What should be the goal of U.S. policy toward Pakistan?
Posted at 5:00 AM on November 29, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(40 Comments)
Filed under: International affairs
Relations between Pakistan and the United States continue to deteriorate, following the deaths of two dozen Pakistani soldiers in NATO airstrikes. Pakistan has closed supply routes into Afghanistan and ordered a CIA drone base shut down. Today's Question: What should be the goal of U.S. policy toward Pakistan?
Comments (40)
Any country with a name ending with the word "-stan" we should have no business in or be doing anything with. Especially Vietnam-istan and Pakistan. As far as Pak. is concerned we made a deal with the Devil there. Thanks to that gullible idiot George W. Bush who claimed them to be an ally. (Obama, you are no better either). What kind of "ally" is it that we had to sneak into Pak. to kill Bin Laden and then that "ally" allowed the Red Chinese to examine our downed stealth helicopter? With friends like this, we only have more enemies than what we care to admit. Some "ally". It's as if during World War II our ally Great Britain would be giving save harbor to the Nazi's.
We all know that the world is way over populated and something needs to change. They only way the turmoil in today's world is going to stop is through wars , natural disaster or desease. there is not enough food to feed everyone properly. There are to many factories that are causeing globle warming. And the only way to stop the turmoil right now is major world war that will kill trillions of people and destroy most all of the worlds factories. So if the USA and other countries like Canada and the British commonwealth keep causing shit in places they have no business in And quit trying to police the world this war is going to happen sooner than we think.
"Jessica E is also known as Steve the Cynic"
If I were Jessica E, I'd probably take umbrage at that accusation.
"Every time anyone other than a Progressive writes on this post, they are name called and demeaned."
Actually, it's mainly you, kimMN. And it's not so much that your opinions are ridiculous (though they are), but that your logic varies from non-existent to preposterous, as you use every TQ as a flimsy excuse to bash Obama.
@Jessica E is also known as Steve the Cynic Where is the Progressive tolerance for diversity of opinion or does it only apply when others agree with you or if it passes YOUR assessment of what is valid?? :)
Every time anyone other than a Progressive writes on this post, they are name called and demeaned.
My comment on the question is we can not expect Obama the Liberal radical to have a solid Pakistan policy coming from a man-child that admits in 2006 at a speech that he stole the title of his book, Audacity of Hope, from the racist anti-American Reverand Wright in Chicago...coincidence?
Number one, is recognize that Pakistan is not our friend. Nor do they wish to be involved with the conflict in Afghanistan. Our Military should look to establish alternative supply routes.
The fact that, Bin Laden was safe harbored there in the near lap of luxury, indicates they are more sympathetic to the Tali-ban than to establishing peace in the region.
The Army and CIA should also no longer share information with them, and increase satellite and drone surveillance,They really should be watched with the same intensity that Iran and North Korea are.
All aid should be canceled, except humanitarian.
The two nations have virtually the same interest: an Afghanistan open to heavy US and Pakistan influence. The Talibans, at this point, might be the only ones interested in an independently national Afghanistan. The problem is Pakistan is dependent on the US, so they feel the US is not adhereing to the agreement these two nations secretly entered into when this "War against the Terrorists," was launched. Meanwhile, the US has been finding out just how much the Pakistanis didn't tell them about. What should happen is both nations should leave Afghanistan. What will happen? Either Pakistan loses out to US or Afghanistan gets partitioned into two nations, like Korea.
Does anybody really believe the US would be able to relinquish its interest in the straits of Hormuz through the continuation and expansion of policies that prop up our unsustainable drilling and use of oil?
Could we pause for one moment and critically think about that one assertion alone? Find one person in power, today, that would be on board with that idea.
I'm all for a passionate responses, but I have no patience for ignorant, contrived, irrelevent ranting.
To end the prohibition of hemp/cannabis and promote education of responsible and ecological use of all substances immediately. Occupy the Plenitude today.
@ stevecynic's remark
"You lost me, kimMN. Can you explain how apologizing is "arrogant"? Posted by Steve the Cynic | November 29, 2011 1:03 PM"
OBAMA's arrogance is shown by apologizing for America because he takes the stance that HIS image as the President is above or more important than the image and reputation of his own country that he is supposed to lead and be a spokesman for.
