5:28 PM

and those who think that Musharraf is so much critical for the stability of Pakistan, I'd like to ask them, after all he is a mortal, one day or the other he has to get out of the way. What will happen to this country after that?

He certainly did not buy time to live and govern forever.

We need strong institution than strong persons. How long would people like you will support personalities and not the system.

We need to act and think rationally and strive for stronger and better democratic institutes, strong judiciary, NO MILITARY at any place.

Posted by Imran | March 20, 2008 5:35 PM

Al-qaeda is the gretest ploy in recent history to instil fears in the minds of American and western public.
it is just a specter created by western intelligence agencies to pustch their strategic agenda in the world particularly in Arab territories.
It was British Imperialism which drew the borders for Arab countries. Now the same IMPERIALISM is using the muscle power of Americans to redraw the borders of Arab lands. Idea is just to keep control over the resources there. One can easily see the footprints of the BRITISH all over. America is a great vehicle to engineer British designs globally.
This BRITISH-AMERICAN nexus is the root cause of troubles world over. They do not care how many innocents are mercilessly killed everday as a result of their selfish policies. Bravo! CHAMPIONS OF DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS-----As if both of these commodities exist anywhere in the world including USA & UK.

Posted by Infoaxis | March 20, 2008 6:03 PM

Al-qaeda is the gretest ploy in recent history to instil fears in the minds of American and western public.
it is just a specter created by western intelligence agencies to pustch their strategic agenda in the world particularly in Arab territories.
It was British Imperialism which drew the borders for Arab countries. Now the same IMPERIALISM is using the muscle power of Americans to redraw the borders of Arab lands. Idea is just to keep control over the resources there. One can easily see the footprints of the BRITISH all over. America is a great vehicle to engineer British designs globally.
This BRITISH-AMERICAN nexus is the root cause of troubles world over. They do not care how many innocents are mercilessly killed everday as a result of their selfish policies. Bravo! CHAMPIONS OF DEMOCRACY & HUMAN RIGHTS-----As if both of these commodities exist anywhere in the world including USA & UK.

Posted by Infoaxis | March 20, 2008 6:05 PM

Tariq,

When are you guys going to give up your claim to Kashmir?

Posted by Hector | March 20, 2008 6:07 PM

America will be far better off the day they will stop supporting Musharaf. This guy has helped America just to prolong his stay in power. This concept in West that only Musharaf can deliver is totally false and has nothing to do with the reality. I would go one step further and tell you he is the part of the problem. Therefore, Obama, Clinton or McCain whoever comes in power should concentrate on supporting the democratic powers in Pakistan and stop supporting an unpopular leader of Pakistan. Being a Pakistani, I can assure you that majority of Pakistanis are moderate and if America work with them, they would be willing to help america too. People of Pakistan are themselves victim of terrorism and they are fed up of it.

Posted by Arif | March 20, 2008 7:28 PM

I love this man..he knows what he is talking about. He knows how the third world really works and he can make the real improvements. Right now the US is giving billions of dollars to Musharraf and none of it gets to the people. He uses it to gin up his army in order to intimidate people and the rest is sent to his personal account in Swiss. There are orginisations that are American working in Pakistan that build schools, hospitals and provide economic releif through food and supplies that we need to concentrate on. These are the grassroots movement you need in a country like this in order for them to work with you. They will eventually give up Bin Ladens location as they see that the US is really for them. Work with the littele guy that knows everything that goes on in the village and you know the country better then any map.

Posted by Karen | March 20, 2008 7:30 PM

Obama has it right.

But this administration is constantly giving the middle finger to a majority of Pakistanis. While it has done many admirable things for Pakistan (earthquake relief, making Pakistan the #1 recipient of Fulbrights to the U.S., providing funding to some major civil society orgs), all that goes to waste with our support of a dictator, opposition to an independent judiciary, and military strikes in Pakistani territory.

I speak both Arabic and Urdu and notice a considerable amount of US gov't outreach to Arabs on al Jazeera, but close to NOTHING on Pakistani channels. Maybe State doesn't have any real Urdu speakers, but Pakistan even has a 24-hr English language news channel. No excuses.

Posted by Arif Rafiq | March 20, 2008 8:43 PM

The recent world history is evident of foolish and unhuman foreign and military policies of US political leadership. All Bush et al. policies were catastrophic, so will be Obama's as well. They have been cause of all political chaos in Pakistan: US support for Gen. Ayub Khan, Gen. Zia, Gen Musharraf, Mujahideen, Usama, Taliban, and what not. All the worst Pakistani politicians, businessmen, & bureaucrates have their survival in the country due to their strong affiliation and friendship with the US embassy in Pakistan and the State Department at US.
An advice to Obama and other US political leadership: stay away from Pakistan and it will turn into one of the best nations on this earth!

