My take on Obama's speech and Pakistan [from Pakistani-American perspective]

[TeamJordan23]

Well, before I express my views. I should let you know that I am an Obama supporter. Also, my other mother was born in Pakistan, so I have a lot family members in the country and visit there ever 2-3 years. And I say the below statements are bases on my views and experiences in Pakistan.

Now to Obama's speech:

1. Obama DID NOT say we are going to invade Pakistan or remove their dictator to bring democracy to the country. The argument that Obama is a Neo-Con is ABSURD. Look, I hate Neo-Cons more than anything and I was strongly against Iraq War from the start. But what Obama spoke out in the speech, is not any type of Invasion or Neo-Con agenda. There is a difference between neoconservatism and fighting religious extremism. I really strongly urge you to read Obama’s whole speech: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/the_war_we_need_to_win.html

2. What Obama did say, and I believe that ALL AMERICANS (Dems + Repubs) agree is that if we know where Bin Laden is and if the Pakistani army refuses to take action; I think we are all for sending US troops to taking him out or taking out some other senior leader. All the major Dem candidates have stated this, and it is the correct thing to say.

However, I think a lot of this is just tough talk, because in reality, I don't see a scenario where Pakistan would not go after Bin Laden or other major terrorists if they had good intelligence on their whereabouts. Contrary to the American media, most regular people in Pakistan reject religious extremism. And Musharaf, himself, is a target of assassination attempts by terrorists.


3. Is Pakistan doing enough on Terrorism? I would say Pakistan has taken great strides to combat terrorism since 9/11. Can they do more? Absolutely. Should we demand them do more? Yes.

Religious extremism exists in Pakistan. I remember being in Islamabad two years ago, and hearing a mosque imam preaching Anti-American hate. And this was in a suburbia area of Islamabad. I think this area is where Musharaf has not done enough. Madrasas still exist in Pakistan - and they do teach hate in them. And imams of some mosques do preach hatred. And don't get me wrong - the majority are not all are bad and hateful. But you only need a handful for them to impact people.

This is where I agreed most with Obama's speech today when he said:

"As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair -- our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally."

This is the one area that I would make military aid to Pakistan conditional. Because not only is it in our best interest for Pakistan to do a better job at combating these schools, but it is in Pakistan's interest. Like I said above, contrary to what most see on the American MSM, Pakistanis are tired of religious extremism. Most are fairly moderates and do not want these types of people near their homes or their children. Because not only do religious extremists groups encourage Anti-Americanism, a lot of new religious factions use religion to encourage and engage in criminal behavior in Pakistan. It's no wonder why every house in middle class Pakistan neighborhood needs security guards nowadays.

Extremism can be very powerful among the poor in Pakistan. It is a sort of a haven for the poor and the hopeless (sort of how Gangs are in US urban neighborhoods). This is one area I believe Musharaf has done some good work, but there is a lot of area for improvement. Every big city is known to have still have religious schools. And its worse in some rural areas.

4. The tribal areas of Pakistan/Afghanistan. This is the biggest obstacle to combat terrorism. Al Qaeda and the Taliban do exist in these regions. The problem is that there is no governance in this area. And bribes are very common in the area (and in the country of Pakistan in general). The geographic terrain also makes it tough to combat terrorists in the area. Pakistan does have the capability to do more in the region, but the time/costs often to do so don't often warrant on-going action there. As far as Obama's speech on this. I interpreted his speech (and also the view of most other Politicians) that the US would go into this area with US troops only if there was credible evidence of terrorists there and than the Pakistani army did not want to go after them.

However, Obama or whoever is President should make sure that the evidence is credible. I think any Dem candidate would do a better job on making sure the validity of the evidence than Bush.

