I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

It's not revelational, it's powerful.

That said, I think I'm too much of a realist and still believe leaders like her require people protecting them with the force required to stop people like the Taliban. Benazir Bhutto was in many ways a grown version of many of Malala's own ideals, and she is now dead at the hands of the same militant fanatics that tried to kill Malala. Female politicians in Pakistan have a regrettably short life expectancy, much like any male politicians who support them or anything remotely secular. For example the two politicians assassinated in the last year and a bit for asking to lift the death penalty for the crime of blasphemy.

Pakistan is in the middle of a very bloody war between the people like Malala and the people who tried to kill her. The trouble is the side we relate with is being decimated by assassinations which are either killing the moderates outright, or forcing them from the country to safety but more limited impact within Pakistan. Bhutto was similarly in exile for a long while for the same concerns, which proved out to be all to well founded.

The regions of which you speak belong to another era. Villages out there take days to walk to along mountain trails in some of the highest mountain ranges in the world. Is similiar to a lot of terrain in Afghanistan. Natural forts.

They've never really been conquered or been part of established empire. People are still organized along tribal lines, with the tribes engaged in continuous inter-tribe warfare. Every kid is handed a gun as soon as he's old enough to shoot and raised to abide by the honour code (pashtunwali, yes they even have a name for it). When the tribe is under attack, you don't question right or wrong, you defend the tribe. They're no electricity, television, newspapers, literacy, or any other medium that counters this message. I know it sounds racist but those boys are like klingons, the Pakistani government has never really dared to take them on.

Couple that with the decades of training provided in the arts of guerilla warfare; including drug running, weapons manufacture, crude bomb manufacture, etc. by the CIA and ISI during the cold war and the Soviet invasion, means they are a force to be reckoned with as the US is finding out in Afghanistan.

Despite all of that they've never really bothered us until the "war on terror". They've always bbeen kind of our crazy cousins. We don't wanna be around them but they're family. Most of the country is similarly undeveloped (as in people still live like 3000 years ago undeveloped) and backwards. Bringing them into the modern era is a long term project but there's a 150 million more people on that waiting list.

Since the war on terror Pakistan has taken a serious beating. This was supposed to be our decade of growth instead the economy is in shambles. We've been through yet another round of Western supported, foreign policy obsessed, military dictator leaving our civil institutions in shambles. We've lost around 4 thousand soldiers another 8.5 wounded. 40 thousand civilians killed and 3.5 million internal refugees (dirt poor and starving variety).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_North-West_Pakistan

Those are big numbers, people are angry. The Americans are unlikely to win in Afghanistan. They're putting tribe against tribe. All this talk of democracy vs. extremism/terrorism is not something the average Afghan understands. The average Afghan is illiterate and does not understand complex ideas. He understands this: foreigners, christian army, my tribe has chosen this side because we always hated those other fuckers anyways. Americans will leave, leaving Pakistan with a mess. They did it before and we've been screwed since. There's a huuuuge (as in a small city big) Afghan refugee camp near where I live that's some thirty years old, from the last time American boys were in the region playing their geopolitical monopoly game. It's horrible.

From the Pakistani perspective the War on Terror has been a disaster. It's solved nothing and created tenfold the problem it aimed to solve. The Afghans are a primitive bunch (made more so by warfare) and need to establish a government, after which they will slowly over time, maybe a century, join the civilized world. Pakistan wholeheartedly supported the Taliban (as did the US) when they took control of the country and brought peace to it. Warfare is the real bitch not how "extreme" they are. Saudi's are equally nuts and there's not a single American president who doesn't go pay a visit right away upon taking office. Best friends.

Now the government/military of Pakistan is in a tricky situation, we have to play both sides, thus the lack of trust. Either side has the ability to seriously take Pakistan on and bring it to it's knees. The government the American's have propped up in Kabul wouldn't last a month without them, is corrupt, and allied to the Indians, with whom we see ourselves as being in a state of justified war. What to do!? What to do!? (in a indian accent).

I guess my point being, we're actually not a bad bunch. Just in a shitty situation. Come sometime and I can show you around. Most of the country is safe. Safer than mexico anyways.

