Obama's First Interview from Afghanistan

I'm a little confused by this. It sounds as if, at the moment, the Pakistanis are being rewarded for bad behavior by our upping the amount of humanitarian aid. It doesn't sound as if more humanitarian aid is contingent on more cooperation, but that there's a threat to withdraw military aid that is unattached to the promise of more humanitarian aid. Am I right?

If I were the Pakistanis I'd say "great. more money, and the wusses aren't likely to withdraw military aid when they haven't shown any spine yet."

What am I missing here?

Well, KathyR, I think the idea is, "look, guys, we're on your side, we want to help make Pakistanis' lives better, but if your military isn't going to help us out, we're redirecting our funds elsewhere."

Ie, Pakistan can't just treat it as "America's out to get us."

I like that idea quite a lot. I'm unconcerned about perverse incentives for other countries because Pakistan is unique: that's where the guy who killed 3000 Americans lives.

Kathy, US humanitarian aid to Pakistan is peanuts compared to military aid... So what they are trying to do is to appeal to the moderates in the country why sending a powerful message to the military that inaction will not be rewarded...which has been the case under current US administration...

KathyR - I think what you are missing is that we can triple the humanitarian aid to pakistan but that it will still be less money that we are giving in military aid. What we need are the actual numbers and not just games with percentages.

Plus, the humanitarian aid serves the purpose of preventing societal instability. With that instability comes poverty, desperation, demagoguery, radicalism,...need I say more?

And, finally, aaaaaahhhhh Lara Logan. [schoolboy blush]

I liked to see the practice of handing out 10 billion dollars in aid with no questions asked to any country be a crime. Then we can talk about how much bang we get for our buck when we do hand out aid.

OOOH. Lara Logan.

I have to say this isn't a particularly new development, ISI has long been thought to support islamist groups in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, using American and Saudi money and weapons.

I should note that I will be counting the hours before the Bush/McCain campaign co-opts this policy and calls it their own. This kind of conservative triangulation has been mysteriously under-reported.

Kathy,

Here is a link that explains the rational in more detail.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080715/pl_afp/uspakistanattackscongress_080715184848

Posted by Terrapinion | July 20, 2008 11:28 AM
I should note that I will be counting the hours before the Bush/McCain campaign co-opts this policy and calls it their own. This kind of conservative triangulation has been mysteriously under-reported.

What are you talking about. This has been a concern for the Bush Administration ever since we decided to go to that God-forsaken place. The other consideration of military aide and how it is used is our relationship with India. The Pakistanis have long been known to take the military aide given to them not to fight Al-Queda, but to put that equipment on the border between India and Pakistan.

You nor Obama have a clue.

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/bush-administration-taking-a-tougher-line-on-providing-military-aid-to-pakistan-us-expert_10049857.html

Kathy, I think the goal is to make sure Pakistanis don't hate us, which gives us more choices in how we pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan. There is no option of safely launching any significant military operation in Pakistan without the tolerance of the population. This bill sounds like a great idea.

Also, in the long term a better economic and social situation in Pakistan will improve American national security. For example, one of the time bombs in South Asia is the skewed gender ratios among children. Increased child mortality for girls and sex-selection abortions will in the next 15 years result in a South Asia that is more dangerous and violent. There is a lot of research that shows skewed gender ratios lead to violent societies. I doubt that increasing humanitarian aid will do much to improve this particular situation, but a more educated and prosperous Pakistan can only be good for American security.

This can also be looked at in a different way: giving more money to moderates and less to extremists, since the Pakistani military is far more radical than the general population.

One of the problems with the Bush administrations' handling of the entire mideast issue is the "if you're not with us, you're against us" mentality.

The average Pakistani doesn't see any benefit in turning against their local sometimes-heroes. They are right next door, and unlike the US, affect their day-to-day lives. That is why the Pakistani military always tiptoes around in that area.