5. What is Pakistan's future? Pakistan is a country that has been slowed by religion. It is falling behind India in economic power, and progression. It seems like most of my family members are never truly happy there. And there has not been much progression in the country as a whole for the past 10 years. The majority of the country has been in stagnation. And now its starting to show in the polls there also. Musharraf poll numbers have fallen a lot in the last few months, and a lot of people are now in favor of brining back the old Prime Mininster, Benazir Bhutto (who is a woman - Yes, Pakistan is not as backward as Faux News tries to make it out to be). See http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070801/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_musharraf_5 for more on this. I have been a Musharaf supporter but I think is time there is running very thin. I don't think he has made the progress that many had hoped for. I think economic progress will be one reason for some to stay away from religious extremism. It will not eliminate all of it, b/c in all honesty, American hatred will always exist because American foreign policy will likely always be tilted to Israel.

Overall, I would love the country of Pakistan to improve and get past religion issue. The recent Mosque hostage situation showed that some people are really committed to religious extremism. I for one, would love to see religious extremism reduced for the benefit of the Pakistan people. Its quite funny that mostly all the Pakistani's I have met love Pizza Hut and McDonalds in Pakistan. But these western restaurants are often the first one destroyed during religious protests.

I do not, and I don’t think Obama believes that terrorism can be won by just killing people. In the end, you need to change the views of the people of this country. Although his statements today might enrage some people, I think the majority of Pakistan is okay with taking extra measures to get rid of religious nuts in the country.

Finally, I would like Sen. Obama and other politicians to have 'reasonable' expectations from Pakistan. Pakistan does not have the money, resources, infrastructure, organization among different agencies, etc.. as say, the US. Therefore, Pakistan's methods and time period to bring down terrorism are sometimes not up to our standards. This is one thing I would like our politicians to take into account.

[Hippo_Tron]

1. Very well articulated

[sandnsea]

2. Excellent post

It lays out the situation very well and I enjoy your personal perspective. I thought Obama reflected the thinking of many Democrats, I just think he brings a sense of clarity of purpose that is sometimes missing with other Democrats.

[MADem]

3. I share your perspective. nt

[Sweet Pea]

4. So let me get this right....

Covert operations, special operations and air strikes and putting American boots in a sovereign nation without their permission is ok as long as it is in the US's national security interests?

[mrgorth]

12. Yes.

.

[TeamJordan23]

16. I think it is in Pakistan's best interest too. That is why I don't ever see them not going after

the terrorists themselves if they have good intelligence about their whereabouts.

[New Era]

38. Yes....

However this is not just about U.S. interest. It is in the interest of the world. We must accept that there are people who will simply not co-exist peacefully with the entire population of the globe. Should we let these people continue to grow in number or try and stop their influence from spreading. I am against almost every use of force but this one is a logical decision and rationally makes sense. We should NOT just go blow everything up, but instead take these people out with as little or no damage to the surrounding population. I know this isn't a popular opinion here but I have spent many days and months studying this situation and have found this the rational answer. The only thing I would have to suggest is going about it from an international standpoint. I can not stress enough the international effort aspect of this either. Terrorism effects others countries as well and while we are far from perfect, with the right leadership, we can make an impact and minimize the effects of this ideology. I am not an Obama or Clinton supporter ( proud Kucinich supporter here - namely for health care reasons ) but I do not take issue with Obama saying this.

[IndianaGreen]

5. K&R with one caveat

I K&R out of respect for your post and views, not because I am in agreement.

GWOT is beginning to sound like the Cold War, with Democrats trying to out-hawk the Republicans, and without anyone questioning the rationale or justification for GWOT.

[formercia]

6. The part I didn't like about Pakistan

Our safehouse was right next to a Mosque and evey Morning at Dawn, the call to prayer would go out over these huge loudspeakers, one of which was pointed right at my bedroom window. Out of respect, I put up with it.
I also noticed the locals like to yell insults at each other across the valleys with bullhorns.

[wyldwolf]

7. from Pakistani-American and BIG OBAMA FAN perspective

[IndianaJones]

8. have any big Obama fans just said he screwed up? nt.

[wyldwolf]

9. I dunno. Have they?

[IndianaJones]

10. I think that would be seen as some type of betrayal....

could you imagine the big Obama fans if Clinton or Edwards said this? I don't think I've ever seen such parsing.

[wyldwolf]

11. "I don't think I've ever seen such parsing."

