E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Mohsin Raza / Reuters
Residents, including shopkeepers and businessmen, hit the ground with their sandals to express their anger while shouting anti-American slogans during a demonstration in Lahore on Thursday.
American gunships launch a strike across the Afghan border into Pakistan, hitting a Pakistani check post and killing 11 soldiers. U.S. officials say the attack was in response to insurgent firing. Pakistan calls the attacks "unprovoked and cowardly." That was in June of 2008.
Three Pakistani soldiers are killed at their border post as a result of an American helicopter strike. U.S. officials say they were targeting insurgents who were launching mortar rounds into Afghanistan. Pakistan protests by blocking the supply route for U.S. and NATO convoys. That was in September of 2010.
The details of exactly what happened during Saturday's early morning hours in Pakistan's Mohmand tribal agency, on the border with Afghanistan, are still unclear, but the story line is familiar.
This time, U.S. officials say they took fire from across the border in Pakistan and called in air support, reportedly checking with their Pakistani counterparts before authorizing a strike. Pakistani officials say they were never consulted, that their pleas to NATO to stop the attack once it had started were ignored, and responded by again shutting down the supply routes.
One thing that is certainly different this time is the death toll: 24 Pakistani soldiers were killed in this latest incident, including two officers, making it the deadliest incident of its kind since Pakistan and the U.S. declared an alliance in 2001. The higher death toll, according to analysts, means more pressure on Pakistan's military and civilian leaders to react strongly.
There is no debating that U.S.-Pakistan relations have taken a beating over the last year. But have they hit rock bottom? Or is this just the new "all-time low?"
Ispr / AFP - Getty Images
An image released by Pakistan's Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) on Nov. 30, 2011 shows a Pakistani army post reportedly targeted by NATO helicopters resulting in the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers.
Last straw in a tough year
The condemnation from Pakistan over the latest attack has been swift and unrelenting.
Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Pakistan's Army Chief, called the attack "unacceptable." Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said it was "an assault on the sovereignty of Pakistan," and pledged to conduct a complete review of all diplomatic, political, military and intelligence cooperation with the U.S. In addition Pakistan announced it would boycott next month's Bonn Conference on Afghanistan.
Amid the rising anger, Pakistan's military released a set of images Wednesday which it says shows the remote border posts attacked by NATO helicopters and fighter jets on Saturday.
"They're taking a tougher line than they have before," said Hasan Askari Rizvi, a Lahore-based defense analyst. "They're staking out a strong position to demonstrate within a domestic context that they can protect Pakistan's interests."
That, according to Rizvi, is even more important to the government and military establishments now, in a year when they've both lost credibility following a series of humiliating actions by the U.S.
Back in March, U.S. pressure to release CIA contractor Raymond Davis, who shot and killed two Pakistanis, forced Pakistan to take the domestically unpopular action of negotiating his exit in the face of intense public anger.
Then came the unilateral, American operation in May to capture and kill Osama Bin Laden within miles of Pakistan's premier military academy which forced Islamabad to choose between confessing involvement or admitting incompetence.
Former U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen's September accusation that Pakistan's largest intelligence agency uses the militant Haqqani network as a "veritable arm" to launch attacks on U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan left the relationship even further strained, and Pakistan's Army brass feeling "betrayed," according to military sources.
This latest incident, according to multiple Pakistani officials, has forced the country to rethink its engagement with the U.S. "We cannot be just a subject of abuse and attack," said one military official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"Both of these entities – the government and military – have been discredited," said Rizvi. "Within Pakistan they are discredited because of U.S. actions across their borders. Outside, they are discredited because the U.S. is saying they are helping the Taliban."
Public relations problem
But according to some, the government and military's credibility problem may be partly their own making.
"The problem is that there's not really a source of information that's geared to inform," said Dr. Christine Fair, who focuses on South Asian political and military affairs at Georgetown University. "They're geared to massage perceptions of events, and the Pakistani government love taking their citizens for a ride on the victim bus."
A growing sense of anti-Americanism in Pakistan over the last decade has been fanned by a dominant, conservative Islamic, public discourse, said Rizvi – a sentiment the establishment has tapped into from time to time to pursue its own national interests. That's how a discussion about a potential U.S. aid package devolves into talk-show debates about America respecting Pakistan's sovereignty. Or the discovery of al Qaida's leader hiding in Pakistan turns into national outrage that the borders were breached by the U.S.
"In Pakistan, there are only two entities that publicly support good relations with the U.S.: One is the military, the second is the federal government," said Rizvi. "You don't find any other political party or major society group openly supporting the ‘War on Terror’ or relations with the U.S."
What about the billions in U.S. aid?
One question many Americans ask is: “Why do Pakistanis hate us so much if we give them so much money? “
Despite the fact that billions of dollars in U.S. aid and reimbursements have gone to Pakistan in the last decade, anti-U.S. feelings within the population are running higher than ever.
Opposition leader Imran Khan has capitalized on those frustrations, channeling them into a groundswell of political support in recent months and a 68 percent approval rating, according to one recent poll. Separately, a poll conducted exclusively in Pakistan's tribal regions last year found almost 80 percent opposed the “war on terror.” The Pew Research Center's 2010 Global Attitudes project showed a mere 17 percent of all Pakistanis polled held a favorable view of the U.S. and nearly 60 percent described the U.S. as an enemy.
American money has been used to fund everything from education projects to agricultural development, but money has been slow to hit the ground and has not been used in ways that directly affect most Pakistanis.