Sorry that was a long post





>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^FermitTheKrog:
Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.


Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.
Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.
I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.
I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.
Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

>> ^FermitTheKrog:

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:
-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population
-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.
-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.
-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.
-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.
Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.
Thanks for listening. Open to discussion


>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.



Thank you for adding so much to the discussion, very much appreciated.

Yes, I do understand the sovereignty issue looms huge in the opinion of American actions within Pakistan's borders. I can really understand how that would enrage anyone with any manner of national pride. America is in a tough spot though too. The mountainous tribal regions along the Pak-Afghan border are not under the control of the Pakistani central government. On paper the border may run there, but in practice militants can relatively safely travel back and forth between the two. What's more, there still remain places within Pakistan's proper borders that are controlled by the local tribal leaders, and NOT the central Pakistani government. Those local tribal leaders are allying themselves to the Pakistani Taliban and providing them safe haven within Pakistan to launch attacks in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Afghan part does make it America's business. The Pakistani part in my humble opinion, should be a source of greater public outrage than it is.

I guess I find it worrying that extremists can be in de-facto control of large swathes of land within Pakistan's proper borders. So much so that it is still unsafe for the Pakistani police and even military to patrol there. To me, that seems like it is already an enormous sovereignty issue. America's attacks against militants in that region I can understand being a source of outrage. I don't understand why there isn't equal or greater outrage that those regions on the ground are no longer under the control of the Pakistani government at all and being used as a base of operations for launching attacks on the rest of Pakistan.

I think America's problem is knowing whom they can trust within Pakistan's power structure to work against rather than with extremists like the Taliban. Hamid Gul, former leader of Pakistan's ISI, scares the crap out of me. How many of his friends are still in the ISI that think like him? The JUI-F party declared Osama a muslim hero in Pakistan's National Assemblies. How much support has that party been able to hold onto within Pakistan still after taking that stance? Political parties like the PPP seem to share alot of moderate values, but have historically been ridden out of office by the military every few years.

Do you have good reasons that those fears are unfounded? From what I see and read(largely from "The News International") the moderates like yourself have always been in an uphill struggle against extremists and the opportunists willing to work with them.

Thanks for having a more nuanced understanding of the matter... thought I'd share a Pakistani perspective:

-Yes, no arabs here. Lots of Muslims though as in loads of other countries:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Muslim_population

-Pakistani's despise the drone strikes for the same reason we despised the Bin Laden assasination. It is a terrible loss of sovereignity to have foreign soldiers killing with impunity, racking up civilian casualties, within your borders. It makes the matter worse, Pakistan is radicalizing tremendously fast and every time the US flattens another village in Afghanistan or our border regions, everytime American troops accidentally kill ours, that pace accelerates.

-An analogy: If Mexico had drones over the US taking out gang leaders in LA, the US would flatten Mexico in response. All we do is get angry.

-Things are not that bad: Liberals are not dying off. We are in government by popular vote. The Pakistani military is not some tinpot force, it is very much in control of itself and thus of it's nukes. We will deal with the militancy problem over time; education, economic opputurnity, writ of law; not bombs. We are a third world country, Afghanistan has been a war zone forever now, these things take time, most of us still shit in fields, out people are hungry, we have bigger problems to deal with than car bombs.

-In Pakistan, conservatives want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Palestine is the example. Amongst the ultra right (3-4% of the population, I'm sure you have them too, wherever you are) the "we" is Muslims and the "them" is a collaboration of Zionists and American bible thumpers.

Liberals want the American's gone because they are an imperial force at our doorstep. All talk of human rights and democracy is hogwash. Saudi Arab is the example. If they go away we can educate our people out of the mental cesspit they seem to be headed into. American bombs make us look like traitors to our people and weaken our stance.

Thanks for listening. Open to discussion




>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^vaire2ube:
well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.

The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.
I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.
I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.
The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.

>> ^vaire2ube:

well the trick is eventually we dont tell the kids running the drones that its actually REALITY! Ahh! Ender's Game!
But by then the arabs formics will be gone.


The populations in Afghanistan and Pakistan are primarily Muslim, not Arab. There are in fact more Arabs living in America than there are in Afghanistan and Pakistan combined.

