Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Pakistan Is the Problem - And Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it.
slate.com ^ | Sept. 15, 2008 | Christopher Hitchens

Posted on 09/15/2008 2:41:44 PM PDT by neverdem

An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London's Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it:

At a recent dinner party in the British embassy in Kabul, one of the guests referred to "the Afghan-Pakistan war." The rest of the table fell silent. This is the truth that dare not speak its name. Even mentioning it in private in the Afghan capital's green zone is enough to solicit murmurs of disapproval. Few want to accept that the war is widening; that it now involves Pakistan, a country with an unstable government and nuclear weapons.

"Don't mention the war," as Basil insists with mounting hysteria in Fawlty Towers. And, when discussing the deepening crisis in Afghanistan, most people seem deliberately to avoid such telling phrases as "Pakistani aggression" or—more accurate still—"Pakistani colonialism." The truth is that the Taliban, and its al-Qaida guests, were originally imposed on Afghanistan from without as a projection of Pakistani state power. (Along with Pakistan, only Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates ever recognized the Taliban as the legal government in Kabul.) Important circles in Pakistan have never given up the aspiration to run Afghanistan as a client or dependent or proxy state, and this colonial mindset is especially well-entrenched among senior army officers and in the Inter-Services Intelligence agency, or ISI.

--snip--

And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: afghanistan; alqaeda; alqaida; bo; christopherhitchens; democrat; democrats; foreignpolicy; hitchens; isi; islam; mohammedanism; obama; obamabiden; pakistan; taliban
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last
Obama can talk all he wants. This is a doozy of a dilemma. Hitch didn't mention the Pathan, aka Pushtu, tribe that straddles the border, nor our flaky supply lines to Afghanistan.
1 posted on 09/15/2008 2:41:45 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Love to *listen* to Hitchens but Bush has kicked out Musharaf because he's been using our billionS to help the Taliban and now has said screw your soveriegnty by going after al qeada without their permission.

That's not facing Pakistan, Chris?

2 posted on 09/15/2008 2:45:45 PM PDT by rvoitier ("I'll see you at the debate, bitches!" ~~ Paris Hilton, '08 Campaign)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Is he going to do this before or after he cures cancer?


3 posted on 09/15/2008 2:49:05 PM PDT by kaehurowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Barack Hussein could not competently deal with an incontinent puppy.

Christopher Hitchens is wrong about God (I just read his insufferable book God is not Great), and he is wrong about that bizarre self-appointed God, Obama.

4 posted on 09/15/2008 2:50:25 PM PDT by FormerACLUmember (When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rvoitier
Bush has kicked out Musharaf because he's been using our billionS to help the Taliban and now has said screw your soveriegnty by going after al qeada without their permission.

Bush and the US had nothing to do with Musharraf's loss of control - that came from the fact that Pakistanis despised Musharraf and he lacked the military backing to hang on to power. The new civilian leadership is even worse for the US than Musharraf was. And we should have been going after al-Qaeda in Pakistan's western regions long ago.
5 posted on 09/15/2008 2:51:51 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
.. And Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it.


6 posted on 09/15/2008 2:54:03 PM PDT by tomkat (American craftsman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

Interesting thought to pass around.

7 posted on 09/15/2008 2:57:14 PM PDT by econjack (Some people are as dumb as soup.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Does Hitchens really believe that Obama will commit the US to war against Pakistan?

I doubt it.

8 posted on 09/15/2008 3:00:53 PM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
Even if Pakistan were a “problem”, neither Barry nor anyone else can “solve” it. The internal situation in Pakistan - notably repression by the central government and lack of authority over many parts of the country - are not amenable to “corrective” measures by anyone outside the country. All external pressure aimed at changing the nature society in Pakistan is bound to be resented and ultimately counter-
productive. Yet people such as Barry will blithely brag that he or she can change the nature of a traditional and tribal society. Perhaps his years as a community organizer give him confidence that he can succeed where others have failed, but I wouldn't bet on it. He is little more than another in a long line of foolish academics who fantasize about their abilities at social engineering.
9 posted on 09/15/2008 3:12:07 PM PDT by quadrant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Who in their right mind would want Barry Obama as president when the Nukes start going off in America.. Would be like having Richard Simmons in a Turkey Suit as your brain surgeon..