Were you here in 2004? Supporters of one candidate in particular suddenly thought the NRA, tort reform, and state's rights were long standing Democratic ideas.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

15. i've read posts by Obama supporters

who either hate what he said or are at least nervous about it. It made me nervous when I saw the headline, but after reading the full speech I feel better.

Also, I think Clinton and Edwards have both said they would go after Bin Laden if they had actionable intelligence if Pakistan did not take action. Which is the same thing that Obama said.

[laugle]

42. That part was not the problem,

threatening the president of Pakistan was wrong and unnecessary IMO!

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. I can't recall a BO fan ever saying he was wrong...

;)

[TeamJordan23]

17. Yes, I am an Obama supporter. But what he would say/do is not gonna be different than what any Dem

who is elected to be the next President.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

13. well said - eom

[independentpiney]

14. Very well stated and interesting perspective.

Nothing I can find in it I disagree with.

I hope Benazir Bhutto can get another shot at being PM. The idea of a left leaning female as Pakistans PM and a Democratic President and Congress here is a very hopeful one.

[liberalpragmatist]

19. Bhutto is fairly corrupt, unfortunately

A lot of the charges against her were politically-motivated, but her husband and her were clearly involved in shady dealings.

Pakistani politics is a total cesspool and the country's government is one of the biggest things holding it back. Unfortunately, good governance is unheard of in the country and the wealth gap is extraordinary. There was never proper land reform undertaken, nearly half of government spending goes into the military to the detriment of social spending, and the country is riven by ethnic conflict. And the army is often hugely detrimental as well, consistently ousting democratic governments when they grow unpopular, rather than letting them lose in elections. And because of a series of devil's bargains beginning in the 1940s, religious extremists have exercised a grossly disproportionate role in governing the country (somewhat similar to the concessions made to the ultra-orthodox in Israel but more extreme). The never-ending acrimony with India is a huge problem, because it enables the army to convince the country that it needs to be in a constant state of siege, ultimately putting power in the hands of fanatical and anti-democratic thugs.

Pakistanis are industrious, hard-working, generally tolerant people, and although the religious extremism of backwards rural areas and a loud minority get the most attention, most Pakistanis are actually relatively secular. Religious parties have never gotten more than 11% of the vote. But unfortunately, opportunities are limited by the country's instability.

The good news is that there have been several years of solid economic growth under Musharraf and the middle-class is growing. There also is growing disenchantment with the religious parties, who many Pakistanis long tolerated but have grown increasingly frustrated with. The detente with India is very slow-moving, but generally the direction is good.

More needs to be done, however. There is no reason there shouldn't be free trade between India and Pakistan and no reason why there shouldn't be regular travel services (the only one is a train service from Delhi to Lahore and a couple bus services) and no reason why Pakistanis and Indians should need anything other than a tourist visa to travel to India, or for students not be able to study in one another's countries. There are no two countries in the world with closer cultures than India and Pakistan, yet the two might as well be the USSR and the USA when it comes to their interoonnectedness. (Even Indian films are technically banned in India.)

[Spearman87]

21. How much truth do you see in the oft-repeated

threat, that if Mushariff falls, radicals may take over the govt, with nukes getting into the hands of extremists.

[liberalpragmatist]

23. Probably not much

I mean, you never want to discount the possibiity, especially because history shows that often determined minorities and extremists can gain power in a country when there's a power vacuum. And especially if Musharraf's removal is traumatic, there may be increased antipathy to the West that could translate into greater support for radicals.

But most analysts believe the most likely outcome if Musharraf were to be assassinated or overthrown, would be another general. Or possibly elections leading to the resumption of power by Ms. Bhutto.

A recent opinion poll in Pakistan judged Bhutto as the most popular alternative leader, with 54% support and Musharraf's approval rating only 35%.

Pakistan is not inherently an extremist country; it's actually quite moderate (i.e., veiling is significantly less common in Pakistan than in much of the Islamic world). The main thing is, it's lawless.

BTW, I wouldn't call myself an expert on Pakistan. My family is Indian-American and I'm very interested in South Asian politics and history, so I follow it. I'd say my knowledge of the country is better than most Americans, but I'd better trust state department, UN specialists, and Pakistanis themselves.