According to the Congressional Research Service, of the $20.7 billion allocated for Pakistan between FY2002 and FY2012, only $6.5 billion was "economic-related." The vast majority, $14.1 billion, was "security-related," and the lion's share of that, $8.8 billion, was military reimbursement for operations supporting the US/NATO mission across the border in Afghanistan, known as "Coalition Support Funds," or CSF.
Asif Hassan / AFP - Getty Images
Supporters of Pakistani cricketer turned politician Imran Khan's party, the Movement for Justice, shout slogans during a protest in Karachi on Thursday against the cross-border NATO air strike on Pakistani troops.
Rizvi said that most Pakistanis fail to benefit from U.S.-funded projects, and very little is known among the everyday citizenry about just how American money is being used on the ground – a problem, he says, that is one of "public relations."
"Over the last few years, a lot of funding has gone to state educational facilities, to improve facilities, enable professors to go to other countries for conferences, but very few people know that its American money," said Rizvi. "The [Pakistani] government doesn't tell them it’s American money, they create the impression that the government is making this possible for them."
That same "public relations" strategy has meant that the establishment has failed to mobilize domestic support for the war on terror, despite the fact that 30,000 Pakistanis have died in terror-related incidents since 2001. Losses in that war – accidental or deliberate – are therefore met with greater public anger, by a population that believes its military is fighting an American war.
Treading lightly
In the days since the latest tragic border clash, there has been a flurry of high-level efforts made by U.S. diplomatic, military, and intelligence officials to reach out to their Pakistani counterparts.
The U.S. and NATO are using careful language. NATO called the incident "tragic and unintended." A joint statement by the U.S. Departments of Defense and State expressed "deepest condolences" and "sympathies" from Secretaries Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton. Officials have pledged to fully investigate what actually transpired on the ground.
Following the incidents in 2008 and 2010, the U.S. and Pakistan found enough common ground to continue working together. The strong language being used and decisions being taken by Pakistani officials suggest it won’t be as easy this time around.
Prime Minister Gilani has already made clear that "business as usual will not be there." But U.S. officials and analysts express confidence that, with enough time and enough concessions, the two sides will ultimately be forced to find a way forward once again.
Pakistan relies on U.S. money and international support to bolster its economy, said Rizvi, and the U.S. relies on Pakistan's cooperation to stabilize Afghanistan.
"They will both realize that they need each other. They will have to tolerate each other," he said.
That may come at a price. Some believe the U.S. will have to take steps to pacify elements that have supported it in the past – issuing a public apology, or agreeing to not publicly rebuke Pakistan any longer, among other possibilities.
Despite ongoing investigations, Georgetown’s Fair believes both sides' dependence on one another means the focus will be on moving forward, not definitively determining the facts.
"There is no answer to this that's going to be helpful," says Fair. "I don't believe we're ever going to get to the bottom of what actually happened."
See a Photo Blog: Pakistan releases first images of border posts attacked by NATO
Leave a Comment:
Maybe they should stop harboring terrorists, then we could stop going into their "sovereignty" and taking out the garbage.
As allies the Pakistanis have been less than worthless, any cooperation has been paid for in advance (called palm oil) and the promises always unreliable. The logistics of re-supply are more costly without Pakistani cooperation, but that cooperation was far too costly anyway. They should be treated just the same as North Korea, nuclear, dangerous, unreliable, and irrational. Close the checkbook and close their embassy in Washington. No one needs liars, cheats, and parasites on their doorstep.
Read between the lines here:
And, from another story on the same events:
It seems that this may well have been a publicity stunt for the Pakistani military to regain the popular support from the citizenry-- you know, band them together against a common enemy. The military had lost a great deal of respect after the "Geronimo" raid that killed Osama... in fact, that was referenced in the disparagingly in the other article as well:
Oh, hey, we elect liars, cheats and parasites and call them our government. At least the Paks DON'T appear on our doorstep, or in our bankbooks or ... Well, you get the point
As of now it might be an all time low..but no way its the lowest.
Once we nuke their nuke plants..then it will be the lowest possible. :)
Unless Israel or England beat us to it!
Pakistan needs to make a decision. Do they need the US or terrorists to survive. Plain and simple. They can not keep playing both sides. Make a decision and make it quick and come out publicly and state it.
I wish we could just leave the Muslim countries of the Middle East and forget about them, but 9-11 proved we don't have that option.
Marines were killing scores of Paki militants streaming over into AFG into the Sanghin Valley Dec2010-May2010... Pakistan is a filthy dumpster that cultivates scum sucking trash. I don't think a head would turn if that crap hole didn't exist tomorrow
Uh, the last time I looked, none of the "terrorist" groups had invaded a country based on lies about WMD's and killed 1,000,000 of the inhabitants. The US is the #1 terror state on the planet
Bush and his national security team never paid proper attention to Afghanistan and Pakistan's support for terrorists. On the contrary, Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Obama's Security Advisers are handling it much better than Bush Jr. and his team.
US Pakistani relation vis-a-vis a) Afghanistan and b) Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is very complicated and has to be treated gently. You have to treat them as a quasi-terrorist state and at the same give them the money (military and civilian aid) to placate them. The Pakistanis (the politicians) are so corrupt that people look up to the Army and thus the Pakistani and the Intelligence Services in playing a large role in the administration of the country, especially in foreign affairs, nuclear matters, and defense. Obama can't let them go, for fear that they would pass on the nuclear secrets to other rogue nations in the region and at the same time, can't let them stick a finger on our soldiers in Afghanistan.