I know, not your point at all, but if you try and hash out the real news by reading through middle eastern news outlets you won't be able to make head from tails wondering why a pro-Arab outlet like Al Jazeera would willingly say anything bad about Iran. It's not until realizing that Iran is largely Persian and not Arab that it makes any sense.

I rant about this because it's crazily important and the details matter. American drone attacks have killed hundreds within Pakistan, but even by Pakistan's most anti-American media those people were largely militants responsible for killing Pakistani civilians. The Pakistani Taliban have meanwhile killed thousands of civilians, including former PM Benazir Bhutto, and there is infinitely more outrage and hatred for America's drones than for the Pakistani Taliban. It's something important to think about. What's more, there is MORE hatred in Pakistan over America's raid that killed Bin Laden than there is for the unmanned drone attacks. That's even more important to think about.

The reality is that the moderates in Pakistan are fighting an uphill struggle in Pakistan. We need them to win but they are being killed off faster than we can defend them, and even attempting to defend them is hurting their cause to boot. It's easy to declare that a strategy is bad and has horrible consequences, it's a lot more important though to propose a better alternative. Stop the attacks and do nothing means a Pakistan where the Taliban where still best friends with the military and intelligence agencies. It means a nuclear armed state that was best friends with terrorist organizations eager to use those nuclear weapons in their jihad while we lacked any way of assessing just how close and willing their partnership was. Don't dismiss this assessment as doomsday fear mongering. One of the debates in Pakistan's national assemblies after Osama's death included elected representatives bemoaning Pakistan's failure to protect a great Muslim hero like Bin Laden. Pakistan is a battle ground between extremist and moderate populations and we have a very vested interest in who wins that struggle.

>> ^ghark:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

And what is the root of this terrorism?


IMHO, human nature. The same human nature that led a bunch of majority privileged whites in America to form groups like the KKK. The same human nature that sees common hatred unifying groups of people throughout history, and often the it starts from greed or envy. I certainly wouldn't posit that the formation of things like the Westboro Baptists as being the result of their members being unfairly treated or wronged in the past, but rather their own vices and faults.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^NetRunner:
@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.

The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.
You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.


And what is the root of this terrorism?

>> ^NetRunner:

@bcglorf that is the state of play at present. The thing is, terrorists in Pakistan or Yemmen can't hurt us until they come here, unless we go there.
It seems like things like "Homeland Security" should be able to handle that, and should be able to do well enough within the traditional legal framework of jurisprudence.
And to toss out a touch of radicalism, if they can't, then they can't, and if some attacks get through, well, no one said freedom would be easy.
Now I'm not ruling out the possibility of ever taking the fight to the terrorists, but it seems like we should completely change the whole way we look at this. We don't want a declaration of war on terrorists, that gives the U.S. President all this crazy unilateral power.
I think if we'd have viewed this as some sort of International-scale law enforcement matter, we'd have been in much better shape. And yes, we'd probably still give ourselves the right to come in with special ops and "arrest" people inside sovereign countries on our say so, but it at least should be something that comes after evidence is presented to a judge who's issuing a warrant...
And that approach would've made it clear that toppling the governments of countries and rebuilding them is completely beyond the scope of what's warranted to deal with terrorist threats.


The real trouble was the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The terrorists in Afghanistan were able to hurt us here, and many of our interests and allies abroad as well. The formal government of Afghanistan when asked to choose sides with or against these terrorists chose to back them. Outright war with them in that context doesn't seem particularly absurd, nor even aggressive. The argument for reactive self-defense is rather strong.

You may not recall because our media avoided covering or discussing it much then and since, but Pakistan's formal government was right on the fence as well which way they would side. They still have well represented parties within Pakistan more enraged over Bin Laden's death than Benazir Bhutto's, and it's not the method or origin that offends them, but the nature of those dead. Bhutto was a moderate muslim women who was a former Pakistani PM and front runner in the upcoming elections. Bin Laden however, was to some well represented political parties a muslim hero and political ally rather than opponent. Showing that America had the will to play it's hand very strongly against the militants and terrorists hiding in Pakistan's tribal areas bordering Afghanistan I deem necessary to having encouraged Musharraf and the military leadership to at least pay lip service to siding as they have. Even now though, that may not have been enough. The militants are killing so many of our moderate Pakistani allies that there is a lot of momentum to accept a truce out of fear with them and who cares if America is still nominally at war with these militants.