Posted by Dodo | March 20, 2008 9:02 PM

A SLIGHT SHIFT.....

How do you feel about Musharafs enactment of a law that precludes court action against corruption cases of past politicians? this is the law that enabled Benazir to re-enter Pakistan's politics (tacitly with US encouragement) and which is enabling her corrupt husband Zardari to retain his loot ,prooven as acquired through corrupt means, even by international courts.

To boot, with cases withdrawn he can now even aspire for prime ministership! what does this say about the moral character of Musharaf, and his coterie of advisors? Is it fair for these few to make this call on behalf of the millions who suffer the consequence of this corruption and plunder?

Posted by D | March 20, 2008 9:04 PM

when was a nude beachist walked wearing a heavy vest (optional clothing) to blow up innocent folks?....Sam from Malibu beach, Ca

Posted by hakim | March 20, 2008 9:55 PM

when was a nude beachist walked wearing a heavy vest (optional clothing) to blow up innocent folks? LOL Hak from Malibu beach, Ca

Posted by hakim | March 20, 2008 9:57 PM

''al-Qaida was founded in Pakistan''.....i think you'll find that it was the Yemen not Pakistan where he started that ideology and was then subsequently asked to leave from.

Posted by S A Sayeed | March 20, 2008 10:56 PM

Abdulla, your understanding of women in western democracies is slanted. Women in the U.S., for the most part, are not behaving immodestly. Most women dress appropriately and modestly. We have to dress conservatively in order to work, go to school, and as role models for our children.

The image of American (or European) young women barely dressed is a marketing tool to increase consumerism. This is something that causes problems for young girls in our society who don't like their bodies (too fat, too thin), but healthy, intelligent, and productive women, young and old, in the U.S. are working as lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers, astronaughts, scientists (we may even have a woman President (god, forbid!).

The difference between free women in the U.S. and women living in strict arabic (or fundamentalist christian, or hasidic) cultures is that our behavior, laws, etc. are not determined by our husbands, fathers, brothers, government, or religion. Women in the west take responsibility for themselves and for their own liberty. We choose how we live our lives and our Constitution protects those choices. We are not sinful. We try to be respectful of others. When traveling to the middle east, we cover our heads as a sign of respect. It makes sense, we are a practical nation.

Politically, we want the best for the women in islamic cultures. We don't want to liberate them to be immodest. We want them to live their lives as free women, choosing whats best for themselves and their families. Democracy is a good thing, even if it sometimes creates pockets of pornography and lawlessness. Democracy is messy, although, it has been said that 'democracy is war without bloodshed', and I think that's true.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 21, 2008 12:26 AM

Abdulla, your understanding of women in western democracies is slanted. Women in the U.S., for the most part, are not behaving immodestly. Most women dress appropriately and modestly. We have to dress conservatively in order to work, go to school, and as role models for our children.

The image of American (or European) young women barely dressed is a marketing tool to increase consumerism. This is something that causes problems for young girls in our society who don't like their bodies (too fat, too thin), but healthy, intelligent, and productive women, young and old, in the U.S. are working as lawyers, politicians, doctors, teachers, astronaughts, scientists (we may even have a woman President (god, forbid!).

The difference between free women in the U.S. and women living in strict arabic (or fundamentalist christian, or hasidic) cultures is that our behavior, laws, etc. are not determined by our husbands, fathers, brothers, government, or religion. Women in the west take responsibility for themselves and for their own liberty. We choose how we live our lives and our Constitution protects those choices. We are not sinful. We try to be respectful of others. When traveling to the middle east, we cover our heads as a sign of respect. It makes sense, we are a practical nation.

Politically, we want the best for the women in islamic cultures. We don't want to liberate them to be immodest. We want them to live their lives as free women, choosing whats best for themselves and their families. Democracy is a good thing, even if it sometimes creates pockets of pornography and lawlessness. Democracy is messy, although, it has been said that 'democracy is war without bloodshed', and I think that's true.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 21, 2008 12:27 AM

The Paki northwestern frontier area bordering Afghanistan is being bombed from time to time by US warplanes. If a Presidential candiate says that he will bomb Pakistan if he knows the whereabouts of ben laden, then it is no different from what President Bush does in Pakistan targeting militants safe house. What is all this fuss about when Obama made that statement? At least, he is honest about it in public.
Pakistan is a dangerous nation and her policies and training camps for radicals prior to september 11 have had a major role in expanding and promoting the cause of Al-Qaeda and the damage caused for the cause of instability in the region. If Mushraaf half heartedly fought the policatical war to catch some high valued ben laden operatives in exchange for cash, it does not mean he was tackling the root of fanaticism in Pakistan. In fact, it has grown since he joined in his half hearted fight against al-qaeda with the US.
Political wars are good for political consumption and they are dangerous, becasue they serve the purpose for short term and in the long term it is more dangeous.