When Obama explains in the 2012 debates on why_ he ordered his passport records from before 2008 to be confidential,and why his social security number and selective service card was from CT and not Hawaii, and when he can explain the full breath of his associations with ACORN and Bill Ayers, the unrepentant radical of the Weathermen terrorists or explain his affiliations with George Soros the hedge fund billionair found guilty of collapsing the UK pound to make himself more billions, then_ he might have a chance at re-election by those who are clueless or uninformed of the True Barack Hussein Obama_ Formerly the adopted indonesian Barry Sotero. Yes, he was adopted by Sotero in indonesia...he admits that.Records show that. So when did he give up his citizenship by rule of law?
We can not discuss ideas for Pakistan policy while we have a President that was recently listed in the top ten of the Least Influential People in America!
If OBAMA can't get involved in the budget deficit how can we expect him to have a foreign or energy policy? He does best campaigning and nothing more... well, except for adding $4 TRILLION to the national deficit and losing more jobs.
US Policy should focus on putting Iran in its place to make them stand down on their threats to wipe out Israel but Iran threatens to shut down the Straits of Hormuz if there is any action against their nuclear weapons building.
Recall 1979 when a weak LIBERAL Carter gave us the hostage situation in Tehran. Looks like history is about to repeat itself with a weak LIBERAL Obama.
If the LIBERALs, that are now known as the Progressives, really wanted to see the US out of wars, then they would support American energy independence. They would support having access to our own gas and oil resources and allow the Keystone Pipeline with new refineries....Liberal progressives refuse to cooperate in Congress..they don't seem to care about the average working American needing affordable fuel to manufacture products and provide for our transportation.
Contrary to so many urban LIBERALS, we don't all have lite rail access where it is given away to free loaders. Ever notice how many people just jump onto the rail for a free ride with no ticket? And the rail can not support itself financially either. Duh. More subsidies for a few.
Obama can not be trusted to tell us any truths on our foreign policies any more than he has shown the truth on his actions for not getting a budget for over 900 days nor, for the designed in failure of the Super Committee....Recall the famous Obama who asked for the first Simpson recommendations to fix the budget and then he poo pooed it! He ignored his own asked for findings. Designed in failure again, all to meet his agenda. Obama is a master at using the Smoke and Mirrors tactics to keep us all in the dark.
Until we have a real man in the White House, not some urban grassroots radical organizer for unions and socialists, our foreign policy will remain as a way to enrich his people at the cost to the rest of us.
Instead of asking MN as to their ideas on Pakistan policy, we should be asking, WHAT is Obama's policy for energy independence? He has NO policy on energy independence..not a word is printed anywhere. All we know is from his 2008 speeches where he warned us that under his administration if elected, that electricity rates would necessarily SKY ROCKET. The wealthy can indeed handle three times higher rates for personal homes but they can't for business without passing the costs along to consumers. The poor can't handle 3 times higher electric rates.
When we have a real Energy policy for independence and not some Obama SLUSH FUND as his appointees have used to dole out billions to their friends for Green companies, (Solyndra, Sunpower, etc.) then America will have a chance to get troops out of foreign countries.
You lost me, kimMN. Can you explain how apologizing is "arrogant"? Or is actually making sense less important to you than pumping out screeds?
Pakistan was supposed to be all handled according to President Obama in his speeches in 2008 before the election, and an eventual troop pull out. How would Obama have a clue on real world issues when he came to office with no experience in economics, no business building and absolutely NO experience as a senator of 132 days to understand anything except telepromters and how to rally union support? He really thought by giving an arrogant speech to the Middle East to apologize for America would gain their cooperation? Amazing arrogance shown once again from a puppet of the radical left.
We armed Afghanistan to defend against the Soviets because of one reason. It was the straits of Hormuz issue. The straits could be controlled by the Soviets and since we have had such liberal liberal responsibility in leadership preventing America from being energy independent, we are stuck to react to protecting our energy network. If we had drilling and less interference by Obama's team, we could be independent in oil and gas and not hostage to foreign countries.
The strait is the only sea passage to the open ocean for large areas of the petroleum-exporting Persian Gulf. It is one of the world's most strategically important choke points. This represents 40% of the world's seaborne oil shipments, and 20% of all world oil shipments.
Left to the whims of the LIBERAL OBAMA policies, we'd be a democracy by now with less freedoms as provided by our Republic's Constitution.
Isn't it bad enough that Obama took a bad situation in our economy and within three years he made it 5 times worse?? FIVE TRILLION DOLLARS more in debt, all due to Obama's policies that PREVENT us from becoming energy independent while using billions to prop up a stupid and unsustainable Green energy policy that has made his_ campaign contributors millions in the process..more Chicago Pay to Play graft from the great one.
If Obama was so brilliant, he would have figured out by now WHY we have to be in Afghanistan and to worry about radical Islamic Pakistan being took over by the Jihad freaks.