I believe until Pakistan as a country disintegrates into smaller ones, they will continue to create trouble for USA and we have to deal with it case by case and as the situation warrants (with carrot and stick).
Bob, are you that stupid? Or, just another muslim Obama lover? Or, Flea party idiot?
Glad of it Bob. Mess with the bull? Catch a horn.
bob lewis - Iraq probably wouldn't have been invaded if Saddam had allowed the UN weapons inspectors to verify a lack of weapons of mass destruction. That was Saddam's call. Have you forgotten Kuwait? Have you forgotten the poison gas used on ethnic populations in Iraq? What planet are you on???
"Uh, the last time I looked, none of the "terrorist" groups had invaded a country based on lies about WMD's"
And neither have we. We did, however, invade a country based on faulty intelligence about the presence of WMD's. . .faulty intelligence that was, incidentally, also received and believed by the nations of Europe, Russia, China, and even Saddam Hussein himself. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of your revising history. And nevermind that the nation in question, Iraq, was paying the families of so-called 'martyrs' in Palestine checks for $25000 if they succeeded in killing Israeli civilians in their suicide attacks. . . .and that the same nation planned to assassinate a sitting US President. . . and that the same nation fired on our military aircraft over 2500 times during the cease fire after Desert Storm (which was caused by their unprovoked attack on an ally of ours). . . . and that the leader of said nation gassed entire cities of Kurds and drained the traditional lands of the Marsh Arabs, killing or displacing hundreds of thousands.
Really? Well, I guess you can spin this however you like. Cracks me up the perceptions some people have. If the Obama Administration had a hair on their arse they would join with UK on Iran. If Pakistan doesn't like what we do, then we cut the money off, bomb them into oblivion along with Afghanistan and call it a day!! It's all so stupid anyway! Bring our troops home, Nuke their nukes and call it happy hour, Sh*t!
Pakistan can go get stuffed. The US should close the pocketbook, level any building we built, load our toys onto ships and go home. They are not our friends, they have never been our friends and we could sure use the military on our own borders.
That is the exact attitude why people hate us. It is not our business to go into whatever country we please and do what we please. How would you feel if Canada or England suddenly blew up a bunch of our guys because they were trying to get at Bush for being a terrorist? Or what if someome blows up a bunch of American Civilians and Soldiers because the Westboro Baptist Church might as well be terrorists? Grow up and join the real world, please.
Maybe that would be because the whole idea of a "war on terror" is totally ignorant. Terrorism is just a vague idea, you can't "go to war" with an idea!
When we were after Osama Bin Laden, we had an actual physical target, now he is gone, we should be done with it, remove ALL US forces from the Middle East, and let them continue with their own lives, free from the supreme dictator telling them how to run their countries. We've got enough problems here at home, Obama should be addressing them, not trying to run someone else's country.
Shut down the billions we give them and use it to shore up the US and see how long they would last. Move out all the phone businesses and that would help. At least when I get a call may be I could understand who is on the other end. Do that with India would be better still.
It is very sad that we have a Government who is controlled by a piddly a$$ country on the backbone of American citizens,
Lash out with terror and you shall receive, Head Shaker.
It seems you haven't read the details that came out of interrogation of Saddam Hussein after he was captured. According to our intelligence, Saddam didn't let the UN Inspectors in, because he didn't want the Iranian Mullahs to know that he didn't possess WMDs.
Now, we should ask you, "What planet are you on JK?"
A coward is people that can't choose one side or the other, these people are a bunch of two face cowards and they say we are cowards, how could the most wanted terrorist live right next to their so called elite army headquarters, these people are as dumb as they look and sound ....
It’s obvious the Islamists have taken control in Pakistan and want a war with the U.S. How can these people be so foolish? They must realize that this will only deliver death and destruction to their doorstep. Once again the “Religion of Peace” trumps logic in that part of the world.
"Despite the fact that billions of dollars in U.S. aid and reimbursements have gone to Pakistan in the last decade, anti-U.S. feelings within the population are running higher than ever"
What a frickin disgrace. Stop giving them any money and put it to work here or some other more grateful country! Pakistan deserves drones being flown over it and nothing more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here's a thought, withdraw all our troops and other citizens from the middle east to include our money of all sources and then let's see how appreciative they are. The common people of most countries in the middle east, well everywhere for that matter, have no idea what is really going on and base their anti-American attitudes on the few tidbits of truth and the lies their leaders provide them. As stated in the article, Osama was within miles of their military academy, so which is it, were they hiding him or were they incompetent? That isn't really a difficult or trick question. Anyone?
"I don't believe we're ever going to get to the bottom of what actually happened."
Does anyone really doubt what happened?
The Pakistanis opened fire on the American aircraft, and the Americans responded, with force.
After lots of bluster, things will calm down - Perhaps our aid to the Pakistanis should be more visible, instead of allowing politicians to use it to bolster their personal agenda.
It's time to wake up. Cut the financial support altogether and let the Pakistani people see what their gov't has been doing for them...zilch. Let their country do what has been going on in Syria and Egypt. We have our own problems here and should fix this first. Apparently no country really likes the US, but want financial aid. We sent American jobs overseas and it's going to backfire when those finished goods come back to the US and Americans aren't going to buy because we are out of work and cannot afford to buy them. Some of these companies are going to find out the hard way that manufacturers for the American companies are going to copy/steal the trade info and use it to their advantage and compete against the very companies that trained them just for the cheap labor (copyright and patend laws don't seem to work in some of these countries). We tend to educate foreign students who eventually use their knowledge against us. WE HAVE TO BE MORE CAREFUL AND SELECTIVE ON WHO WE HELP
Rick
I guess that makes us cowards. Afghanistan is our enemy, no sorry our friend, no sorry our enemy, no I'm sorry i'm not sure anymore!