Posted by Najee | March 21, 2008 1:22 AM

The Paki northwestern frontier area bordering Afghanistan is being bombed from time to time by US warplanes. If a Presidential candiate says that he will bomb Pakistan if he knows the whereabouts of ben laden, then it is no different from what President Bush does in Pakistan targeting militants safe house. What is all this fuss about when Obama made that statement? At least, he is honest about it in public.
Pakistan is a dangerous nation and her policies and training camps for radicals prior to september 11 have had a major role in expanding and promoting the cause of Al-Qaeda and the damage caused for the cause of instability in the region. If Mushraaf half heartedly fought the policatical war to catch some high valued ben laden operatives in exchange for cash, it does not mean he was tackling the root of fanaticism in Pakistan. In fact, it has grown since he joined in his half hearted fight against al-qaeda with the US.
Political wars are good for political consumption and they are dangerous, becasue they serve the purpose for short term and in the long term it is more dangeous.

Posted by Najee | March 21, 2008 1:23 AM

ELLEN HAMM
I think what Abdullah said is the ultimate manifestation of what u believe and practice. Abdullah believes in submission to the desire of GOD that has been transmitted through prophets like Abraham,Moses , Christ and lastly by Mohammad (PBUH)for the entire world (NOT FOR MUSLIMS ONLY).It is not fathers,brothers and husbands that desire a particular code of conduct for women , it is the Commandment of GOD.
2.Land belongs to God and not to a particular type of people.The notion that 'Muslims start expanding'like in Lebanon,it is the message of GOD that they spread and not their own designs.

Posted by sohail | March 21, 2008 1:42 AM

ELLEN HAMM
I think what Abdullah said is the ultimate manifestation of what u believe and practice. Abdullah believes in submission to the desire of GOD that has been transmitted through prophets like Abraham,Moses , Christ and lastly by Mohammad (PBUH)for the entire world (NOT FOR MUSLIMS ONLY).It is not fathers,brothers and husbands that desire a particular code of conduct for women , it is the Commandment of GOD.
2.Land belongs to God and not to a particular type of people.The notion that 'Muslims start expanding'like in Lebanon,it is the message of GOD that they spread and not their own designs.

Posted by sohail | March 21, 2008 1:43 AM

ELLEN HAMM
I think what Abdullah said is the ultimate manifestation of what u believe and practice. Abdullah believes in submission to the desire of GOD that has been transmitted through prophets like Abraham,Moses , Christ and lastly by Mohammad (PBUH)for the entire world (NOT FOR MUSLIMS ONLY).It is not fathers,brothers and husbands that desire a particular code of conduct for women , it is the Commandment of GOD.
2.Land belongs to God and not to a particular type of people.The notion that 'Muslims start expanding'like in Lebanon,it is the message of GOD that they spread and not their own designs.

Posted by sohail | March 21, 2008 1:43 AM

ELLEN HAMM
I think what Abdullah said is the ultimate manifestation of what u believe and practice. Abdullah believes in submission to the desire of GOD that has been transmitted through prophets like Abraham,Moses , Christ and lastly by Mohammad (PBUH)for the entire world (NOT FOR MUSLIMS ONLY).It is not fathers,brothers and husbands that desire a particular code of conduct for women , it is the Commandment of GOD.
2.Land belongs to God and not to a particular type of people.The notion that 'Muslims start expanding'like in Lebanon,it is the message of GOD that they spread and not their own designs.

Posted by sohail | March 21, 2008 1:44 AM

:) Who cares what Obama says about pakistan....the fact is neither obama or bush administration can change the situation of pakistan, the american governments (not poor american) had been supported and still supporting dictators and the political powers that are brought in power under elections held by the military dictators.....the population of pakistan is sick of the political situation there and no one is there to make a change as its held in control by military dictators and thier puppet politicion like zardari ..nawaz..benazir...

the recent events of suicide bombing is the begining of new era in pakistan as some powers are engaged in bringing the change and as the country is ruled by militry since after is existance the change cannot be bring peacefully and i m quiet hopefull that this change will happen soon as its based on ideology.

and regarding invading pakistan :)

first mr. Obama must take a look at afghanistan the 70 percent of the area is still controlled by taliban. when they cant win and will never... :) he mus forgot the idea abt invading pakistan because this is what we want to recruit an army of 160 million in the battle against "real terrorism" the american crusade

