Matthew Yglesias » Don’t Know Much About Pakistan

Sep 12th, 2008 at 1:42 am

Don’t Know Much About Pakistan

Sarah Palin is clearly an intelligent woman who’s capable of learning the talking points on the major issues of the day. But in the extended remix version of the interview that they showed on Nightline she strayed a bit afield from the usual campaign topics and betrayed a serious lack of understanding of the strategic dynamics in the ’stans:

GIBSON: But governor, I’m asking you, if you don’t have approval. We said the same thing about Musharraf. We said we needed his approval and we concede just the fact that we’ve got al Qaeda reconstituted in the Waziristan area making cross-border raids into Afghanistan. Do we need his approval or can we simply go in and go after them?

PALIN: This brings us right back to how important it is to win in Afghanistan, to make sure that the terrorist groups are not growing there. We can’t afford to lose in Iraq and we can’t afford to lose in Afghanistan. And we’re going to have to implement in Afghanistan a lot of the same successes, a lot of that surge solution that have been implemented and proven — proven to be successful in Iraq.

Basically, she thinks there are problems in Pakistan because we haven’t yet achieved total success in Afghanistan. “Win” in Afghanistan and our Pakistan problems goes away. In fact, the problem runs in the other direction — the existence of safe harbors in Pakistan is a huge problem for our efforts in Afghanistan. Anyone who’s actually been paying attention to the situation could tell you that. But instead we see from the McCain-Palin campaign basically warmed-over ideas recycled from their Iraq rhetoric and being applied in a way that demonstrates no understanding of the specific situation.

Comments
33

Filed under: Afghanistan, Pakistan,

33 Responses to “Don’t Know Much About Pakistan”

Seitz Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Umm, she can’t even give a competent description of the Bush doctrine. And I’m not talking about encyclopedic knowledge. She could have given one of 15 different answers that would have satisfactorily described the Bush doctrine and answered the question. Anyone who posts on any number of liberal and conservative blogs could have answered that question. And she had no fucking clue. And her whole damn staff is made up of Bush’s people!

So with that in mind, what on earth makes you think she has any idea about the dynamics of what’s going on in Afghanistan?
Keith Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:04 am
I’m pretty confident that an average commentator at a progressive blog could have knock this one out of the park. She’s DEFINITELY not ready for prime time. Someone needs to ask McCain just what was talked about during his interview and vetting process.
sven Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:06 am
I know interviews have always been trimmed to fit the time constraints imposed by television but we seem to have crossed a line somewhere. This year CBS has already broadcast interviews in which the answer shown was not to the question asked. The Gibson-Palin interview included so many choppy cuts that it is difficult to tell what the actual conversation really looked like.

Much of what is important in this interview with Palin is in observing her thought process. To what extent is she able to formulate her own answers and how reliant is she on scripted replies? Her brain is being stuffed with facts but does she understand how those parts fit together? The short clips of her answers we have been shown don’t provide any of that subtle information.
John B. Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:26 am
Sven,
You said, Much of what is important in this interview with Palin is in observing her thought process. To what extent is she able to formulate her own answers and how reliant is she on scripted replies? Her brain is being stuffed with facts but does she understand how those parts fit together? The short clips of her answers we have been shown don’t provide any of that subtle information.

Exactly–but not in the sense you’re getting at. What’s at issue is not whether Palin is a quick study or is able to synthesize information. What’s at issue is that it’s just kind of sort of assumed that people running for national office have some prior, preferably lengthy, background in at least reading about and thinking about current foreign and domestic policy issues. I’d hope that such candidates not have to have their brains stuffed with facts before deciding to run, some prior, rather substantial stuffing having already taken place.

It’s painfully obvious, especially in the “Bush Doctrine” clip, that Palin, before two weeks ago, simply hadn’t known about, much less thought seriously about, the things asked of her in that interview. I don’t feel entirely sorry for her because she agreed, apparently without hesitation, that she was up for the role McCain has chosen her for; but the fact that McCain chose her, a person barely known to him in the first place, is breathtaking in its arrogance/ignorance/cynicism/short-sightedness.
John B. Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:28 am
I’d hope that such candidates not have to have their brains stuffed with facts before deciding to run, some prior, rather substantial stuffing having already taken place.