Also, if you're interested in a good column on Pakistani politics, read Irfan Husain of the Karachi Dawn. (One of Pakistan's achievements - and one of Musharraf's more enlightened stances for a military ruler - is that Pakistan has fairly vibrant freedom of the press, something Musharraf did not crack down on when he came to power).

[Spearman87]

34. Thanks for turning me on to Irfan Husain!

The column was very good, and I also skimmed through some of his archived stories and it looks like a goldmine of info to help me better understand the political dynamics over there--I've bookmarked it, and will definitely go back for futher reading.

Thanks for your insights

[liberalpragmatist]

53. Glad you like him!

He's a very sane, sensible columnist and although I only read his columns infrequently, I always enjoy them.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Yes, but the alternatives are also corrupt. Bhutto is the least worst potential leader

Plus, she is at least a progressive unlike Nawaz Sharif.

BTW, good post.

[rucky]

18. Thanks for your insightful post.

I think many of the knee-jerk reactions to Obama's speech come from an inherent misunderstanding of Pakistan's political and cultural climate. I have some friends from Karachi, but we usually just hang out, talk sports, and they never really discuss what's going on over there. I appreciate the insight.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Not exactly. There will be a huge backlash in Pakistan if we sent troops into it

That is why announcing it right now is reckless. The right thing to do is to put the utmost pressure on the Pakistani government to act after being elected and only unilaterally attack as a last resort. We could tell them privately that if they don't act we will.

[miceelf]

30. as a last resort

Is exactly what Obama said. Glad to see you're agreeing with him.

[closeupready]

20. Thank you for this. I was disappointed in his statement, but reading your post makes me feel better

about it. I appreciate that you took the time to post it here! :hi: I will reconsider my thoughts. :)

[Spearman87]

22. Great Post! Thanks for sharing your insight. 1 Question:

You say:

"in all honesty, American hatred will always exist because American foreign policy will likely always be tilted to Israel."

Why must this be so? Why must American support of Israel be an eternal source of anger for the Pakistani man on the street? I guess I don't understand all the cultural traditions and connections in the Mideast. If this was said about Palestineans, Lebanese, Egyptions, Syrians, I would understand it. I don't understand what is the ethnic or historical connection of Pakistanis to Palestineans or to be anti-Israel.

[TeamJordan23]

49. The only historical connection is religion.

That is about the only thing that connects Pakistan to the Palestine issue. And there are numerous people in Pakistan (and in the USA) that don't like Israel/USA policy towards the Palestine. Some see it as unfairness against Muslims, and that is what causes some people to sympathize.

But Pakistan does have a minimal role with the other Middle Eastern countries. And a lot of that is just culturally. Pakistan, culturally is almost like India.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Great post. I agree with 95% of it (recommended)

There really isn't anything to add to that comprehensive post.

[pettypace]

28. Obama even prononouces Pakistan correctly

Edwards and Clinton voted for the illegal attack on Iraq.

Obama did not.


Excellent post, TeamJordan23.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. Yet he voted to fund the war consistently for 2 years, opposed Murtha in 05', opposed Kerry-Feingold

endorsed and campaigned for Lieberman over Lamont in 2006, opposed cutting off funds for the surge, has said missile strikes against Iran should be "considered", has said he might invade Pakistan if Musharaff fell, has called for 100,000 more troops, stated in his book that the Pentagon budget "might" have to be increased in the short-term, and so on. :eyes:

P.S. He does pronounce Pakistan correctly. He also sent a memo out smearing an opponent for her ties to brown people (of course, as usual, the candidate for CEO of the United States blamed his staff). Which is more important?