Posted by F.A | March 21, 2008 2:35 AM

:) Who cares what Obama says about pakistan....the fact is neither obama or bush administration can change the situation of pakistan, the american governments (not poor american) had been supported and still supporting dictators and the political powers that are brought in power under elections held by the military dictators.....the population of pakistan is sick of the political situation there and no one is there to make a change as its held in control by military dictators and thier puppet politicion like zardari ..nawaz..benazir...

the recent events of suicide bombing is the begining of new era in pakistan as some powers are engaged in bringing the change and as the country is ruled by militry since after is existance the change cannot be bring peacefully and i m quiet hopefull that this change will happen soon as its based on ideology.

and regarding invading pakistan :D

first mr. Obama must take a look at afghanistan the 70 percent of the area is still controlled by taliban. when they cant win and will never... :) he mus forgot the idea abt invading pakistan because this is what we want to recruit an army of 160 million in the battle against "real terrorism"

Posted by F.A | March 21, 2008 2:36 AM

:) Who cares what Obama says about pakistan....the fact is neither obama or bush administration can change the situation of pakistan, the american governments (not poor american) had been supported and still supporting dictators and the political powers that are brought in power under elections held by the military dictators.....the population of pakistan is sick of the political situation there and no one is there to make a change as its held in control by military dictators and thier puppet politicion like zardari ..nawaz..benazir...

the recent events of suicide bombing is the begining of new era in pakistan as some powers are engaged in bringing the change and as the country is ruled by militry since after is existance the change cannot be bring peacefully and i m quiet hopefull that this change will happen soon as its based on ideology.

and regarding invading pakistan :D

first mr. Obama must take a look at afghanistan the 70 percent of the area is still controlled by taliban. when they cant win and will never... :) he mus forgot the idea abt invading pakistan because this is what we want to recruit an army of 160 million in the battle against "real terrorism"

Posted by F.A | March 21, 2008 2:38 AM

$5 Billion of the aid was acutally payments for services offered by Pakistan army and air force such as bases and about 90,000 troops currently deployed. And rest of $5 Billion is actually divided evenly between mil. and economic aid.

So in short only $600 million flows out of American to PAkistan yearly and half of that is spent on social and economic fronts.

But we should also remember that Pakistan this year got tax revenue of around $17 Billion so our aid only comprises %3.5 of total Pakistani revenue while there defence budget is around $5 Billion. So that aid neither carries much of the weight (%3.5 of there total tax revenue) and in order to make real dent in the situation much more is needed.

And i totaly agree with the view that huge around %98 of population votes for moderate politicians even though they are extremely corrupt. And I know that from experience since i have spent some time there. There might be few bad apples but which society does not have them.

And the fact that they still have some radicalized elements from the soviet union war which were trained and taught radicalism by the CIA, PAkistani and other western nations services so they would fight blindly against soviets. So we should extend help to them to take care of this problem which is partly due to our involment in the soviet-afghan war as we trained and radicalized good number of people in afghanistan.

Posted by sk | March 21, 2008 2:44 AM

Musharraf made a fool of US leaders ranging from Prez Bush to so called think tank experts from 2001 to 2008. He told them tribal area is most dangerous territory. Fact is highly secular party NAP got a overwhelming popular vote in the elections. He told them AQ Khan was solely responsible for nuclear walmart. Fact is Pakistan establishment was the primary driver. AQ Khan was kept under house arrest so that he could not spill the beans. Mush told US of the terrorists killed in ambushes and army men martyred in fighting them and got 10 billion in compensation. Fact is he and his army/ISI engineered the terrorists, religous parties and madrassas to help subjugate Afghans, bleed India in Kashmeer, Soviets in Chechniya and America on in WTC on 9/11. He continued to do so even after 9/11 but made a fool of US into believing them he was helping them and extracted $10 billion in the bargain. Pakistani people & Judiciary were able to see through his bluff but US keeps getting fooled by Mush even when has suffered humiliating depeat from his own people.

Posted by Nanaji | March 21, 2008 3:52 AM

@Hector

I'm a Kashmiri living in Pakistan, and it doesn't matter to the Kashmir issue, if Pakistanis give up their claim on Kashmir, as long as we Kashmiris are there to fight for our cause.

I think in the past kashmiri people have made a mistake, by putting too much responsibility on people pf Pakistan to support their cause. I think its the right time (as musharraf has made no progress whatsoever on the Kashmir issue in last 8 years) for the kashmiris to stand up and fight for their own cause.

Posted by Imran | March 21, 2008 4:31 AM

@sohail. The will of God, as interpreted by humans. Even if you believe that God has revealed his Will, the fact ia, His Word has been written down by men. There is an argument that this interpretation is self-serving for male dominance.

However, I think that there is a hopeful interpretation in the words of Jesus, Mohammad, and in the old testament that liberates women to live their lives in the full. Many female leaders feel that when they seek justice and more freedom, it is sanctioned by the Word of God.

When God's Word is interpreted to oppress women, that is unjust had must be opposed. I believe that cultural suppression of the rights of women by male religious leaders is a distortion of His Word. But it is what it is.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 21, 2008 10:26 AM

Thanks for the interesting comments, especially from those with direct expertise. We need to hear more from the people affected by our foreign policy.

Ellen Hamm--well-said, but one minor gripe: can't we just say "when God's Word is interpreted to oppress" ANYBODY "that is unjust and must be opposed"?

I respect the right of people to dress and behave as they choose, as long as no one's getting hurt. The problem is not that women in burkas get teased in London, it's that women and others are getting executed in dismal police states that claim the authority from God to micromanage the lives of their citizens.

Posted by Robert Powell | March 21, 2008 1:07 PM

Pakistan Rocks.I am proud to be the citizen of The Most Dangerous Country on planet earth.

Posted by Raja | March 21, 2008 2:43 PM

@Robert Powell:

It all comes down to the same thing, in the end. The Word of God has been used throughout history for the domination of one group over another, nations v. nations, men v. women, sect v. sect.

It is all distortion. What makes me proudest of being an American is that our government policies are not couched in religious ferver. What makes me ashamed is government sanction of aggressive and oppressive corporate plundering of the worlds natural resources. Yes we need oil, water, and minerals, but we should have to pay for them fairly and pay for the labor in those weaker countries as if they were our own people.

What we haven't done is pretend that our aggression and injustice to weaker peoples is the Will of God. We have the Founders to thank for their enlightenment and their wisdom to separate our government's action from our religious practice.

Secular government has enabled so many opportunites for everyday citizens to change their lives for the better. We are able to practice our faith without the fear of governmental oppression. That is our argument for democracy: to bring hope to others who share this world with us. Yet, it is also our duty as citizens of the United States to make sure our democracy at home sets limits upon our aggressive foreign policy abroad. Poor countries should be able to govern themselves as they like.

Obama's foreign policy ideas are very close to what I believe. I have hope.

Posted by Ellen Hamm | March 21, 2008 4:09 PM

To get back to the main point of Obama's speech, the issue is whether he understands HOW to get US support to the Pakistani people.

The devil is in the details. Obama did not understand that you can't go around the Pakistani government to get Al Qaeda - because there are CONNECTIONS between the two - and he still doesn't understand that you can't go around the Pakistani government to dump billions of dollars on the people - unless he plans to dump it out of airplanes which is close to what we did in Iraq - except that money all disappeared.

Obama's foreign policy is all talk and no actual plans. Worse, the talk is naive. For the record, Clinton's worse because she is owned and operated by the AIPAC crowd, and McCain is a lunatic war monger.

The reality is that the US must change ITS BEHAVIOR - not some other country's behavior - in order to eliminate the terrorist threats. Until this is acknowledged, nothing that is done either to bomb other countries or give money to other countries is going to change the reality on the ground.

The people with the guns and bombs in these countries have grievances against their country and other countries, but only have grievances against the US because the US supports their countries and other countries against whom they have grievances. The US needs to stop supporting other countries COMPLETELY. That means NO support for Israel, NO support for Saudi Arabia, NO support for Egypt, NO support for Pakistan, NO support for Afghanistan, and NO support for Iraq.

As the Taoists say, "Do nothing effectively."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 21, 2008 6:46 PM

@Hector, I am also a Kashmiri - on Indian side. We have been divided by ISI/Pakistan army in the name of religion because they wanted to avenge their 1971 defeat after their East Pakistan misadventure. Even Pakistani masses have understood this as indicated by victory by secular and moderate parties. We should too.

85% of the area of state of Jammu & Kashmir is Budhist and Hindu. Even Gilgit population has been against ISI dominated Pak administration. Kashmiri population is also not 100% pro-independance. Does the population in the valley of kashmir (15% of total) have a right to use religion to divide our 5000 year old homeland on the basis of religion?

India has more muslims than Pakistan. 3 of its presidents have been Muslims - some of them my favorite presidents. Kashmiri muslims are doing roaring business all over India & getting great education at IITs. What is your gripe?

Posted by Nanaji | March 22, 2008 8:15 AM