Our approach should be to put pressure on Pakistan to let some of the benefits we (in the future) give them to actually get to the ground in that area, giving the local populace something they need badly, anyway.

I think that Obama is much more likely to take this approach than McCain, who really things in terms of raw military power rather than a more holistic, cooperative approach.

Thanks everybody. My newly installed Comcast "high-speed" internet has gone out on me repeatedly this morning, so I've maddeningly not been able to respond. Not feeling good about switching over to them. Feeling good though about you guys.

KathyR: My newly installed Comcast "high-speed" internet has gone out on me repeatedly this morning,
"
There must be something salutary to be said about NOT being able to read MS at high speed: The neuro-pathways get time to recover before the next trashy RNC-approved onslaught.

KathyR -

Hang in there, it's typical to have it bounce around a bit the first few days, usually the hardware will be downloading firmware updates in the background, and restarting itself a few times, but as long as you leave the modem/router on while it's doing that, it clears pretty quick and gets up to full speed within 3 days.

Of course if you turn it off and on everytime it hiccups, then it can't install it's updates, and will keep trying and trying...

RubyPanther:

I'm a comcast customer too. Thanks for this info. It clarifies some problems I occasionaly have too.

RubyPanther: Thanks for the info. Comcast said, when I called, that they were doing work in the area which might affect cable, phone, or internet (but I haven't gotten the same story from any two comcast people any time this week; they've all genuinely been very nice, though). I got this installed Wednesday, but because we've had a lot of thunderstorms I turned off the strip (and unplugged the computer itself) a couple of times Friday and Saturday. Might that have something to do with it? Or do you just mean that if I typically turn off the computer when I'm not using it that will affect it, untill it's fully loaded.

Thank you Ruby as well. This has been driving me crazy for a couple of weeks. I'm upstairs and the M/R is downstairs so each trip I'd get more pissed. You think they could have sent us an email?

Well, I got AT&T Uverse. You guys are'nt missing anything. Does weird crap all the time. I think they spend way too much time reading my email to get it running smoothly.

KT here--

I'm an RCN fan.

New Swan Politics Blog posts on Obama & global warming:

http://swanpoliticsblog.blogspot.com/

Pakistan has always been rewarded for bad behavior. It has never been democratic, its splintered, fractional, dangerous, goes abut hawking nukes and infact, most would agree that US unwittingly funded KRL centrifuges with the Afghan war money. US was right with Afghan war, that right turn to Baghdad was a mistake, i hope soon they will return to join the highway to Pakistan, at least the signs are there. I could bet my right hand to say, if this has to end, it will end in the streets of Karachi and Peshawar. BY the way, i dont understand why the US keeps pouring money, it didnt get any of the big guys in return, Osama, Omar, Rashid no one was ever handed over but still are cards which can be used for a big check by pakistan any day. Good luck to the world and let peace prevail :)
53_3,

I woudl agree with most of your views, but with Pakistan, they have exploited this US confusion of sticks and carrots very very effectively. They got their F16's, modified them to be nuke capable, tested weapomns, bought missiles from Nkorea, everything while being given carrots, and as of now nothing has changed. They simply dont care about talking. Go to the table, and they will say we are good, we like peace, we dont sell anything bad, we are fighting YOUR WAR in afghanistan, and as the recent bombing of the INdian embassy shows, they wont let Afghanistan be on peace, as it simply doesnt give them enough leverage and buffer.
Good luck with talking nice to the guys in Islamabad :)

53_3,
Some thoughts for Afghanistan, hope you like it :
http://weighyourwords.blogspot.com/2008/03/of-bears-and-dogs.html

"Our approach should be to put pressure on Pakistan to let some of the benefits we (in the future) give them to actually get to the ground in that area, giving the local populace something they need badly, anyway.

I think that Obama is much more likely to take this approach than McCain, who really things in terms of raw military power rather than a more holistic, cooperative approach."