[pettypace]

32. News to me

I should brush up on my Obama facts I suppose. However let me comment on your points.

endorsed and campaigned for Lieberman over Lamont in 2006
I'm not happy about that, but it shows he'll be able to reach across the aisle once elected.

opposed cutting off funds for the surge
Didn't everyone? Besides the surge is simply to fix what the US broke in the first place. US wouldn't be in Iraq if someone like Obama was President in 2002.

has said missile strikes against Iran should be "considered"
gotta lobby for the Jewish vote, like it or not.

has said he might invade Pakistan if Musharaff fell
please provide a link for this quote. Do you realize if Musharraf fell, a nuclear armed state would potentially be exposed to terrorists, you know the ones who used planes as missiles.

has called for 100,000 more troops
for Iraq? good, better fix what the US broke in the first place

stated in his book that the Pentagon budget "might" have to be increased in the short-term
so what? the military is gonna get theirs regardless.

P.S. He does pronounce Pakistan correctly.
Yes I'm very impressed. Shows a sign of great respect for Pakistani people.

He also sent a memo out smearing an opponent for her ties to brown people (of course, as usual, the candidate for CEO of the United States blamed his staff). Which is more important?
Obama is a colored man last time I checked. I'm guessing he's not prejudiced against brownskins.

So in conclusion you provided me with some negative bullet points on BO, yet you support John Edwards. In 2004 he was asked if he knew that no WMD's existed in Iraq, would he still vote for IWR. His answer - yes.

You would be more credible in your Obama criticizing if you backed a dove like Kucinich or Gravel.

Look, this is always the lesser of evils when it comes to nominees. Obama has faults, but his prescience on Iraq in '02 has won me over. If he falters, Edwards is my 2nd choice. (anyone but Clinton)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Reply

I notice you ignored him standing against a timetable for withdrawal in 2005, like Hillary and against Murtha and co, plus him (like HRC) voting against Kerry-Feingold in 2006.

=I'm not happy about that, but it shows he'll be able to reach across the aisle once elected.==

It also shows that he is not the anti-war crusading dove that he is marketed as...

==Didn't everyone? Besides the surge is simply to fix what the US broke in the first place. US wouldn't be in Iraq if someone like Obama was President in 2002.==

No. Edwards and Dodd called for cutting off funding for the surge. I believe Sen. Kennedy presented an amendment to that effect.

==gotta lobby for the Jewish vote, like it or not.==

Has any other candidate contemplated using military force on Iran? They also say election year things like "Iran can't be allowed to have nukes" and "all options are on the table" but Obama is, as far as I know, the only one to directly consider using military force. Again, this shows that he is not the anti-war crusading dove he is marketed as.

==please provide a link for this quote. Do you realize if Musharraf fell, a nuclear armed state would potentially be exposed to terrorists, you know the ones who used planes as missiles.==

I did--in a thread on it yesterday. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0409250111sep25,1,4555304.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

==As for Pakistan, Obama said that if President Pervez Musharraf were to lose power in a coup, the United States similarly might have to consider military action in that country to destroy nuclear weapons it already possesses. Musharraf's troops are battling hundreds of well-armed foreign militants and Pakistani tribesmen in increasingly violent confrontations.==

Sorry. He did not say invade in that but merely "destroy" the nukes. Perhaps there is some way to do so via air strikes.

If Musharaaf fell another (secular) general would take his place. If fundies take over, sure we should take action then. To say that you are going to do so pre-emptively just because Mush falls is reckless. It shows that Obama, at least in 2004, did not understand the basics about Pakistani politics.

==for Iraq? good, better fix what the US broke in the first place==

No. He wants 100,000 troops added to the military. Another sign that Obama is hardly the anti-war dove he is marketed as.

==so what? the military is gonna get theirs regardless.==

You think we should spend more than the half a trillion on the Pentagon we already spent? I think most of Obama's netroots supporters disagree...Of course, they are under the impression that Obama is an anti-war dove. ;)

==Obama is a colored man last time I checked. I'm guessing he's not prejudiced against brownskins.==

And? The last time I checked he is not brown. Do you think minorities can't be racist against other minorities? For the record, I don't think BO is a racist. However, his campaign did use racism in a bungled attempt to win votes.

==So in conclusion you provided me with some negative bullet points on BO, yet you support John Edwards. In 2004 he was asked if he knew that no WMD's existed in Iraq, would he still vote for IWR. His answer - yes.==

If Obama fans are going to bring up Edwards' record surely we have a right to put Obama's record on the table too? Or are we supposed to pretend Obama's record on Iraq, military matters froze in 2002?