Errrrr, change “before” to “after”
pseudonymous in nc Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:38 am
we’re going to have to implement in Afghanistan a lot of the same successes, a lot of that surge solution that have been implemented and proven — proven to be successful in Iraq.

Yes, a strategy that was based upon locking down large urban areas that had already gone through sectarian ‘cleansing’ is an ideal template for dealing with
this terrain. She’d have been better promoting her airborne wolf-shooting strategy, implemented and proven in Alaska, and I’m only half fucking kidding.

That’s what cramming with Randy Scheunemann and Steve Schmidt gets you. Holy shit. And I’m sure Stephen Harper doesn’t like campaigning with that echoing from the other side of the border.
Dr. Doctrine Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 2:39 am
“Sarah Palin is clearly an intelligent woman who’s capable of learning the talking points on the major issues of the day.”

You’ve based this upon what exactly?
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:23 am
Matt bases it on his personal experience being “an intelligent guy” who basically knows nothing but is capable of “learning the talking points on the major issues of the day.”

Which is why he continues to babble on about Pakistan and Afghanistan as if he had a clue. He’s right about Palin not understanding the situation, but I’m not convinced Matt understands the situation significantly better than Palin.

Here’s a guy who gets it:

INTERVIEW-Afghans won’t tolerate more civilian deaths in raids
http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=338032

Money Quotes:

Afghans are seething with anger over a spate of civilian deaths in air strikes mounted by U.S.-led coalition forces, a top Afghan defence official said on Wednesday, calling for greater involvement of the Afghan army in operations.

Major-General Zaher Azimi said there was no military justification for an air strike in western Herat last month in which the government says more than 90 people, most of them women and children, were killed, a figure backed by the United Nations.

“It is difficult for the Afghan people to tolerate any more. Civilian casualties happen in war, but they are now so much on the rise,” said Azimi, a former mujahideen commander and now an adviser and spokesman at the Afghan defence ministry.

The U.S. military, which plans to reinvestigate the Aug. 22 bombing in Herat’s Shindand district, says the air strike was called after coalition and Afghan army forces came under intense fire during an operation against suspected Taliban militants in the area.

It said 30 to 35 militants were killed in the raid.

But Azimi said the operation was flawed from the beginning because it was launched on the basis of intelligence input that was not coordinated with the Afghan National Army.

“If they had coordinated with the Afghan troops it wouldn’t have ended up in an air strike,” he said. “I mean, what justification is there to kill 100 people because 10 rounds were fired at you?”

He said coalition and Afghan troops could have surrounded the village and forced out the Taliban if they were there. “There wasn’t really any immediate need for bombardment.”

Notice that line: “what justification is there to kill 100 people because 10 rounds were fired at you?” This guy gets what the entire US and NATO military do not seem to get – namely, that is NOT the way to conduct a COIN operation.
John Henry Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 4:46 am
Here’s her thought process on this one: Pakistan sounds like Afghanistan. Use answer for Afghanistan. She does not answer the question. I’d like to know what publications she reads to follow international issues? Can you really cram to be VP in 60 days? I guess we are going to find out.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 5:16 am
And here’s the reality in Pakistan:

Army ordered to hit back
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=17190

The Pakistan Army has been ordered to retaliate against any action by foreign troops inside the country, Geo News quoted ISPR spokesman Maj Gen Athar Abbas as saying on Thursday night.

Shakil Shaikh adds from Islamabad: Pakistan’s military commanders resolved to defend the country’s borders without allowing any external forces to conduct operations inside Pakistan.

The military commanders expressed this resolve on the first day of the two-day Corps Commanders conference, which began here on Thursday at the General Headquarters. Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani chaired the all-important conference against the backdrop of the new strategic developments taking place in the region.

General Kayani has already rebuffed the American policy of including Pakistani territory in their operations against terrorists and those hiding in the areas bordering Afghanistan. Reports say that the US President Bush has allowed air raids from drones and ground operations in Pakistani areas including FATA.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has termed General Kayani’s response to the Americans as a true reflection of the government’s policy. The military commanders are understood to have discussed the implications of the American attacks inside Pakistan and took stock of the public feeling.