Admit that we've already lost Pakistan to China and get out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible.
Richard, Webster's 1st definition of a word is a report of how the word is most often used, or mis-used as the case may be, not the original meaning.
The policy of lead.
Cynic: [1st Webster def.] - a person who believes that only selfishness motivates human actions and who disbelieves in or minimizes selfless acts or disinterested points of view. 1540–50;
I am unconvinced, thus far, that an entity that spent millions arming men like Osama and Sadam, as well as waging pre-emptive war, really is taking action for the peace and safety of Americans.
Afghanistan is the second poorest country in the world. The average life expectancy is 32 years of age. 70% of the people do not have potable water. Yet, in the 80's, who armed Afghani children and terrorists to wage his war?
When the war was over did we arm those same children with books, shelter, drinking water? What would Afghanistan look like now if we had? Would we have had to spend billions there over the last ten years on more war?
How is our current policy with Pakistan any different from what we did back in Afghanistan? Let us not do ourselves a disservice by assuming a nation of peace is being taken advantage of by a rogue state.
Microloans to women, wells, schools and ensuring safety allow people to move from subsistence to self-governance, not arms and more support and money for the hands of the corrupt. Americans, who truly stand for peace, partnered with Pakistanis, who truly stand for peace, blessed with the same amount of money already spent on war could have created something beautiful. Twenty years ago, we could have done the same thing in Afghanistan, too.
I wonder how much of our tax dollars are sent to countries like Pakistan who spit in our faces. If those governments want our money (and I doubt if that money is going to the people there) then they should be our "friends" When our bases have to leave Pakistan, then so should foreign aid.
"Dude that's not very cynical.
That depends on what you mean by cynical.
My friend, Haseeb, grew up in Pakistan and moved here in 2004 for school. He is a beautiful person with a wonderful family back home. He is one of the most brilliant people I've ever met, and I can only talk to him in English.
We had a conversation about Pakistan and politics the other night, and I learned so many things about his homeland that most Americans are not aware of because there is little "big picture" news. All we get are short stories. How many of us have had a long term semester of the history of that region? How many faux news watchers, upon finding out that he's got a pretty sweet career here, would tell my friend to "go back to the Middle East?" So, why would anyone presume that we could come up with a truly thoughtful response to Today's Question? I am disgusted by most of your answers. I don't want most of you to even be able to vote for the people who make major decisions that would drastically affect my friend's country.
Yes, there is a huge system of corruption that governs politics, but the everyday lives of Pakistanis are governed by the same love, family ties and compassion that we have here; maybe even more so because of what they must endure. How is it any different from our corrupt political system?
My answer to our foreign policy issues is this: Recognize and expose corruption, and then find a way to get to know, support and empower the people. It sounds impossible, but how has doing what we've always done worked? How has it worked for Pakistanis?
the middle east and central asian countries typically vascilate between two different classical forms of regressive government - militaristic control or religious control. Some have adopted a modified mix of one of those with democratic functions . As for our relationship with Pakistan - I think its time to step back from military participation and start treating them as an arm's length friend. Humanitarian Aid only. No technology, No military hardware. Seek and support economic partnership only. The slow diplomacy of economic dependency will entrench the Us relationship at the level it belongs - with the businesses of Pakistan. Once that is achieved - Pakistani leadership will havea harder time making claims about the US behavior as some abstract entity. their people will know the US through a more direct and personal bond.
Steve the Cynic: ""We need to quit making enemies faster than we can kill them." and "Visualize peace" Dude that's not very cynical. I absolute agree we need to stop killing, stop invading other countries and stop deluding ourselves into think WE control them or that they will ever LOVE US.
Seek love elsewhere. Foreign policy is a very vengeful mistress.
The #1 goal of US policy with Pakistan should be to make sure none of Pakistan's (or the US's for that matter) nuclear weapons are never used. Other than that we should ignore them as much as possible.
Since it is an unstable government with nuclear weapons we should cooperate with India (our sort-of-ally and the threatened party) to make sure that Pakistan does not use nuclear weapons against them.
It is a mess. One long term solution would be to destroy their army and political infrastructure and either turn it over to India or fragment the country (break off the Baluchis, Gujaratis, Pashtun, et cetera).
Hopefully China will grow up fast so we don't need to stay the point man on global policing and the primary target of global terror organizations. If the geography was a little different encouraging Chinese expansionism in the area might even be a solution as their government is at least stable and responsible (if not exactly to our liking).