>> ^marinara:

http://www.khudipakistan.com/faq/
spreading democracy and western culture into pakistan.
this guy runs a crappy little political organization that purports to save globalism from islamists. Why the hell would you want to save globalism?

At Khudi, we tend to prefer the latter. That’s why we organize conferences and workshops around the country, inviting people from disparate backgrounds to foster a culture of healthy discussion and debate
....
Khudi also runs an inter-university campus magazine, distributed at universities across Pakistan, providing students with a chance to air their views without fear of reprisal.

what an idiot. I read this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2459969.ece
about Maajid's polarizing youth, but apparently his big solution are free magazines and communications workshops.
this is an english man mucking about at politics in pakistan.
he'd do better to spend his time to learn arabic than to convince some rich pakistanis that they should love the west


Right, this 'idiot' clearly doesn't understand the situation as well as yourself.

This British Pakistani born man who spent years working with a major Islamic extremist organization obviously knows nothing about Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

You later deny this, but your snide(but poorly researched) remark about learning Arabic is CLEARLY because you didn't even know Pakistan's national language.

You haven't cared enough to study a thing about Pakistan, but while you snipe away here in ignorance, this man is honestly putting his own life at risk every day for his cause. Go find an online Pakistani paper and follow it's stories. You'll find moderate leaders and activists are regularly murdered. More over, not only are they murdered, but the nations lawyers refuse to prosecute the murderers and instead stand in solidarity with the murders 'bold' stand against blasphemy.

This guy even mentions the grossest such example in his talk, former Primer Minister Benazir Bhutto's assassination, but you again seem too ignorant of anything in Pakistan to grasp the significance.

Stop flooding the thread with unhelpful complaining and find something to support the horrific struggle faced by moderate Pakistani's against the extremists that are killing them every day.

Curse you for making me upvote a Maddow segment!!

This is an absolutely critical piece for people to hear and understand. It should be dominating ALL other discussions about foreign policy, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya combined do not represent the magnitude and depth of problem that Pakistan does.

Maddow couldn't be more understated in expressing the danger Sherbano is putting herself in by speaking out. Her father is not the first moderate to be assassinated solely because he was a moderate. Prominent and important moderate figures are being assassinated almost every other month in Pakistan. Even former president Benazir Bhutto has been killed off, as was her father before her.

There are elected members of Pakistan's nation assemblies who have expressed, at those assemblies, their anger that Pakistan's military abandoned Osama and let him be killed, because he was an Islamic Hero. Elected Officials of a nuclear armed state, are able to draw serious public support by declaring Osama a hero!

The depths of the spread of extremism within Pakistan is terrifying, not only for the unfortunate moderates like the Taseers and the Bhuttos living there, but for ourselves as well and the problem needs to be addressed far more seriously. Getting the media to even mention the situation in passing would be a good start...

As to Mr. Paul, he doesn't seem to be able to accept a complex situation.

He wants to simplify things down by acting like providing financial aid to Pakistan and bombing Northern Waziristan at the same time is contradictory. The reality that any pundit or commentator has to recognize is that Pakistan is NOT a single unified nation. Even it's intelligence services and military are not unified in their allegiances. The official ISI stance is to fight the Pakistani Taliban and their terrorist attacks against Pakistani schools and hospitals. The official military stance is to fight the Pakistani Taliban in their attempts to take over the tribal regions of Pakistan. At the same time though, the former head of the ISI publicly states that all good muslims should hope for the victory of the Taliban, as a matter of course. Operations by the Pakistani Military are frequently leaked by internal elements before the operations are put in place.

The problem is that America has both it's closest allies and it's deepest enemies within Pakistan's government. The pro-democracy parties of the country like Benazir Bhutto's PPP sit in the National Assembly with members of the JUI-F who decried the tragic death of Osama as he was a muslim hero. It's worth remembering that Benazir is dead now, just as her father before her.