A bunch of hairy pakistani men with their shoes at hand
I can't fathom how horrible (on top of their natural BO) it smells to be in that protest
After 3 three tours to the Afghanistan/Pakistan border region with Marine Force Recon I can tell you that Pakistan knew full well that Bin Laden was in Pakistan and Pakistan is famous for hiding high level terrorists there too and our government is well aware of that fact, with the US government sending billions of US tax payers money to feed them.
Now ask me how really I feel about these people ....
Jazzman, my son was an Army Ranger and like you did three deployments to Afghanistan. I am certain he would share your viewpoint on this subject.
It's a well known fact that the Pakistanis have been playing both sides. Just like anyone else, they're doing what's in their best interests. I say we do what's in our best interest and exit that part of the globe. Stop sending billions to Pakistan, to Israel, to Egypt, etc. If you want to fight terrorists just concentrate on not letting them into the good ol' U.S.A. in the first place. Spend those billions at home or stop spending them and reduce the national debt. Face it but there's no way we can control fanatics all over the globe (and they're not all Muslims by the way). Let's get our house in order.
John-3638231, you are suspended for a week for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
Well clearly whether Bush or Obama is in office the Pakistan government takes our money and hates us at the same time. So this notion that the "cowboy" was the problem is utter nonsense. We also do not have a good relationship with Iran that is planning to nuke us all. N. Korea? Have they yet given up their nuke ambitions? Do we have a peace agreement yet in the ME which the media blamed the stall on Bush and Rice? So for all of Obama's talk and yes, an apology tour, what have we gotten in return? BTW, Russia is thumbing their nose at us now as well. Please show me the progress.
Equally when Clinton wanted to meet with the Egyptian protesters they refused to meet with her. Now that the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over that country instead of any sort of democracy we in the west recognize, how will Egypt extort money from us like all the others?
If we are going to measure international success, lets do it truthfully. Things are barely any different than when Bush was in office, and now things are starting to deteriorate quickly.
Lets get the hell out of the middle east. Energy independence for the USA.
The pakistanis can't separate there religious ideology from their politics. They lied about Bin Laden and they lie about helping the taliban. They help the taliban because they fear it themselves. The Pakistan leadership understand that they can't handle there own religious nutjobs, So they just send the nutjobs upto Afghanistan. It better to let these fools fight someone else then deal with them directly.
How can this be? After Obama's Middle East apology Tour, these folks were supposed to love us!
"Apology tour?" Even after all the times that's been debunked, you're STILL sticking with that fairy tale?
What an idiot. How we react here is critical to our very future. All I can say is that with Obama and Clinton in play, we have a chance to not only mend relations, but to make them stronger. If it were back in the day of Cowboy Bush, Dr. Strangelove Cheney, and "I'm never wrong" Rumsfeld, we'd be looking at another war... or two.
The bottom line? We cannot afford to let Pakistan become an official enemy.
Debunked by who? Bill Ayers? I listened to the sorry excuse for a president's speech. It was a joke, just like his entire term in office so far.
LMarc...This happened now, three yrs into the Obama admin....and you are still blaming Bush and Cheney....This is your guy....quit with the lies....
Debunked by anyone who has advanced past the third grade, OL.
Screw the talk about who was President, the majority of these people hate us, let's get the @!$%# out of Afghanistan and cut Pakistan off all that money we give them for little return.
Let them argue with India, they'll probably end up blowing each other up anyway.
"All I can say is that with Obama and Clinton in play, we have a chance to not only mend relations, but to make them stronger." - LMarcT
Laughable. America is less popular in the Islamic world now, than it was under Bush II, according to a poll released by the Arab American Institute earlier this year (the study was referenced in the Boston Globe earlier this year). 9% of Egyptians viewed the US favorably when BushII was in office. It briefly rose when Obama took office, but has since fallen to 5%. That's right, just over HALF as many Egyptians view us favorably now, as when Bush was in office.
"Similar figures in Morocco, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates show that the United States is viewed less favorably now than the final year of the Bush administration."
Hate to break it to you LMarc. . .but you're totally wrong on this one.
LMarkT- You just can say that Dems can fix it. They haven't yet. Neither will Republicans. Both only care about party affiliation first. Bush went to war with Afghanistan for a reason. To stop attacks here. There are only 2 things in all of Obama's tenure he has done. More drone strikes and killing Bin laden. He violated the Constitution when he did not take care of his economic duty. As stated by the Constitution. Dems always give excuses just like Republicans.
As of right now there is not ONE candidate that can really help this country in the way it needs. And until we can take the political correctness out of this war, can we really make headway on leaving Afghanistan. We need to take the gloves off and let all our enemies know (present and any one thinking of taking us on) that we need to protect ourselves and we will bring all our military might to do it. I am a vet of the Stan and we need to properly use our military.
Pakistan is not in the Middle East, you idiot. It's in Asia.
Well when you righties propose nonsense like anti-Sharia law legislation, or make a big deal about a Mosque near ground zero is it any wonder.