I don't support Edwards' record on Iraq from 2002-2005; I don't worship him. Edwards is not running on a cult of personality. I think he was wrong then on Iraq.

There is a candidate who has been 100% correct on Iraq from 2002-2007. His name is Kucinich--the only true anti-war dove in the race.

[pettypace]

41. "cult of personality"

LOL. You hit the nail there my friend. Look I'm out of my league in debating you. I'm a political novice, and yearn for the antithesis of President Cheney..err Bush, and at the moment among the 3 frontrunners BO resembles that to me.

I realize this is more than fun and games, but I can tell you being in the BO camp is a helluva ride so far.

May the best man win (BO or Edwards).

Cheers.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Hey, no problem. BO would make a good prez too!

I just don't like how my candidate and HRC are called "warmongers", "neocons", etc.--even killers (i.e. "Hillary is responsible for 100,000 deaths in Iraq!") by BO fans when Obama is hardly pure on Iraq (unlike Kucinich). All we hear is about his 2002 position but nothing about his record since joining the senate, his views on Iran, the military in general, etc.

Don't feel bad. We are here to share our views, not in a debating society--but we must always remember we are all on the same overall team. The Democratic team. Hillary is not the enemy. Obama is not the enemy. Edwards is not the enemy. The Republicans are the enemy (politically. The real enemy is Al-Qaeda).

==May the best man win (BO or Edwards).==

Agreed, both would make good presidents.

P.S. Good luck to the Falcons--it looks like they will need it this year!

[laugle]

43. You are right, he is not the anti-war candidate by

any stretch! Excellent analysis - thank you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

52. Thanks nt

:hi:

[Perky]

35. No he didn't (?????)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. Look it up

:)

[demigoddess]

31. I just believe you cannot go into a country, in any way, shape or form, to

help them get democracy, give them fairer schools, fight terrorism. or anything along that line.

The british fought irish 'terrorism' for decades 40-50years and it did nothing to solve the problem. When they decided to talk to them politically, and negotiate home rule things improved and now they are taking their soldiers out of northern ireland. they did not do anything with the point of a gun, they did it with negotiation.

Israel has been fighting palestinian 'terrorism' for decades also and have gotten nowhere but worse and worse off. the palestinians want their own country, which is exactly what Israel wanted for themselves and now they deny it to the palestinians. If they had negotiated a country for Palestinians and supported them with friendship and some money, Israel might now have an ally instead of several implacable enemies. You cannot give democracy to other people, they have to want it for themselves. they have to decide what form it will take. You cannot put pre-conceived standards on someone else's democracy. The Scandinavian countries are usually referred to as socialism and right wingers hate them but they are peaceful, prosperous and have happy citizens. Same goes for France. the us powers that be only like France when they can influence what goes on in that country.

[Grandrose]

33. Excellent! (K&R)

Thank you for such a thoughtful and dare I say....articulate analysis!:applause: :kick:

[Ethelk2044]

39. Great Post

[THUNDER HANDS]

40. I'm as against invading other countries as the next guy, but....

if any country deserves it, it's Pakistan.

Osama's been there for 7 years, safe in the knowledge that the locals there won't turn him in and the government won't risk any real attempts at apprehending him.

Second on that list would be Saudi Arabia.

The two combined are probably harboring more terrorists than all other middle east countries combined.

[illinoisprogressive]

44. excellent post and well thought out.

[Ethelk2044]

45. kick

[eridani]

46. Surprised that nobody has mentioned the extensive US role in funding the fundies

Plenty of your taxpayer dollars went through the ISI in the 80s precisely to fund bin Laden allies and to promote Wahabi fundamentalism. Textbooks advocating violent jihad were made in the USA and distributed all over Afghanistan.

http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=3453

Complaining about the rise of fundamentalism in Pakistan while ignoring our own government's role in promoting it seems unfair to me.

[TeamJordan23]

48. yes, this is true. nm

[Pushed To The Left]

47. K & R! Thank you for posting this. n/t

[Ethelk2044]

50. Obama's speech was Great! Deserves another kick