“In his statement, Genral Kayani has represented the feeling of the entire nation, as random attacks inside Pakistan have angered each and every Pakistani,” said a senior official. As the corps commanders continue their discussion on Friday, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has supported the Bush administration’s policy of conducting attacks inside Pakistan.

President Zardari is expected to talk to Mr. Brown on this issue during his first visit to Britain next week. Pakistan’s Ambassador to the US, Hussain Haqqani, is also learnt to have already talked to senior security officials in Washington. The latest spate of attacks from drones in Fata has killed many innocent people recently, which has only added to the gravity and complexity of the situation.

NATO Won’t Participate in US Strikes in Pakistan
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/09/11/nato-wont-participate-in-us-strikes-in-pakistan/

Yesterday, Admiral Mullen announce his new “comprehensive strategy” for the war in Afghanistan, the centerpiece of which is ratcheting up attacks in neighboring Pakistan. The American intelligence community has warned the administration against such attacks, saying they were destabilizing a nation perceived as a key ally in the broader war.

This strategy, typified by last week’s attack on a South Waziristan village by US helicopters and ground troops, was rebuffed by Pakistan’s military. Chief of Army Staff General Parvez Kayani declared yesterday that foreign troops would no longer be allowed to conduct missions on Pakistani soil, citing the rules of engagement which do not permit coalition forces to operate inside of Pakistan. Now, the American plan faces another obstacle in NATO.

During a news briefing, NATO spokesman James Appathurai agreed with Pakistan that NATO’s mandate ends at the Afghan border, and insisted that NATO forces would not take part in “ground or air incursions” into Pakistan. Despite NATO’s seeming disinterest in participating in such operations, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has promised to press newly elected Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to allow NATO forces to enter the country.

The long mountainous border between Afghanistan and Pakistan has long been a contentious issue for the United States, with many calling for American troops to hunt down militants in the largely lawless border region. But US strikes such as the one in June which killed 11 Pakistani soldiers have sown resentment among Pakistan’s populace, and created tensions with Pakistan’s fledgling government, who have launched several high profile military raids into border regions which have killed hundreds of militants and displaced hundreds of thousands of civilians.
bgansel9 Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Can you really cram to be VP in 60 days?

You know, the fact that we even have to ask this question is ludicrous. When was the last time a VP pick was this unprepared? Anyone? I’m thinking this is a first.

As a woman, I’m quite perplexed that she seems to gather support from women who don’t care if she’s knowledgeable, just that she’s got American Idol star power.

Since the deciding factor seems to be whether biblical stories trump facts in this election, I have decided to go with it: Sarah Palin = the woman who rides the beast.
Jeffrey Davis Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:00 am
McCain Vetting Process:

-Are there any bodies in your basement?
-We don’t have a basement.
-Good answer. OK, one last question before we wrap things up.
-Shoot.
[both laugh]
-Are those things real?
[both laugh]
DTM Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 8:29 am
Aside from agreeing with the obvious conclusion that Palin knows very little about key national security issues and has proven unable to fake it, I also wonder if there was a bit of deliberate vagueness in Palin’s talking points on Pakistan (assuming they had time to give her any). As many have noted, McCain has tried to bash Obama in the past for having conventional views about when we would strike targets in Pakistan, views McCain likely in truth shares. So, maybe Palin’s vagueness on these issues was designed to either preserve their ability to do that again, or at least not raise charges of hypocrisy for McCain’s past attempts to bash Obama.

But of course the perfectly viable alternative explanation is that they didn’t have time to prep her with good talking points on Pakistan, or they tried but she forgot, or so forth. So it might not be calculated vagueness, but just real confusion.
joe Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Actually, in the GOP mindview, if we win in Afghanistan the problems DO go away in Pakistan. If we win in Afghanistan then we can leave and then we don’t care what happens in Pakistan until they discover oil.
charlotte Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:27 am
“Palin is clearly an intelligent woman …”

Matt, please do not bogart the joint. WTH? Here’s what’s clear to this old broad … Sarah’s got a great hair and make-up team and is dumb as a freaking doorknob. And, oh yeah, she did not find it at all unusual, evah, to have McCain ask her to save his sorry ass campaign with her ridiculous schtick of a bio.