Yashmak, I suggest you take your blinders off, you seem to pick points that are not well thought out.
What happened was, under Bush the Muslims hated the U.S. Government, now they not only hate the Government but also the American People.
And they loved Clinton during the first attempt to bring the World Trade Center down? We've never been closer to a conflict with Pakistan and, for your information, Bush is not the president.
Yashmak......
Disregarding that you provide NO REFERENCES for your patently false assertions:
Is it your immediate and primary goal to be popular among those countries incubating and harboring Islamic terrorists? If so, since when? Your side was talking tough about Islamic countries during the entire Bush/Cheney debacle. Remember: "If you are not with us, you are against us"? What happened? Did you lose your nerve when we started going after folks who could actually shoot back (i.e. Afghanistan and Pakistan) and who were behind the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001?
If our relationship with Pakistan has suffered, then so be it. It is time we drew a stark line in the sand against their treachery. Do you disagree? The people and the government of Pakistan must be led to understand that we will not ignore their double-crossing, back-stabbing ways. Only then, will they be motivated to do otherwise.
We (democrats) knew full well President Obama would get tough with Pakistan. Candidate Obama said so. Did you miss that?
It is beginning to seem you GOPeaParty folks have no real principles. You are much like RINO Romney. You change your minds endlessly depending upon your current political objectives. Spend some time examining what your truly believe. Get back to us when you know.
I cite an article, researched by the Arab American Institute, and cited in media outlets from the Globe, to the Times, to HuffPo, to NPR, and I'm wearing blinders? Perhaps you should tell me what point I made that's not well-thought. It seems to me, that my comment was a perfect, research-supported refutation of LMarc's assertion. I cited research which directly rebutted his point. Is it my rebuttal that you say is ill-thought? I doubt it, since it's supported by the research. So it must be the research you find ill-thought. If so, take it up with the researchers. Basically every media outlet and magazine in the nation, with their armies of fact-checkers, all figured it was credible.
Maybe you're smarter than all of them.
Disregarding that you provide NO REFERENCES for your patently false assertions:
False. I indicated the organization that did the research. Did you want me to publish the study in full here? Sorry. Then I noted a news organization that cited the article. In fact, I noted several in that, and subsequent comments. Since you are apparently not capable of a simple research (it took me under 30 seconds to google up the article I only vaguely remembered, because it was so wideley reported). . . here you go.
Google search: US viewed less favorably in Arab World
I'd post the links, and even tried to do so, butthe comment dealie here won't let me post links. But if you do that Google search, you'll find links to NPR, Free Republic, a host of others, and even the Arab America Institute who originated the poll I referenced.
Now. Had you read my comment in its entirety, you'd realize it is NOT my "immediate and primary goal to be popular among those countries incubating and harboring Islamic terrorists". . .or any of the rest of what you said.
I was merely refuting a statement by LMarc made: "All I can say is that with Obama and Clinton in play, we have a chance to not only mend relations, but to make them stronger." - LMarc
No, I agree completely. I have made similar statements here (addressing other related articles) on recent articles on this subject.
And they loved Clinton during the first attempt to bring the World Trade Center down? We've never been closer to a conflict with Pakistan and, for your information, Bush is not the president.
Once again pea brain sized logic coming from the white wing. If you can't differentiate between Muslim extremists and the general Muslim population then you are really in need of additional schooling.
Pakistan does need to choose which path it will go on. How long until the population turns rabid against its government?
Bob huh? Yea ok your name is Bob. Anyways, next time you want to speak Hariish, try to use your real name. ok "Bob"?
Yashmak et al,
I never said Bush was now president (thank God!). I never said anything about Obama's popularity in the Arab world... although you would think that the right would allow a low Arab rating to be worn like a badge of courage.
I simply said that I would much rather have Obama and Clinton handling the situation than the prior brainless idiots. I don't base this on their popularity... it's impossible to be popular with Arabs while fighting terrorism and finishing two impossible wars in the Middle East.
And besides, tell me the 24/7 rancor spewed by the right isn't heard overseas. Tell me the right doesn't affect our popularity and affect Obama's "trust level" with their openly hateful policies and posts...
LMarcT- Obama has done nothing. When Bush was in office, Pelosi did nothing but gripe and say that if the Dems were in office things would be different. It is all the same. How do Dems and Repubs not get this. Neither is doing this country a service. None of their policies will work. They both have had time to figure it out and they just can not. This is reality. Both suck and are becoming Sunni and Shi'ite.
They need to be locked in Congress and forced to really do something for this country. Not be let out until they have a real plan. And one main point is get rid of lobbyists. It is only legal bribery. Pelosi made 2 million dollars by insider trading. She states it is legal, yet citizens are put in jail for the same thing.
LMarcT- Wake up sir. I am a 42 year old vet who has seen this country in better days. Now it is slowly being devoured by our politicians. Money hungry, power hungry fools who think this can go on and on. It can't.
Why? That's the whole point of the study that I cited. Why would you want them handling it, when the Arab world likes us less now, than they did when we were under folks you call 'brainless idiots'. Not a very strong recommendation for the current administration.
Yeah, and so is the 24/7 rancor spewed by the left. What's your point? Liberals and conservatives alike have been loudly condemning Pakistan over these issues. Loudly.
the sooner you idiots understand how the Muslim world thinks, the better...
@john bayner.... you think there's some difference between the Muslim extremists and the general Muslim population? You are sadly mistaken son.. Muslim beliefs dictate that there is nothing that deserves to exist outside of it's own beliefs... It dictates that to lie is well and good as long as it pushes Muslims' ideology forward. It REWARDS liars.... THIS is not understood by most in our culture... the idea we have for 'honor' is nonexistent in their world. They WILL lie to our faces while sneaking behind us, continuing to further themselves... is that not apparent with Pakistan??? HELLO?
AND in this context of how they reward liars and backstabbing, they do not separate their religious views from their political views or their military or government views and or actions.... The Muslim belief system does not allow for deviation just because you're in office! believe me people, the understanding our culture has, living here in the USA, is FAR FAR from able to wrap our heads around how these people think. We live in a society that likes to try to separate the majority's religion from the government's processes. We have this separation of church and state concept here... in the Muslim world, it doesn't exist... even if some of them say it does.. remember, they reward liars as long as it pushes 'the cause' forward. And believe me, our inaction and money is helping them push ahead.. and as their religious views dictate, they will push and push... until everything that is not Muslim is either dead..... or turns Muslim.... and if you think that's ridiculous, you need to look at their religion AND remember that their government and military backs the ideas up.. because that IS the Muslim way.
and to those that still want to think there's some difference between "radical" "extreme" Muslims and the "general" Muslim population.... Thinking this just shows the lack of understanding of THEIR culture and religion and shows your ignorance that is based on your understanding of our culture... the thought that there is some extreme level of Muslim action and there's the "normal" actions that the majority of Muslims agree on is ignorant to believe. The truth is, their "general Muslim, non extreme population" are just our version of "Sunday Christians"... people that do what they're going to.... act how they want.. swear and drink too much, smoke and gamble while overeating and screwing whoever, wherever they can, go and repent and act like they're as "Christ-like" as the next, at church, and do it all again.... These "Christians" aren't really Christians... they're just people who live how they want to live... but are afraid there MIGHT be a Hell... so they go to church..... just in case.... Those Muslims who aren't "extreme" are "Sunday Muslims"
the question is.... what happens when they finally "get religion" in them? what happens is, they revert back to the teachings they've been ignoring for their "worldly" lusts..... and start being serious Muslims... so basically, those Muslims who we want to believe are the "general Muslim population" are just waiting to "find religion" before coming here and trying to fly our planes full of our people into big buildings that have our people in them... so they can go meet their virgins in paradise...
We have our hopes up on the "Sunday Muslims".. hoping they're the ones who are representative of their religion.... but guess what.. they're not.. those who are in charge.... those who are getting all the popular votes.... those that are going to be in charge soon.... THOSE are the real Muslims... those are the ones that will be telling us they're doing everything they can for us.... for a price.... and while we pay, they're using that money to give their 'soon to be' honored dead, their last feast, before they suicide into our family who are trying to protect us, overseas......
THAT is the reality behind the Muslim world.
Yashmak......
Perhaps, LMarcT is aware that, for a broken relationship to improve, sometimes it might need to go through a crisis.
Bush/Cheney let Pakistan run roughshod over us. The same is true for several other nations in that region. But, Obama/Clinton are actually pursuing our own national interests even when that means angering some of those in that region. That is exactly what they should be doing.
Because the current goal is not "being popular". Rather, it is confronting terrorism in those countries that support it.
In short, becoming less popular in that region is not, necessarily, a bad thing. President Obama is not too popular on Wall Street either. Bravo for him.
bob lewis, you are suspended for a day for violating rule # 1 of the Code of Honor.
i think we need to accept a collective responsibility, that we created these terrorist at the first place when we used them against russia and then again in bosnia. now we dont need them so they need to be eliminated. I will suggest that my fellow citizens first understand why we are in this situation at the first place. its time we call our troops back....
We did not create the Taliban-- a common misconception. The western-backed Mujahideen that fought the Soviets, while they worked jointly with the elements that would become the Taliban, are not direct corollaries. When the Taliban seized power, it was largely fighting against the western backed mujahideen and their propaganda worked diligently to portray them as anti-Islamic, western-sympathizers. Being the only other group in the country with a significant store of armaments made them all the more necessary a target for the Taliban to cement their power. That's why there is significant commentary suggesting that the US turned its back on Afghanistan after the Soviets were defeated-- we essentially left the elements that were friendly to, or at least aligned with, US interests to the mercy of fanatic Islamic militants (the Taliban) and they were widely slaughtered, or converted (mostly the former, to set an example).
WMG, much the same thing happened when we sided with Mao to defeat the Japanese in China. When that happened and we realized the Communist element coming to power we threw our support, what there was of it, to Chiang Kai Shek and the Nationalists. So, Mao won the whole thing and if we had maintained good relations with the PRC we might not have the problems we have now in that area. For sure the Chinese Communists never forgot what we did. Well, one honorable thing that we did, we put the Nationalists on Formosa under our nuclear umbrella and threatened the PRC with retaliation if they should ever invade Formosa. And, lol, the PRC has not forgotten that either.
Another failure for Mr. Obama.
If you think that pissing off the Pakistanis by killing Bin Laden is a bad thing, you might want to get your priorities straight.
It seems pretty obvious he was talking about pissing off the Pakistanis by killing a bunch of Pakistanis. . .
Was he flying the helicopter?
Everyone knows that the President has a remote control for every aircraft in the US military. Except the republican ones.
Turn the place into a glowing radioactive cesspool and be done with it.
Turn the clock back to 1948 - Partition was a mistake . . . you cannot expect any seventh-century Islamic Republic to make decisions that make any sense in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. PAY India to wipe out this mistake and run the former Pakistani states as restless primitive provinces mired by their own choice in poverty, hatred, and fundamentalist Islam.
Not to mention creating the State of Israel. That was the biggest mistake of them all. Thankfully, the UN learned its lesson and will never make that same mistake again.
The Jewish religion= over 5000 yrs old
The Christian religion= over 2000 yrs old
The Islam religion= a little over 1400 yrs old
Who's on whose land Toasty?
Israel has been in that area for thousands of years. We need to send our Democrats to its neighboring countries to preach a bit of tolerance!!
Yes, what he said!!! finally someone has the right idea!!
mhjrhn
If islam, and Judaism both trace their roots back to Abraham, how can you say one is older than the other?
The Jews were nomadic back then, it was the Philistines who first cultivated and permanently inhabited the lands known today as Israel and Palestine, or just Palestine.
You can thank Hitler for the creation of an Israeli State.
John, we can thank Hitler, but only indirectly. If anything it was the U.N. that partitioned Palestine into Israel and Palestine after the British got tired of fighting Zionist terrorists like the Haganah and gave up the mandate to govern. Well, ok, Germany was partly to blame because of the Holocaust and the Zionists used that as motivation to partition. I guess the U.N. was on a guilt trip.
MHR, it was land given to the Hebrews by the Romans. They weren't there first either.
This was bound to happen because of Pakistan's collusion with the Taliban and Al-Queda. Our troops must be allowed to defend themselves.
If Pakistan fires on our boys, I agree with many who say, "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age."
Fundamentalist Islam is not quite the Stone Age, but seventh century C.E. That's where the Pakis want to be and that's where we should send them. The first step is to close their embassy in Washington and expel their so called diplomatic staff.
If one steps back and looks at Pakistan's role over the past 6-7 years, one begins to notice that it has helped the US (but just to a point) but not substantially helped Afganistan. It has no interest in doing that. Given old difficulties between the two countries and the extraordinary weakness of Afganistan, it pops into mind that Pakistan can once and for all take care of the problem by absorbing Afganistan into Pakistan with the help of the Taliban. The US is in the way. This current situation seems a little contrived. Remove the Pakistani route to Afganistan and it will become impossible for the US to be present much longer. Afganistan then belongs to Pakistan - at least as a puppet state if not annexed.
Just like Iran is going to take over Iraq, boy have we screwed the pooch!
What happen? I thought the world would love us after Obama took office. You libs are so gullible. I bet you thought Obama was going to bring the troops home in 18 months, end the insane spending during the Bush years, let the Pariot Act expire, roll back the Bush tax cuts and close Gitmo.
Most of the world does, RW. But you see, Pakistan had this guy hiding in their country. Now, this guy's name was Osama, and America didn't really like him...
Yep, Iran loves us. N Korea loves us. Cuba loves us. Venezuela loves us. China loves. Russia loves us. Libya loves us for sending them cruise missiles. Iraq loves us. Afghanistan loves us. They all love us so much that they can't wait for the POTUS to quit occupying their country.
And the other 190? Go on, RW. You say the world hates us, so why don't you list them all, and how much they hate us, and why. And make sure you provide supporting data to back up your assertion. With cited references. That's a mighty tall claim, and it goes against basic international relations knowledge, so be prepared to write up a very strong argument.
What are you waiting for?
Toasty McGrath
Rubbish. You've just apparently ignored the evidence to the contrary. As I posted up-thread:
America is less popular in the Islamic world now, than it was under Bush II, according to a poll released by the Arab American Institute earlier this year (the study was referenced in the Boston Globe earlier this year). 9% of Egyptians viewed the US favorably when BushII was in office. It briefly rose when Obama took office, but has since fallen to 5%. That's right, just over HALF as many Egyptians view us favorably now, as when Bush was in office.
"Similar figures in Morocco, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates show that the United States is viewed less favorably now than the final year of the Bush administration."
The poll was reported on not just by the Globe, but NPR, the Times, and a host of other media outlets.
Where is your supporting data Toasty?
Where is your supporting data Toasty?
Yes, Obama has turned out to be quite the Republican hasn't he.
I would define "an all time low" with Pakistan or anyone else as when both sides have only the other's demise in mind. In this case, Pakistan is pi$$ed, but we are understanding of their grief and anger and are taking careful and measured steps to get to the truth of the situation. If there is any chance to recover from this, we have taken the steps that could lead there.
I can understand the right maybe winking and taking note of a possible Obama election vulnerability, but to react with such glee about such a disaster is disgusting.
Why get excited folks? Teh realtionship is very straight forward: we BRIBE them and in return for money, their government lets us maintain our supply lines to our troops in Afganistan. The Paks are more fundamentalist muslims than many other nations: we are their enemy. Those who blame Obama even for this are fruitcakes. We went into Afganistan in 2001, allied with the Northern Alliance and booted the Taliban out of power in six weeks. We had screwed up the attempted snatch of Bin Laden but the Bush Administration hung around in Afganistan "nation building", putting more and more US troops into a landlocked country so that only with the acquiesence of Pakistan can they be supplied.
The Paks have done what they intended to do. Only American hubris thinks that they were ever supposed to close their border to the Afgan insurgents or turn over OBL to us. You cannot pay a whole nation of Islamists enough money to have them fully turn against other Islamists and help you kill them.
You can't have diplomatic relationships with a goat, or a mule or any other type of animal. Stop trying. These aren't people, they are barbaric animals. You are only fooling yourself claiming otherwise.
Geez, man. Do you even know who you sound like? I'll give you a hint, his last name rhymes with "Hitler."
....you mean the other guy who just like you , hates the Jews......
Well Marc, they may be barbaric animals to you but to the international community they are a people occupying a sovereign nation, and as such, they are entitled to vent their anger at what they consider to be a situation of "Big bad America throwing her weight around." Our problem, it seems to me, is that we don't publicize our strategic reason for being in the area and that, I think, is to maintain a military presence to keep the PRC from conducting any military adventures. Slowly but surely we are constructing a military ring around the PRC and to keep that viable we have to be on good terms with the Islamic nations.
Uh, NYCG? When did I say I hate jews? Please provide me an exact quote.
The whole truth of this isnt being told. I cannot believe that our forces didnt have the coordinates of Pakistans posts...How could this happen? That would be similar to Osama saying that it was an accident that the towers were hit.....I am sure that our military knows the coordinates of every Paky post. As usual, we are not getting the real news, just a version of it. Either someone made a really bad mistake...or those targets were meant to be hit....
There are a number of untold dead American soldiers and Marines due to the cooperation with the cooperation with factions in the Pakistan army and intelligence. The factors that caused this attack seem very suspect. They have heard the Obama apology and seen the yellow stripe on his back as he gets all our troops out. They are getting braver as they know there is nothing he will do. 50,000 Americans were killed in Vietnam as we were told we could not let that nation fall and they were critical to the area. We walked away from that and don't seem to be suffering much from it. Let Pakistan play it's macho game with India.
I do not agree that we cannot afford to make Pakistan an official enemy. Call it like it is. They can't touch us militarily on our own soil, we need to get out of the farce that is Afghanistan in the first place. If their country harbors a fugitive from our justice, then we need to do just what we did. We do not need those dickweeds help to take care of our business. As far as the money, it's money better spent at home than on those worthless scum.
Relations are not at an all time low, they have been at an all time low for a long time. Now it is simply out in the open.
At least the U.S. no longer needs to pretend they're allies.
Irreconcilable differences. Period.
That's right LetusReason, relations have been low for a long time, ever since America backed Israel as a new nation. I've asked folks from that part of the world why America is hated so much and the answer is usually the same; "America supports and pledges defense of Israel." Actually, there isn't as much hatred of America world-wide as some folks want to believe. In many parts of the world, including the Midddle East, America is respected and our form of government is admired. Lol, even though many of our own citizens rant against it. And, that too is admired, that we have that here.
Gen. Assfuk Kayani can shove it.
I am torn on this one honestly. I feel bad for the Pakistanis who have died and know that our attitude toward them is a bit cavallier. Then again, they took BILLIONS of dollars from us knowing that we behave like this. They ought to understand by now that nothing is truly free. Honestly I think to a point our two countries deserve each other!
The US needs to cut its losses and get out of the Middle East. Pakistan has proven that no matter how much money you give them to be your "friends" they still despise you. You have a deficit to deal with (in case you didn't know that already) and suspending aid to ungrateful countries would sure help to reduce it
Again, Pakistan is not in the Middle East - it is in Asia, an altogether different place. Look at a map, please . . .
Bob, who cares if a map indicates that Pakistan is in Asia....They border the middle east and they border Asia, that doesnt change the fact that there are numerous muslim militants there....Remember that is why there is a Pakistan....
bob get a clue. The middle east is a number of countries loosely connected by geography. The countries are located in Africa and Asia. It will probably shock to you but Iran, Iraq, Israel, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia etc.. are all Middle East countries located in Asia.
i am of the opinion, after reading their relationship with us that Pakistan was a our biggest ally, we since 9/11. we just lost them to china and we dont like it at all. we are teaching them that once u are my bitch, u will always stay my bitch, not chinese.
The government was an ally, but the Pakistani people are nothing less than our greatest enemy.
LOL ok fair enough Bob...well they are the sh*t end of Asia. Trash.
"People (Dems&Libs) sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." (-:
And the conservatives are ready to cut those rough men's veteran benefits.
All time low - sadly, that describes the last 3 years.
Low what? Your attitude?
Pakistan strikes me as being the same kind of "ally" that Iraq was in the 1980's.
These people, when they're not fighting and killing eachother, they fight and kill anyone and it won't change.
None...I agree....The people in that area of the world cannot live without fighting and argueing. They fight and argue with anyone in front of them. They will never be satisfied with peace...They must have enemies, that is just the way it is. Their leaders cannot remain in their leadership role unless they can point out that they must fight this or that faction. They would never be a permanent friend, that just doesnt happen....It is best that we do not get too mixed up in their lives....
pakistan is setting us up
doesnt the government realize this?
pull out let them manage with their own cash
and im tired of hearing pakistan is helping us elliminate the idiots
pakistan is the oner harboring the idiots
far as im concerned we are the idiots for falling into their trap
strange how insurgents are always between us and pakistans forts
and the only thing that happens is pakistan pissing on us
and we have caugh pakistan retaliating killing our solders for accidental killings
also its funny how pakistan complains and then later its ok once they been paid off by the usa
isnt that blackmail and against our beliefe to pay for this crappy blackmail
I feel Ruken is right, quit harboring the insurgents and the air strikes will stop
No this is the norm ever since America suspected they were hiding Bin Laden.....