1. Liberals do not have a monopoly or patent on goodwill (Bush 43 has spent more on AIDS work in Africa than every prior POTUS admin combined).

2. Lacking willing NATO and UN booties on the ground, you will not remove the thugs from Pakistan.

3. Nukes are not controlled by remote TV photo ops in front of a bunch of mediocre glad handers praying for their next Pell Grant on the DOD dime. [See #2, above.]

4. Mickey Mouse wants his ears back.

"... I could bet my right hand to say, if this has to end, it will end in the streets of Karachi and Peshawar."

I think Obama is more of the type to "talk softly and carry a big stick", which was by far, our best self-advice when it comes to foreign policy. So "talking nice" has two sides to it. Keep in mind what Obama said a few months ago about small scale military action. It won't be all lovey-dovey...

The bigwigs in Pakistan aren't helping because they, and the Administration, are focusing only on military aid - and military aid doesn't filter down to the mountainous region we are interested in as just more bombs. No butter for the average individual living there, and as a matter of fact, it makes things worse because they don't like the Pakistani army any more than they do us.

We also would be wrong to forge local alliances like we tried in Iraq. Those alliances are based on military objectives alone, and have a tendancy to morph into something else as soon as is conventient for the "ally". We should be establishing ourselves instead, if we are in the area, as a freindly entity i.e. we used to have our military engineers do things like go into a town in France, in WWII, and upgrade or fix their water system.

Having a nonjudgemental, helpful, freindly face in an area of the world where they really don't know much about us other than what comes out of the ends of tubes and the bottoms of aircraft will go far in improving our image. It's more than just throwing cash around. It's going into a village and makeing it more liveable - without asking of or doing less than getting permission from the local elders to do the work.

Duking:

On the Afghanistan thing, I'm aware of the history of the region, and there are MANY world powers of any given period that have tried their hand there.

See the last paragraph of my commentary about what we, as Americans, should be in Afghanistan while we are rooting out Al-Queda.

Our role in Afghanistan should be diffent than the one the Neoconservatives had in mind when they dragged us into war in Iraq.

We shouldn't be trying to hold territory there. What we should do is have a paralell mission: attack Al-Queda operatives where we find them, and be a postivie force in the local community, which wouldn't be hard if we were to say to the local elders of a town "hey, we can drill some wells in your community and provide you with basic water needs", asking nothing in return.

We'll get it back 10 fold in goodwill - and in Afghanistan, local goodwill is a very significant asset.

Contrast that approach with Bush:

The Neocons, in their inestimable idiocy, went off the deep end in wanting to turn Iraq into a Libertarian cum Free Market experiment, in which Republican ideals were built from top to bottom (see www.newamericancentury.com - their own website, if you doubt!) into the government.

In short, the Neocons were trying to create their own little feifdom there. Unfortunately, and, or course, predictably, local politics got the better of THAT rather fruity idea...

Of course, 1,600,000,000,000 dollars and 4000+ lives later, Iraq is a drain on our economy and resources.

MPEG4 Converter for MacAVI to MPEG4 Mac OS XFLV to MPEG4 Mac OS XMPEG4 Converter for Mac is the best video Converter for Mac that supports various video formats. Such as iPod Video MPEG4, iPod Touch MPEG4, iPod Nano MPEG4, iPhone Video MPEG4, iPhone Video H.264, Apple TV MPEG4, M4v-MPEG4 and so on. MOV to MPEG4 Mac OS XVOB to MPEG4 Mac OS XDat to MPEG4 Mac OS XConvert FLV to MPG Mac OS X Convert FLV to MP4 Mac OS XWith it, you can watch videos on almost any portable devices including iPod, iPhone, Apple TV, Zune, PSP, Video capable MP4 players and so on. Convert FLV to AVI Mac OS X Convert FLV to DIVX Mac OS X AMV to MPEG4 Mac OS X

セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
セフレ
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
メル友
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生
女子高生