Because you’ve gotta be ready, baby, to, you know, lead … “Also …”

Forget about war with Russia, once known as the Soviet Union evidently. We may end up with hand-to-hand combat right here in The Homeland … You know, US Americans who just cannot agree. And need maps.
Andrew Fly Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Sadly, besides me, MY and the other 15 commenters on this entry, no one really cares about this. It won’t swing a single voter away from McCain/Palin. Now, how Biden rebuts this kind of nonsensical non-answer in the one VP debate might have an effect.
Njorl Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Sarah Palin is almost certainly of (modestly) above average intelligence. While she is not smarter than most of the people we observe, that’s because most people in the public spotlight are, or are trained to appear, smarter than average. Compared to them, she doesn’t seem that bright. Calling her stupid is probably not a winning strategy. Most people view themselves as being as intelligent as someone a little smarter than themselves. When Palin is called stupid, a large swathe of the population hear themselves called stupid.

It is better to give her the credit implied by calling her reckless, foolish, ignorant, intolerant etc.
Njorl Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Sadly, besides me, MY and the other 15 commenters on this entry, no one really cares about this.

Maybe it’s time for another “daisey” ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg

I think a clever youtube amateur could get something like clips of that Palin interview spliced into the old daisey ad to catch on.
Njorl Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Oops, wrong thread with that comment above.
Bill Lumbergh Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 10:08 am
She has been drilled on the approved republican talking points and has been told which talking points are to be recited based on what key words come out of Mr. Gibson’s mouth. I guess when she hears “Afghanistan” or “Pakistan,” she is supposed to talk about the importance of victory.
kth Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:04 am
When was the last time a VP pick was this unprepared? Anyone? I’m thinking this is a first.

In all fairness, Spiro Agnew and Dan Quayle would probably not have done much better. And though the first Bush was obviously in good health and in no danger of impeachment, Agnew would have been president had he not been rotten in addition to being an idiot. Frightening to contemplate.
Curtis Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Dan Quayle wasn’t nearly this bad. He was a bumbler, and prone to make mistakes in the moment. But he had served in Congress for over a decade and was at least conversant on the major foreign policy experiences of the time. Palin, for all of her talent and ambition and skills, make Quayle look like Benjamin Franklin.
Dave Phillips Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:19 am
“Don’t know much about Pakistan,
Don’t know much about Afghanistan,
Don’t know much about a nuclear Iran,
Don’t know much about the Bush program.
But I do know that you just can’t blink,
And I really didn’t need to think,
About being Veep of this land.”

It would be funny, if the prospect weren’t so alarming.
Corvus Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 11:47 am
I don’t think she was even trying to formulate a coherent response that addressed the question. She just hit the grace notes “win,” “lose,” and “success” and blocked out some “blah, blah, blah” chords.
Alpha Female Says:
September 12th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
I am SO glad you posted this – my jaw dropped when I heard this on Nightline but the next day when I went to show the online video to people, this answer had been edited out. That’s insane! To me this was far more revealing of her ignorance than the Bush Doctrine gaffe.
viagra Says:
March 11th, 2009 at 4:53 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
xanax Says:
March 14th, 2009 at 5:36 am
Great site. Good info
xanax
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:24 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
buy viagra online Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
buy cheap viagra
viagra brand Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:20 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
dqamrnkypt Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 8:53 am
tDwb3g nggytpxiylih, [url=http://rdchgwdsqjdl.com/]rdchgwdsqjdl[/url], [link=http://qvavevqxxtoh.com/]qvavevqxxtoh[/link], http://qeoieqfzaxnt.com/
Ativan Says:
April 20th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Nise site., Buy Hoodia, 663, Ambien, D, Clonazepam, kgdf, Ambien, 398, Alprazolam, 257,

Matt Yglesias

Don’t Know Much About Pakistan

33 Responses to “Don’t Know Much About Pakistan”

Blogroll