10 posted on 09/15/2008 3:16:38 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

We don’t have a strategic interest in Afghanistan, neither that country nor anyone in it is a threat to us. We have a moral obligation to try to help the Afghani people who want it, by securing certain areas until they can defend themselves.


11 posted on 09/15/2008 3:37:09 PM PDT by kenavi (BHO: The only constant is change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quadrant

Excellent analysis except that we have a game changer now.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-fg-pakistan12-2008sep12,0,2712447.story

All that is needed is the continued will to use them. Barry won’t, that is for sure.


12 posted on 09/15/2008 3:38:55 PM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Pakistan is the core problem - the most dangerous country on earth. Either Obama or McCain will have their hands full with it.


13 posted on 09/15/2008 3:38:59 PM PDT by PC99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

The Nazi’s, Manuel, and Sybil did not have nuclear weapons; the Paki’s do. We don’t the O-child playing the role of the major (or Wesley).<{>I certainly hope there is one heck of a lot more going on between the US and the various pieces / parts of Pakistan than we hear about in the press. This wouldn’t be the first time a RAT was talking out of their posterior knowing the classified stuff while the administration appropriately keeps their mouth shut rather than submarine the policy by saying, “look, you blithering idiot, you know damned well that ...”


14 posted on 09/15/2008 3:44:55 PM PDT by NonValueAdded (don't worry, they only want to take water out of the other guy's side of the bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mojito; All
"An excellent article by Fraser Nelson in London's Spectator at the end of July put it as succinctly as I have seen it"--Hitchens

If he actually read the article, Hitchens wouldn't say "Barack Obama seems to be the only candidate willing to face it."

Mr Obama said he would send two more brigades to Afghanistan. John McCain, his Republican rival, said he would deploy three -- some 10,000 men. So one can tell which way American policy is heading. Rather than a retreat from Afghanistan, there will be a Rhineland-style American military presence there designed to last for a generation. The question is whether to wait for the Fata, Waziristan and other border areas to be policed properly -- or just to go in and get the bad guys.

Not reading for comprehension, is he?

15 posted on 09/15/2008 3:48:45 PM PDT by Dick Holmes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Obama, a bloody war monger, no?


16 posted on 09/15/2008 3:53:57 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem
American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

I think they feel sure he didn't mean a word of it.

If by some amazing twist of fate he was serious it would be a disaster. I wouldn't trust him to make a sound decision on which side of a waffle to butter.

17 posted on 09/15/2008 4:02:30 PM PDT by TigersEye (Buckhead of the Bikini-clad Barracuda)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

EVERYONE recognizes the “Pakistan” problem, in regard to the Taliban crisis in Afghanistan. The author is apparently NOT listening to what anyone, besides Obama, is saying.

What EVERYONE BUT Obama IS recognizing is:

1. Pakistan is not Iraq.
2. Pakistan HAS nuclear weapons.
3. A destabilized Pakistan could descend into civil war.
4. The U.S. has been trying, and must continue to try to get Pakistan’s help without tripping that wire.

Obama is not smarter on Pakistan. He’s just trying to puff his chest out on the issue so he looks more like what he is not - strong on defense.


18 posted on 09/15/2008 4:11:08 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All


THREATS WATCH.org: "PAWNS AND POLITICS" by Steve Schippert (September 15, 2008, 10:15 am)

Video: "Devastating Video, Obama Talks About Job Ayers Gave Him" (Added September 14, 2008)

AMERICAN THINKER - blog: "OBAMA COVERS HIS TRACKS" by Ed Lasky (September 11, 2008)



[Post no. 7] - ARCHIVES - Topic: BIDEN & OBAMA (aka B & O) (September 13, 2008 -- Click Here.)

19 posted on 09/15/2008 4:22:27 PM PDT by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

what a crock! We have been hitting them across the border with Predator Missles, and Pakistan just attacked them and killed 100 in 3 days of fierce fighting!!

this is just another Puff piece for Obama....and it is a LIE.


20 posted on 09/15/2008 5:51:18 PM PDT by LtKerst (Lt Kerst)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-27 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson