Pakistan's Turmoil Requires A Prudent U.S. Foreign Policy Response - Page 3

bhkad · 11-09-07, 07:17 AM

I am sincerely and genuinely perplexed when I see you and individuals who, like you, espouse such 'foreign' points of view. And I don't mean foreign as in your nationality or where you happen to live, although I'm sure that plays a part, but foreign as in, completely separate and often in opposition to the most agreeable ideas.

The United States has backed dictators before when they were the best alternative possible and those diplomatic moves turned out pretty well.

In backing Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines we prevented Communist takeovers that would have been what Communism needed to survive and thrive in SE Asia and in South America.

We didn't like supporting them, and the critics screamed loudly about both moves, but we did what had to be done. Then, when the times made it possible to do we urged them both to consider change.

Quote:

With a viable democratic alternative at hand, the Reagan administration turned about and decisively helped push the two dictators out of power. Under Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Paul Wolfowitz, we supported Corazon Aquino’s “people power” revolution in the Philippines and arranged a Hawaii exile for Marcos. Under Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Elliot Abrams, we pushed Pinochet into a referendum that he lost, thereby ushering the transition to today’s flourishing Chilean democracy.

Charles Krauthammer on Pakistan on National Review Online

donsutherland1 · 11-09-07, 07:59 AM

Today's edition of The Washington Post has an article that illustrates the need for the U.S. to take a prudent approach in dealing with the political turmoil in Pakistan. The U.S. needs to be careful to assure that whomever emerges victorious (President Musharraf/Pakistan Military or Benazir Bhutto) will have an incentive to maintain and deepen the crucial bilateral relationship between Pakistan and the U.S if a co-existence/partnership between President Musharraf and Benazir Bhutto in guiding Pakistan's transition toward democratic governance cannot be achieved following the 2008 elections now scheduled for February 15. To publicly choose sides or try to "push" the outcome in which one party or the other is damaged can alienate one side or the other. Both parties are moderate. Weakening Pakistan's moderate elements can have adverse future consequences.

The newspaper reported on critical anti-terrorism cooperation between the U.S. and Pakistan. Excerpts follow:

But senior military officials have privately voiced concern that the unrest in Pakistan threatens to disrupt the plan's momentum -- both because of developments in Washington, where members of Congress seek to restrict aid, and in Islamabad, where the emergency rule has focused Pakistan's military on curbing popular dissent.

"There is a segment of the population on the Hill that hate Musharraf and are looking for any opportunity to cash in on this thing," said one senior military official. And during a visit to Pakistan last week, Adm. William J. Fallon, head of the U.S. Central Command, warned Musharraf that Congress could move to cut aid if he declared a state of emergency, the official said.

Top military leaders from both countries have reviewed the counterinsurgency plan, developed over the past year amid close cooperation between U.S. and Pakistani military officials.

The vice chief of the Pakistani army, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani -- considered a possible successor to Musharraf as head of the armed forces when Musharraf relinquishes his military role -- is supportive of the effort, said the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation. Fallon was briefed on the plan while in Pakistan, officials said...

In the days since Musharraf invoked emergency powers, senior U.S. military officers have spoken publicly about the need to safeguard and strengthen counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan. "We would certainly not want to see . . . jeopardized in any way" the "very valuable" cooperation between the two militaries, Lt. Gen. Carter Ham, director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, said Wednesday. U.S. military officials in Islamabad, along with their Pakistani counterparts, Ham said, are "exploring a wide range of options that could improve operations" in the tribal areas, where Pakistani efforts have been "mixed."

The U.S. military also has a critical interest in preserving bilateral ties because it depends heavily on Pakistan to facilitate air and ground transit for more than half the fuel and other supplies for the 25,000 U.S. troops fighting in Afghanistan, U.S. officers said. Many military supplies go through the Pakistani port of Karachi, while fuel is trucked by Pakistani contractors over the mountain passes into Afghanistan. "We, obviously, are very interested in making sure that that stays open," Ham said.

Iriemon · 11-09-07, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

No, Iriemon I am not blaming the Democratic party for those leaders coming to There is absolutely nothing anti-Semitic about claiming that we went to war for Israel, a member state of the United Nations, whose membership should not be insulted by appeasement of Saddam’s terrorism which was in violation of 242, and 1441 due to violation of H32 of UN resolution 687. In the absence of WMD, which the failed Biden and Lugar amendment would have limited the authorization to, there is only Saddam’s support for terrorism that is serious enough for justifying WAR in One Iraq, Two Iraq, Three Iraq! Only a traitor would suggest that I am anti-Semitic, for believing that Saddam was in violation of H32 of UN resolution 687 after his final chance to fully comply.

IMO, the US has no business going to war for Israel when the US is not threatened and it is not in the US's interest to do so. I have no problem with the US maintaining relations with Israel, and assisting Israel if she is attacked. But Israel is not a state of this union, and IMO not even among our closest allies. It is not, IMO, in the interest of the US to maintain a policy that is partisanly biases towards Israel and against Muslim states.

How does bin Laden's statement prove Iraq was supporting AQ?

Quote:

Iriemon said: “So your point is we really went to war because Hussein gave money to Palesetian family survivors of fighters who died in their fight against Isreal?”

No, my point is that you are a terrorist propagandist for calling terrorists “fighters”:

Hussein's payments to Palestinian survivors was distributed to all families whose members died fighting Israel, whether terrorist tactics were used or not. Suggesting it just went to terrorists' families is inaccurate.

Quote:

I think TOT only suspects you are anti-Semitic because of what else he believes you support. If you support Arabs killing the Jews according to the Hamas charter, you can‘t be anti-Semitic. That is according to the brother of a Palestinian I once worked with who encouraged me to read Mein Kampf, and who once told a joke when I mentioned how good German cars were; “If the Germans are so efficient, how come we have an Arab/Israeli problem?”

TOT calls anyone who questions his rabid anti-Muslim pro-Israel rhetoric an "anti-semite". That is certainly not limited to me.

Quote:

On topic, I don’t believe it would be prudent to support unity government with Hamas or tyranny. As Jimmy Carter like support for unity government with civilian disguised Hamas suicide bombers to spare Palestinians from death, and then not supporting Musharraf would be hypocritical. We should not support something unless we feel it is benign. We don’t have to destroy something we do not support, but we must be clear in our diplomatic language.

IMO we should support neither Palestine nor Isreal. We should be objective and neutral. IMO we should do what we can to broker a solution, but it is a huge mistake IMO to make that ancient problem our own. It was not Americans who moved to the ME in droves and set up a religious state in Judea or Palestine or whatever its called.

DivineComedy · 11-09-07, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

We should be objective and neutral. IMO we should do what we can to broker a solution, but it is a huge mistake IMO to make that ancient problem our own. It was not Americans who moved to the ME in droves and set up a religious state in Judea or Palestine or whatever its called.

Nothing in Al Quacka’s fatwa’s calling for attacks against us due to our foreign policy in Iraq proves Iraq was supporting Al Quacka. From what I have seen Saddam was fully aware of Al Quacka and there is no public evidence in Saddam’s speeches he condemned Al Quacka before or after the attack against us, therefore, In my opinion the blanket calls for Jihad against us made Al Quacka Saddam’s proxy. Sorry, that is just the way it has to be. If you believe you are being unjustly treated and call for others to fight for you, and someone says they will kill for you, you had damn well better speak out against it often and loudly in your statecraft and especially condemn the terrorism after it happens. Even Iran condemned the attacks of September 11, 2001, Saddam‘s Iraq did not.

I do not have to suggest payments just went to terrorists' families, as the simple irrefutable fact is the payments as YOU say were “distributed to all families…whether terrorist tactics were used or not,“ and calling them ALL “martyrs” was a violation of 1441 due to recalled H32 of UN resolution 687.

We should be objective and neutral as to the outcome of the disputed territory, which was annexed by Jordan, but regardless of whether the Ottoman Empire allowed Jews to emigrate to the Empire from 1492 to modern times is irrelevant. Whether Israel is obligated under the Geneva conventions to not prevent a Palestinian State is relevant. The United States of America would be committing a deliberate act of betrayal to be “objective and neutral” as to the right of a Member State of the United Nations, the Israeli State, to exist. Appeasement of Saddam’s support for terrorism against Israel was a violation of our United Nations (of tyrants too) treaty obligations.

The ancient problems are our problems as a Member State of the United Nations.

We are as intimately tied to Pakistan as to Israel.

I have a business card in my fathers pictures from the Chief of Makhad (Attock District)
Attock District - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was not Americans who conquered Pakistan:

Muhammad bin Qasim - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We cannot undo that conquest anymore than we can be “objective and neutral” in the face of terror attempting to undo Israel.

A peaceful Pakistan is not only in the interests of India and Afghanistan, but it is in our interests as a Member State of the United Nations. No matter how much we may think withdrawing from foreign entanglements and not taking sides will prevent attacks against us, modern weaponry and trade requirements make isolationism impossible.

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.”
The Avalon Project : Washington's Farewell Address 1796

We already abandoned the “as little political connection as possible” with the world. To be really be “objective and neutral” we would have to withdraw from the United Nations and become isolationists. If that what you want, vote for Ron Paul.

PS. We probably should concentrate on Pakistan in this topic, it was my bad.

Shayah · 11-09-07, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

IMO, the US has no business going to war for Israel when the US is not threatened and it is not in the US's interest to do so. I have no problem with the US maintaining relations with Israel, and assisting Israel if she is attacked. But Israel is not a state of this union, and IMO not even among our closest allies. It is not, IMO, in the interest of the US to maintain a policy that is partisanly biases towards Israel and against Muslim states.

By mutual diplomatic agreement, Israel is indeed regarded officially as a "close ally" of the United States. This status is known as the Major non-NATO Ally (MNNA) designation. Currently, 14 nations are MNNA designees including Israel.
Major non-NATO ally - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

Hussein's payments to Palestinian survivors was distributed to all families whose members died fighting Israel, whether terrorist tactics were used or not. Suggesting it just went to terrorists' families is inaccurate.

An extensive overview of "The President Saddam Hussein Grant" is available here:
World: Iraq Insight on the News - Find Articles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

IMO we should support neither Palestine nor Isreal. We should be objective and neutral. IMO we should do what we can to broker a solution, but it is a huge mistake IMO to make that ancient problem our own.

The United States should support her close allies whenever and wherever possible. The benefits are mutual. The American government is sponsoring a Middle East Conference beginning 11.15.07 to initiate forward movement on Israeli/Palestinian settlement negotiations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

It was not Americans who moved to the ME in droves and set up a religious state in Judea or Palestine or whatever its called.

Your description of an ad-hoc emmigration of diaspora Jews is misleading. The United Nations created the State of Israel in 1946. It was explicitly and expressely intended by the international communuity to be a soverign Jewish nation in its historical, cultural, and religious homeland.

donsutherland1 · 11-09-07, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iriemon

IMO, the US has no business going to war for Israel when the US is not threatened and it is not in the US's interest to do so. I have no problem with the US maintaining relations with Israel, and assisting Israel if she is attacked. But Israel is not a state of this union, and IMO not even among our closest allies. It is not, IMO, in the interest of the US to maintain a policy that is partisanly biases towards Israel and against Muslim states... IMO we should support neither Palestine nor Isreal. We should be objective and neutral.

Iriemon,

I have to respectfully but strongly disagree with you. When it comes to relationships with major allies, there is no room for "neutrality." Israel is a key strategic ally in a vitally important but volatile region. Moreover, the depth of the bilateral relationship transcends diplomatic, economic, and security relationships. The cultural, economic, scientific/technical, academic, and security ties between the two countries and the Israeli and American peoples are mutually beneficial to all sides.

It is strongly in the national interest of the United States to support Israel (and I have little doubt that Israel would stand by the U.S. if the U.S. were ever to need Israel's cooperation or assistance). Indeed, if the U.S. were to downgrade its relationship with Israel, it would seriously damage its reputation for reliability, much as a U.S. disengagement from NATO would. Such a move would demoralize other American allies. Moreover, it would raise questions among other countries about the likelihood that the U.S. would keep its commitments. Far from promoting better ties with some of the region's Arab states, such a move by the U.S. would confirm the extremists' claims that the U.S. is morally challenged and untrustworthy.

All said, in my opinion, it would be extremely harmful to the U.S. national interest for the U.S. to weaken its relationship with Israel. Not surprisingly, even as Republicans and Democrats agree on very little at present, both sides maintain strong agreement on maintaining the U.S. relationship with Israel. In that case, national interests take precedence over partisan differences.

cascadian · 11-09-07, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shayah

Your description of an ad-hoc emmigration of diaspora Jews is misleading. The United Nations created the State of Israel in 1946. It was explicitly and expressely intended by the international communuity to be a soverign Jewish nation in its historical, cultural, and religious homeland.

The UN decision wouldn't have been reached without the previous influx of Jews moving there to set up a homeland of their own accord. I don't see how that would contradict or add much insight to his description. Although it might be wise to point out how instrumental the US was in helping to create Israel over British objections.

And by the international community, I'm sure you must mean the international community minus the surrounding Arab countries who were affected most.

I don't think there is much question whether Israel should be our ally. The point that many people make about Israel is that the tail is wagging the dog. We give them a free pass on their abuses and give them tons of aid. I think we could and should hold them more accountable.

This of course would not be enough for Al Qaeda and their ilk. There is nothing we can do to make them happy (short of DIAF). However, there are many steps that could be taken to reduce strife and improve conditions in the ME so that AQ gets fewer converts. One of them is holding Israel accountable.

Of course, our presence in Iraq isn't helping matters either.

donsutherland1 · 11-09-07, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cascadian

The UN decision wouldn't have been reached without the previous influx of Jews moving there to set up a homeland of their own accord.

The Jewish immigration to the region was legal. Moreover, a Jewish population had existed in the region throughout the time it was occupied by Rome, the Ottoman Empire, etc.

With respect to the legal immigration of Jewish people, in 1906, the Sultan of Turkey revoked the laws that previously had forbidden Jewish people from settling in the Palestine region (Source: "Palestine Open to Jews," The New York Times, July 3, 1906). In 1912, Turkey even began consideration of plans that would give each of the Palestine region's various ethnic groups, including the Jewish people living there, home rule over their own communities. Under the initiative, Jewish people were to be given autonomy over their local governments. (Source: "Jews Promised Autonomy," The New York Times, September 13, 1912).

Under the British Mandate, it remained legal for Jewish people to immigrate to the region until 1946.

Under the British White Paper of 1922 that governed the Palestine region, Jewish migration was encouraged. That law declared:

For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section of the present population of their employment.

Moreover, in 1922, the League of Nations ruled, "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate... The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in cooperation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes."

In 1930, the British passed a law that temporarily halted Jewish immigration and additional subsequent laws that same year that reinstated it.

Later, in 1939, annual Jewish immigration was to be restricted to 75,000 persons per year for the next five years, before being ended altogether. In no year was the limit reached, much less exceeded.

In any case, the United Nations' Partition Plan of 1947 (enacted under UN General Assembly Resolution 181) accommodated the core needs of both the Arab and Jewish peoples. Both peoples had historic ties to the land. Both had a shared right to self-determination. The partition plan was the only feasible means by which the conflicting interests between the two peoples could be accommodated to the greatest possible extent.

In rejecting proposed solutions that would have benefited either of the Palestine region's two peoples at the expense of the other, the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) explained:

Every practicable solution today, even the most extreme, is confronted with the actual fact that there are now in Palestine more than 1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews, who, by and large, are from different cultural milieux, and whose outlook, languages, religion and aspirations are separate.

The most simple solutions, naturally enough, are the extreme solutions, by which is meant those which completely reject or ignore, or virtually so, the claims and demands of one or another party, while recognizing in full the claims of the other. The Special Committee has rejected such solutions.

UNSCOP's reasoning for the partition plan was:

The basic premise underlying the partition proposal is that the claims to Palestine of the Arabs and Jews, both possessing validity, are irreconcilable, and that among all of the solutions advanced, partition will provide the most realistic and practicable settlement, and is the most likely to afford a workable basis for meeting in part the claims and national aspirations of both parties.

It is a fact that both of these peoples have their historic roots in Palestine, and that both make vital contributions to the economic and cultural life of the country. The partition solution takes these considerations fully into account.

The basic conflict in Palestine is a clash of two intense nationalisms... Only by means of partition can these conflicting national aspirations find substantial expression and qualify both peoples to take their places as independent nations in the international community and in the United Nations.

Quote:

We give them a free pass on their abuses and give them tons of aid. I think we could and should hold them more accountable.

During all sustained combat, some degree of accidents and even some abuses have occurred. However, it should be noted that Israel makes a good faith effort to uphold the humanitarian principles enshrined in the Laws of War. One should also note that during the combat in Lebanon, Hezbollah fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel. During the intifada, Palestinian suicide bombers deliberately attacked Israeli civilians, including women and children. In both cases, those attacks would properly constitute crimes against humanity. That distinction between accidents by Israel and deliberate harm inflicted on civilians by Hezbollah and the Palestinian terrorist groups is vitally important.

cascadian · 11-09-07, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

The Jewish immigration to the region was legal.

I never said it wasn't. Basically you just outlined the significant Jewish presence that existed before the resolution which was what I was talking about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

During all sustained combat, some degree of accidents and even some abuses have occurred. However, it should be noted that Israel makes a good faith effort to uphold the humanitarian principles enshrined in the Laws of War.

I have found their "good faith" to be spotty at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by donsutherland1

One should also note that during the combat in Lebanon, Hezbollah fired rockets indiscriminately into Israel.

Well, if my country was providing aid and assistance to Hezbollah, I would be pushing to hold Hezbollah accountable. I actually haven't noticed anything objectionable about US policy towards Hezbollah per se.

donsutherland1 · 11-09-07, 08:37 PM

Cascadian,

I'm sorry that I misunderstood your position on the Jewish immigration. At some other message boards, I have seen incorrect commentary that the Jewish people who moved to the region were "illegal immigrants." Even when confronted with the actual legal information, they preferred to hold to their baseless claims rather than to accept the evidence and make the necessary corrections to reflect the facts. I just wanted to be sure that the legality of the immigration was clear. Again, I apologize for misunderstanding your point.

I believe Israel has made a real effort to try to avert harm to civilians. Indeed, this concern is what has led to a suspension of efforts to impose fuel and electricity restrictions on the Gaza Strip even as terrorist groups from within the Gaza Strip continue to fire rockets indiscriminately into Israel. The security fence was also an effort aimed at protecting Israeli civilians while avoiding the need for continuing military operations into the West Bank to combat terrorist entities. Clearly, the security fence imposes a level of inconvenience. However, saving lives (both of one's own people and civilians on the other side who might be exposed to harm in military operations) takes precedence over inconvenience.