Ron Paul isn't alone, but every commentator that want to have some binary friend/foe label to place on Pakistan collectively will never find a foreign policy that makes any sense, because the very premise they are working from doesn't make any sense either.

"One could argue that Palin's selection as speaker for the Dinner Keynote Address for this event is quite a break from tradition. Palin joins speakers like Aamir Khan (2010), Pervez Musharraf (2009), Al Gore (2008), Benazir Bhutto (2007)." -http://indiareloaded.tv/article/sarah-palin-india

you dont even want to know what they're REALLY doing.

Use your imagination. It's been done. Yes, even that. And that. Oh you can bet we did that. Ewwww. yea that too. Still not convinced?

The CIA is one of the largest terrorist organizations in the world, by almost any definition. Our tax dollars. Their secret war.

Benazir Bhutto was killed because she was complacent with CIA activities in pakistan decades ago and then ran for head offices -- not because she was Pro-Democracy... but pro-CIA

Read Mr. Nice Guy by Howard Marks... has nothing to do with her... but, he explains his encounters with the politics in pakistan in the 80's, and how Bhutto played ball with the CIA and worked to crack down on his weed trafficking... (kinda assuming the old tale that the CIA was trying to maintain control of opium/etc production, but they do other stuff anyway that it could have included!)

Weeee!!! Then, she might have decided to be her own person..get elected, etc... and *pop pop* bye bye... only it was her husband's bodyguards who killed her... because she was pro-CIA... craziness! You can see the videos on youtube.

Also...Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the ones causing most of the trouble lately in the middle east... and who are our allies... fuck afghanistan/iran/iraq/north korea... those guys just want to be bullies on THEIR block.

heh... i woke up and had to edit because i realized i wanted to say something more specific... 2:07am good nite

>> ^RedSky:


I have to agree on your first point, PEPFAR did a lot of good, and it's probably the most common thing people put forward when asked "what did Bush do right?" Still, the point Olbermann makes about not funding groups who promote condom use goes to show how petty Bush can be, even when he's doing something that's working out well.

The Muslim theocracy in Lebanon is referring to the elections Bush pushed for that resulted in a big, legitimizing win for Hezbollah -- something Bush's own advisers had predicted. You can argue that maybe other courses of action might have had the same outcome or worse, but you can't argue that giving Hezbollah legitimate influence over a country's government is anything but a lost battle in this "war on terror" he's so fond of.

As for the Mumbai bombings, and Benazir Bhutto's assasination, they're outgrowths of a policy towards Pakistan that involved simply trusting Musharraf, and giving him buckets of aid with little to no accountability. Instead, all we ever hear is "Pakistan is on our side, Iraq is the main battlefront on the War on Terror." Looking for bin Laden in Waziristan is off the table.

You have a point about North Korea being a global failing, but they were trending towards dismantling their nuclear program during Clinton's diplomatic efforts. Bush stormed in with his "we don't talk to bad guys" policy, dismantled the talks, and North Korea responded by reverting to their old ways. They were left unchecked (again, Iraq was to be our main/only focus) until they were able to build a nuclear weapon.

As for the one-sided nature of Olbermann, there's not much to argue there other than to say "they started it first." Are Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly some sort of multifaceted objective political commentary? I don't want MSNBC to become the left's Fox News, but I think the media environment can tolerate one Olbermann, and many Maddow-like personalities, for there to at least be two sides doing the whole spin-as-news shtick.

If it were me, I'd love for the media to give believably objective reporting of current events, facts, and history, but all of the outlets that try to do so are either a) struggling to "prove" their objectivity by trying to show that both parties have equal responsibility for all failures or b) are flagged by people as being left-leaning because objectively speaking, Republicans haven't gotten anything right in quite a while.

We'll see how long people keep accusing, say, PBS or the NYT of being "liberal" now that Democrats are in power. I suspect even HuffPo and TPM will get credit for doing fact-based reporting, now that Democrats are in the driver's seat. After all, the "liberal" press loves to attack authority, no matter who they are. "Conservative" press will keep doing what it's been doing; smear Democrats at all times, praise conservative Republicans at all times, and frame all failures as a direct outgrowth of failure to adhere to conservative principles, or failure to pursue them drastically enough.