Changing our ridiculous Israel policy that pisses off the whole Muslim world for very little benefit would also help, but there is almost no chance of that given how US politics are structured.
I think our long term goal should be to have as little dependence on Pakistan's strategic amenities as possible. It's clear that the major if not only reason we maintain any strong relationship with them is for our own goals, as opposed to having a broader partnership and looking at them as a potential equal.
We treat Pakistan like the nerdy kid who has the really cool toys; we pretend to be their friend only so we can play with them.
"They" is a fairly useless term. There are so many confluences of power and interests playing themselves out and have been for centuries in the region that we only fool ourselves by talking about them as monoliths. "They hate us" or "They love us." Inside nations there groups that hate us and also groups who like us. This includes Israel and Iran. Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Afghanistan and Turkey. Iraq and India. It's just not that easy to put everything into simple back and white terms. If we could POLICY would be effortless.
"It might be easy to sit at home in front of your computer or listening to pubic radio and think "Oh gee, I got Pakistan all figured out and our goal should be... peace and understanding!"
-richrd prince
"We need to quit making enemies faster than we can kill them."
Posted by Steve the Cynic
Visualize peace.
For the last 20 years every time a Pakistani diplomat visits the United States they are read the RIOT act. This is not something that should be necessary with an allied state. Pakistan has benefited from our $2 billion in military aid and in turn supports the Haqqani Network that fights American troops in Afghanistan. I'm inclined to suggest a complete cutting of ties with Pakistan but then I'm forced to consider the precarious nature of their nuclear weapons security. It's a mess and there likely isn't a good ending no matter the path.
Bring our troops home and stop these wars!
They hate us because we are there.
Let Israel handle themselves, they've got over 200 nuclear warheads, and will probably use them soon, with or without US.
The first principle of all U.S. foreign policy should be to make more friends than enemies, and work out the details from there.
The only thing that seems to unite the various factions within Pakistan is their contempt for the U.S. while, at the same time, gladly accepting billions of dollars of U.S. aid.
As Americans who have little daily appreciation of the history of the region (and the world) and fail to see anything other than through the prism of our rose colored glasses, we're not going to get very far in a discussion about U.S. and Pakistan foreign policy. The conditions inside Pakistan are very complex and they are, at best, duplicitous in with us. They have used and even exasperated conflict to get more foreign and military aid. They've harbored murderous war loads and criminal masterminds and then put their hands out for money to "fight the war on terrorism." That's fairly easy to see. But greater complexity involves observing the fluid power relationship between tribal groups and how they play out from day to day in the political and military structures and these groups relationships to neighbors and either the anti-western or pro-western aspirations. It might be easy to sit at home in front of your computer or listening to pubic radio and think "Oh gee, I got Pakistan all figured out and our goal should be... peace and understanding! Or let's do what's right for our REAL friends Israel and Egypt. OR Let's give India the cold shoulder and see if Pakistan will become a better friend." but that's laughable. The volitive situation is fluid and changes daily with many undercurrents of power seeking to make their play.
As long as we keep meddling in the middle east where we are not wanted but their 99%, we'll be trapped on this path we're on with Pakistan. All we can do is hope it doesn't escalate into world war three. There's a large fraction of the US who seems bound and determined to start that war with them and Iran. Neither of these two countries are actual threats to us, but they have something we want.
I for one have done my part to keep this from happening. I drive a very fuel efficient car, and drive it in such a way to get over 20% better mileage then the EPA window sticker says I should. I also drive under 500 miles a month. If everyone did this we could stop importing mid east oil tomorrow. Then the mid east would be Europe's problem.
We need to quit making enemies faster than we can kill them.
It's time to break ties with them. Not quite sure if it should be done fast or slow.
They are not on our side, they have made the fight in Afghanistan much tougher.
It is a mystery (or miracle) that this relationship has lasted this long. Both Pakistan and the US can try to be on slightly friendlier terms with India, give up a wee bit on the Afghan ghost and get on with tackling more pressing local problems.
Whatever Herman Cain said.
Oh I forgot. He couldn't find it on a map if we spotted him the longitude and latitude of Islamabad.
One thing is certain, either by killing Pakistanis or Afghanis, the US Military will cause this war to end.
Courting Pakistan at the cost of risking problems for the world's largest and free democracy, India, does not suit American ideals or its pragmatism in the long run.
Perhaps if we treated our allies in the region (Israel, Egypt) with more respect, we wouldn't be so desperate to court our enemies. Pakistan should be treated as the rougue state that is is. We can foster closer ties with India if we feel the need to keep an eye on Pakistan and their nuclear arsenal.
| November 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock