Pakistan and “Strategic Rents”
This great Peter Juul post on Pakistan at the Wonk Room points me to this fascinating Newsweek article from January 2008 which introduces me to the concept of “strategic rents.” I think it’s a great way of thinking about some of the pathologies afflicting the US-Pakistan relationship. They argue that much as you tend to see a “resource curse” in areas where politics becomes about trying to control the rents from oil wells or diamond mines, that in Pakistan you see an analogous problem of strategic rents:
Rents paid for natural resources are bad enough. But “strategic rents”—earned by a country for its role in the foreign policies of other states—are even more damaging. Military aid by definition entrenches the militaries that get it, making them less responsive to civilian control. Pakistan’s military has grown enormously powerful over the years, resistant to democratic checks and highly entrenched in every aspect of the country’s commercial, civil and political life. From banking to insurance, cereals to cinnamon, the military’s presence and influence can be felt everywhere. Strategic rents have also helped radicalize Pakistan, since some of the Saudi aid money for jihad in Afghanistan has gone instead to fund extremist madrassas in Pakistan itself.
Strategic rents are also susceptible to manipulation. Gen. Pervez Musharraf, for example, has consistently avoided foreign criticism and kept the money coming by arguing, essentially, that while he may be imperfect, the alternative—the Islamists—is far worse. To support this case, Pakistan’s leaders have resorted to trickery at times. For example, according to the Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, prior to last year’s confrontation at the Islamabad Red Mosque, the government stood by idly as militants poured into the compound—though it could have easily flushed them out in the early days—in order to highlight the Islamic “threat” Pakistan supposedly faced, and the need for more aid.
I was at off-the-record event with various knowledgeable players last week when some related issues came up. The point one speaker was making is that it just doesn’t seem to be the case that the Pakistani elite sees the region the way we do. And the hard question for policymakers is whether they really think they have any way of getting Pakistani elites to change their mind about this. As Peter writes:
We (the principal) are counting on the Pakistani government (the agent) to accomplish something in our interests, while the Pakistani government has its own conception of its interests and strategic objectives. This problem leads to the Pakistani government using our military aid to further its own strategic objectives. Hopefully, the refocus on civilian development and governance assistance will more directly address the problems that allow militancy to flourish in Pakistan. But unless the Pakistani government decides that militancy is a threat to the state itself and acts accordingly, our civilian aid won’t have the impact it could.
I think that part of this is that not only do we need clever ideas, but we need to show some willingness to walk away. As long as the Pakistani security establishment thinks we’ll never walk away, then any kind of conditions we try to impose on our aid just become a challenge to try to get around. There needs to be some kind of sense that we might get really fed up and take our toys home. At the same time, there needs to be some sense among the general public that we’re genuinely interested in improving their lives and not just in trying to buy permission to launch air strikes.
38 Responses to “Pakistan and “Strategic Rents””
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
April 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
In order to be willing to walk away, we also need to consider the possibility that Pakistani elites may actually have a more realistic assessment of threats in this region than we do.
Al Qaeda and the Taliban are, and always have been, penny-ante players. The fact that they managed to bring down a famous office building in New York has blinded us to basic issues of scale. The possibility of a Pakistan-India conflict has been, is, and will continue to be, a much bigger deal.
Honestly I think Am. policy makers know this. We continue to be obsessed with Al Qaeda not for strategic reasons, but for reasons of domestic politics.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Wow. That’s a great take on the Pakistan situation. And your advice that we need to be willing to walk away is spot on. As is Ted’s assessment above. To build on Ted’s take, I’ll add that our ability to assess any foreign situation is always clouded by our arrogance. We Americans have this idea that everyone in the world would want to be like us if they just knew us better. And that is very far from the truth. But that belief is held widely enough that it affects our ability to properly assess regional conflicts. We just don’t understand which issues are important and which are not. Like it or not, we need local allies to help us with that. But those allies also have their own agendas, and we really need to be aware of that. It’s a tricky game and we’ll probably never get it right. The British had a few hundred years to get it right, and they never did.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pm
Re: Al Qaeda and the Taliban are, and always have been, penny-ante players.
Yes, Ted. Clearly, when Al Qaeda talks about reconquering all lands which were once Muslim ruled, from Timor to Granada, they are just having a bit of fun. Just being ironic hipsters, don’t you know. Not to be taken seriously.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
That threat to walk away
The threat would have to include leaving Afghanistan, since the supply routes for the NATO forces in that country pass through Pakistan, and the security of these routes is something we absolutely have to assure if we are to maintain forces in Afghanistan. Until and unless we decide to end our military adventure in Afghanistan, we need the Pakistani military a whole lot more than they need us, and we will have no leverage over them.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
If I know my game theory, and I don’t, it’s obvious that we need to team up with the Taliban against the government of Pakistan.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Hector demostrates clearly why “right-wing thinker” is an oxymoron. Come on class, can we find someone who can point Hector to the answer as to why talking is different than doing? Perhaps there is even one person who remembers Baghdad Bob, how he talked about crushing the American military, and what came of that. Or any of the hundreds of thousands of other examples from everyday life.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Hector, you need to recognize that their bark is much bigger than their bite. Look, you are smart enough to realize that when a seven year boy says he wants to conquer the world, that doesn’t make him the world’s biggest threat. People can make all the threats they want, but if they can’t carry them out, those threats aren’t real. Al Qaeda can’t carry out the threats they make. And when you take those threats seriously, you are simply falling into their trap. Al Qeada wants you to believe that they are far more powerful than they are. And you have bought into it because of your irrational fears of Islam. Islam can only conquer the world’s people if it is a superior religion to all others. You seem to have conceded that it is superior to yours. If you hadn’t, you wouldn’t feel threatened.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
It seems that executive bonuses for bankers and the TARP bailout generally can also be discussed the same way.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
when Al Qaeda talks about reconquering all lands which were once Muslim ruled, from Timor to Granada, they are just having a bit of fun.
That’s about as likely as Sir Hector the Anachronistic riding victoriously into Jerusalem on a white stallion.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Re: Look, you are smart enough to realize that when a seven year boy says he wants to conquer the world, that doesn’t make him the world’s biggest threat.
Fostert,
No one took Hitler seriously when he said, as a rootless teenager wandering the streets of Munich, that he would like to kill a lot of Jews. Perhaps the world would be better off if we had paid more attention to him then.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
The strategic rent concept is interesting, but I think somewhat overblown. The Newsweek article fails to put the level of aid in the context of Pakistani GDP, which the Wikipedia puts at about $500b (ppp) in 2008. So $2b a year of US aid is south of 1% of GDP – hardly comparable to the levels that oil contributes to GDP in OPEC countries.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
Re: That’s about as likely as Sir Hector the Anachronistic riding victoriously into Jerusalem on a white stallion.
Pseudonymous,
No, that’s Jesus’ job, not mine. Anyway if we are going to talk about reconquering cities I think Constantinople would be a better first choice than Jerusalem.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Hector, why are you outsourcing your fantasy work to the hispanics?
April 16th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
“No one took Hitler seriously when he said, as a rootless teenager wandering the streets of Munich, that he would like to kill a lot of Jews.”
Nobody had to. We should have taken Hitler seriously when he controlled the world’s most powerful army and was saying the same things. And we didn’t until he started invading countries. Even then, some Americans, like Prescott Bush, were actively supporting Hitler. But the analogy is absurd. Al Qaeda will never have a military force comparable to even Mussolini. And their ideas will never be as popular as Hitler’s. Let’s face it, most Muslims are appalled by Al Qaeda’s worldview, and I’m sure Christians are even more appalled by it. They will never rise above being a nuisance. A very dangerous nuisance, for sure. But not any kind of existential threat by any stretch of our imagination. Well, maybe yours. But you seem to have quite the imagination.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
“Anyway if we are going to talk about reconquering cities I think Constantinople would be a better first choice than Jerusalem.”
Okay, you’ve now fallen into Randall Terry’s realm of delusion. And you really don’t want to be there if you want people to take you seriously. Istanbul is a fabulous city and the Turks can mange it quite well. The last thing we need is for it to run by Christian fanatics. Istanbul is a modern cosmopolitan city that is truly world class. It is the jewel of the Muslim world. And it is my second favorite city (behind Bangkok). I’d hate to see it fall into the hands of religious fanatics.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Actually, Constantinople remains a holy city for Eastern Orthodox Christians, and many of them actually do want it back. You might, for example, want to read Zorba the Greek ( the movie won’t do ), where Zorba makes frequent references to “our capital.” He does not thereby mean Athens.
I’m hardly advocating a reconquista of the Anatolian peninsula or anything like that; but you seem to be saying that what is the Muslim’s is there’s while what is the Christian’s is negotiable. That’s hardly the basis for an accord. By the same logic, the Jews have and shall have all right to Jerusalem just because they happen to be sitting fat and happy on top of it right now.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
Sounds as if “strategic rents” is a new phrase for “realpolitic.” It has the advantage of moving us away from Kissinger. It also reminds that economics is a comparable political tool, but fails to include diplomacy and social agents as part of the foreign policy mix. Even contemporary thought has moved beyond this point, e.g., Zakaria. However, the concept is useful in opening foreign policy conversations to high school, college, and newspaper discussants.
As for “walking away,” it doesn’t even work as a tactic. Have you ever sloughed through a field where the muck sucked off your boots at almost every step? A short walk becomes an hour trek during which frustration’s only outlet is pithy language, pleas to God, or abject failure. (After eight, overnight, winter hours, a helicopter finally spotted this barefoot, ten-year-old boy crawling toward higher ground.) We Americans, Obama, AfPak, India, and China among others are truly stuck in a toxic morass.
Have you read the Ignatius op-ed in today’s Washington Post? It was news, not opinion. That the Obama administration has committed and augmented the attention, resources, brainpower, and experience to this volatile region remains our best chance for stability. While muddy, we have seen significant cooperation and understanding of common interests in just a few months.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“but you seem to be saying that what is the Muslim’s is there’s while what is the Christian’s is negotiable.”
I’m not. What I’m saying is that people should keep the lands they have and not expect any more land. I have never advocated that Muslims take control of Rome. Rome is for the Catholics and they can have it. It would be nice if they could learn the concepts of modern plumbing, but maybe Joe the Plumber can help out there. But Istanbul is not Christian, so the Christians have no right to take over a city that is not theirs. It hasn’t been theirs for a very long time. As for Jerusalem, the Jews can have every part of it but East Jerusalem. This comes down to a basic concept: people should stay on the lands that they already hold. They should not try to conquer other people’s land. Obviously, who holds what now is a result of previous wars. But it’s time to stop the wars and be happy with what we have. It may not be perfect, but it’s better than war.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
“Actually, Constantinople remains a holy city for Eastern Orthodox Christians”
And then there’s this “Constantinople” crap. The name of the city is Istanbul. Get over it. The very fact that you refer to it as Constantinople means that you really do have every intent of conquering the city through war and slaughtering its residents. Only a Christian fanatic hellbent on a New Crusade would refer to that city as “Constantinople.” Which is really quite rich. Constantine was the guy who turned a good religion into a propaganda mechanism to empower the Roman Empire. And he forcibly converted everyone to Christianity, against the explicit teaching of Jesus that nobody should ever be forcibly converted. We really shouldn’t call the religion “Christianity,” we should call it “Constantinism,” because that is what it has become.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Reading the diversionary interplay between Kinder and fostert brings to mind the word intractible – as a way to refocus on the current Afghan-Pakistan-India-Terristan problem in reference to the concept of primary interests, i.e., their’s are probably not ours.
The simple name of a place, whether Constantinople or Istanbul, whether Jerusalem or East Jerusalem, or the many names slicing Kashmire, become cause celebre. Sometimes a name carries the weight of generations, and intractible positions.
In Iraq, before our incursion, there was a workable understanding that different beliefs could coexist. It wasn’t polite or fair, but people lived in a time where time itself provided surety, relief, and a projective future. Over time the Iraquis would have superceded Saddahm, his sons, and Baathist control. We are just too impatient, greedy, arrogant, and easily manipulated.
This is why the “step away” position works. But it isn’t pretty and, given our involvement, is probably immoral (unless you are an evangelical looking forward to a neat 10,000 year timeline and glory).
We would get our oil and our oil companies would still prosper. We would bring the boys (and girls and gays) home. The Middle Eastern religious sects could contend between living in the past or using their enlightened past in the real world. (We call this the present.)
It would make it much, much easier to find nuclear weapons — and probably ruin Adu Dubhai. Were I a Nihlist, a lot of problems would be solved, including global warming, over population, the Two-State Solution, and New York City. We will still have insect (bedbug) and disease problems, but I’ll be living on a warm, sandy beach in Antarctica watching gigs of movies and the last remaining public television station, from Iceland.
I would guess we cannot walk away…
April 16th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
In foreign policy generally, America needs to do a lot more actually walking away in addition to threatening to do so. Regimes which are supported by foreigners are almost invariably hated by the natives. They also almost invariably fall before too long, and get replaced by a new government which predictably hates the foreign supporters of the previous government.
It’s especially important not to let this pattern happen in Pakistan, as that could produce something like early 80s Iran except with nukes. We would be far better served to distance ourselves from the current corrupt overlords of Pakistan as quickly as possible; it might actually increase their odds of survival (and while they might step up their anti-American rhetoric, they’re unlikely to seriously turn on us), and if they do fall it would make it much easier to deal with the next bunch.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Actually, I was simply trying to be literary.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Nice piece, Bob Johnson. But this makes no sense:
“The simple name of a place, whether Constantinople or Istanbul, whether Jerusalem or East Jerusalem”
The name of Istanbul or Constantinople is really just a name. The names have undercurrent meanings that are very real, but they are still just names. But in the case of Jerusalem, we are talking about real locations. East Jerusalem is a real section of Jerusalem that has been inhabited by Arabs for many centuries. And yes, it’s true that the rest of Jerusalem was also inhabited by Arabs for many centuries. But it’s not now. East Jerusalem is still inhabited by Muslim Arabs, and it should stay that way. This isn’t an issue of names, it is an issue of whether the Muslim Arabs can live where their families have lived for centuries. And the Bible shouldn’t trump that. It’s just a book, after all.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:39 pm
“Actually, I was simply trying to be literary.”
Literary? Have you looked at a map produced in the last fifty years? If you were being literary, you’d call it by the name that every map in recent history calls it: Istanbul. Really, I can’t figure out how you would look at a word like ‘Istanbul’ and come up with ‘Constantinople.’ ‘Constantinople’ isn’t exactly the first random word that comes to mind when I’d want to replace a word with another word. The only reason you’d look at a map and read ‘Istanbul’ as ‘Constantinople’ is that you want to rename the city for the purpose of promoting Christianity.
It’s just a name, and Mehmet II knew that very well, which is why he didn’t bother to change it. And I wouldn’t bother to change it either. But it has been changed, and it was changed before you were born. You can’t fall back on the “well, that’s what it was called when I was young” excuse. If you are saying ‘Constantinople,’ you are doing it deliberately and you should understand what that means to the eleven million people that live in Istanbul. To them, it means one thing: a New Crusade. And they don’t really like that kind of talk.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Re: If you are saying ‘Constantinople,’ you are doing it deliberately and you should understand what that means to the eleven million people that live in Istanbul. To them, it means one thing: a New Crusade. And they don’t really like that kind of talk.
I don’t give a f*ck what they like or don’t like. Part of the reason I choose to call it Constantinople is to let those eleven million people realize that they stole the city from its rightful owners, that their feelings count for very little in the court of morality, and that I think Christianity is better than Islam. The Patriarch of Constantinople doesn’t call himself the Patriarch of bloody “Istanbul”, and neither do I. If it hurts the feelings of politically correct Islamophiles, then I say too f*cking bad.
To call it ‘Istanbul’ is to kow-tow to the Turks and to legitimize the Turkish conquest, which i choose not to do. I don’t advocate a war to restore it, certainly not. But _by rights_ Constantinople is a Greek Christian city, now and forever.
April 16th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
But what’s in a name? Shakespeare asked us to ask that of ourselves. But here’s a funny thing: I referred to the city of ‘Bangkok,’ and nobody called me on it. There is no city called ‘Bangkok,’ the real name is Krum Thep. I call it Krum Thep when I’m in Thailand, but I can’t call it that anywhere else. Nobody would know what I’m talking about. But its okay because the Thai don’t really care what you call that city. But the people of Istanbul really do care. And ‘Constantinople’ is synonymous with “foreign invasion” there.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Likewise, I refuse to call Bombay ‘Mumbai’, and I would advocate that more Americans do the same and refuse to indulge political correctness. I have no need to pander to the whims of Hindu fundamentalist state government that changed the city’s name. “Mumbai”, indeed.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“I don’t give a f*ck what they like or don’t like.”
No, you don’t. And that’s why your an asshole. And if you want to talk about who owns what based upon previous ownership, fine. Let’s roll the clock back 2100 years. Back then, Christians didn’t own anything. They didn’t even exist. That would mean that Christians don’t deserve any of the countries they control now. Want to go for that? Didn’t think so. So let’s go with the concept that everyone keeps what they have. As I said, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than war. You obviously believe that Christians have some God-given right to slaughter us non-Christians and take our land. But as you surely understand, I don’t buy into it. And when your Christian soldiers come to my door, they’ll face one pissed off non-Christian with a fully automatic AK-47 and enough rounds to make Muhammed blush. I’m a peaceful man, but if you take your Christian Jihad to my door, well, I won’t be so peaceful. I won’t like cleaning your blood off my porch, but I’ll do it if I have to.
But there’s a real solution here. Let everyone have their land and have their own beliefs. We can get along with each other. Hell, I have no problem with my Sikh neighbor, and I have no problem with the Christians that surround all of us. But if you decide that you can’t just let us be, then I have to decide that I can’t let you just be. I’ve waved the flag of peace my whole life. It’s too bad that nobody has seen it.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
“Likewise, I refuse to call Bombay ‘Mumbai’,”
I’m with Hector on his opposition to the BJP. But Mumbai is what it was called before the British took over. I’m really surprised that Hector has come out in support of Colonial Imperialism. It doesn’t really follow Hector’s Communist inclinations. But he’s apparently willing to give Colonial Imperialism a pass when those Colonial Imperialists are Christians. Constantine would be proud of Hector. Hector really wants the Global Christian Jihad to happen. And I’ll be a proud and well armed fighter against him.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
Re: I’m really surprised that Hector has come out in support of Colonial Imperialism. It doesn’t really follow Hector’s Communist inclinations.
1) I’m not a Communist.
2) Actually, Karl Marx supported British colonialism in India.
3) British colonialism in India had many terrible results, most notably economic stagnation. But it had good effects, as well. Most importantly it broke the power of oppressive social structures and of the tyranny of high castes over low castes, landowners over peasants, Muslims over Hindus and men over women. If we assume that someone like Nehru was the best possible thing for India in the mid-20th century, then one must ask whether a Nehru would have been possible if there had not first been a Clive.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
“and that I think Christianity is better than Islam”
Really? So why are you so afraid of Islam? If your religion was obviously superior to Islam, and if Jesus would defend your religion, then what’s to be afraid of? Do you think that Jesus is too weak to defend your religion, or do you question whether he exists? Or do you have uncertainties about the truth of your religion? Do you fear that people might decide that Islam is the true religion of Abraham? What’s up?
For me, it is simple. None of the Abrahamic religions have much value. Buddhism will always survive. It doesn’t need a power structure to do so. Christians, Muslims, and Hindus will always try to destroy us. But they only destroy themselves in the process. In order to conquer us, they have to go against their prophets who said that forcible conversion is wrong. And their missionaries try to get around that by giving ice cream to our children on Sunday. How does that work? Well, children in Asia think that the Standing Meditating Buddha gives ice cream to them. Because Sunday is the day of the Standing Meditating Buddha in Theraveda cultures. We’ll take your money and books and ice cream, and we’ll laugh at you. The only thing we ask is that you keep your intra-Abrahamic fights to yourselves. I’d prefer that Muslims and Christians don’t fight each other (humans get killed, after all), but if you guys can keep it to yourselves, I’ll watch from the sidelines. But if you come after me, I’ll come after you.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:54 pm
“I’m not a Communist.”
Fair enough, but your Socialist inclinations are strong, and you combine it with a disdain for democracy. I’m willing to concede that you aren’t a Communist, but what the hell are you?
“But it had good effects, as well. Most importantly it broke the power of oppressive social structures and of the tyranny of high castes over low castes, landowners over peasants, Muslims over Hindus and men over women.”
You obviously have never been to India. If you had, you’d notice those those attitudes are still strong. Obviously, Karnataka is an exception, but the British never had much control there. In fact, they never had control of Mysore at all. As for the British being advocates of peasant rights, you are truly insane. The British just made the peasants work for them. But in your crazy mind, a peasant working for a Christian is somehow better than a peasant working for a Hindu. I can’t follow that double standard. As for women’s rights, well the British record can speak for itself, and it ain’t pretty. I’ll note one thing: prior to the Raj, Indians believed that there were three sexes (like the Thai), but the British quickly outlawed the third sex. I’m sure you are proud of that. But even they still exist. It turns out that, for better or worse, the Indian culture is much stronger than the British culture. Except for the railway system, of course. There, the British insistence on ruthless bureaucracy and ridiculous incompetence still holds sway. Good to see that the British still have something to offer.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
“Actually, Karl Marx supported British colonialism in India.”
Yet another reason to think Marx was an idiot.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
While everyone here likes to try and say that they pay no attention to that nutcase Hack, WHY do they expend post after post responding to this Christian nutcase Hector?
He has as much chance of doing anything about Istanbul or Mumbai as Osama has about doing anything about Las Vegas.
Ignore this stupid fuck. His first post had no relevance to the thread at hand except to demonstrate what an idiot he is and how ignorant he is of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and everything else involved in a discussion of Pakistan.
Get back on topic.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“WHY do they expend post after post responding to this Christian nutcase Hector?”
Because it’s fun. He brings out my inner fire ant. Fuck that “inner child” crap, people really need to get in touch with their inner fire ant. Hector helps me with that. And sometimes he has something intelligent to say.
That said, you’re right, it’s time to get back to the subject. What was it again?
April 16th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Coming back to the topic, America is not the only one paying this perverse strategic rent. Saudis are paying in spades to outsource Al Qaeda so (1) OBL doesn’t target and topple the house of Saud and (2) to spread Wahabism not only as a reflection of current Saudi attitude but also as a defense mechanism that creates a buffer zone of warriors and like societies against the West and non-Islam.
Chinese are also paying a fair bit of rent as a hedge against India emerging to greater prominence.
In a sense, if US doesn’t pay, it will probably lose control of the strategic rent-paying totem pole.
One way to do the “walk away” is to also credibly threaten to carpet bomb in addition to not paying the rent. Then, just not paying the rent will seem like a relief from a worse fate, yielding some leverage. (Btw, the only way to credibly threaten to carpet bomb is to actually carpet bomb a few times.)
Wrt Bombay/Mumbai: I am from Bombay. Even now, talking in English I refer to the city as Bombay and talking in Marathi as Mumbai. Lately, though, because of the widespread international adoption, Mumbai is growing on me even for English.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
“Btw, the only way to credibly threaten to carpet bomb is to actually carpet bomb a few times.”
I don’t think we’ll have any problem with that. Our threats would be credible. We’ve carpet bombed many countries. Just ask Laos and Cambodia how good we are at it. But what the hell, we can do it again just for fun. What’s another few million lives to us? It’s not like our hands could get any bloodier.
But you are right, we have to be involved with Pakistan or someone else will. And we may be far from perfect, but China is even farther. That said, India is really a country that is a more natural ally for us. Somehow, we need to find a way to be friends with both Pakistan and India. And we need to do it in way that doesn’t anger both of them. We’re not really cut out for that kind of thing, but now would be a good time to learn. We could start by trying to understand the culture of South Asia. Who knows? Maybe our diplomats could even bother to learn Urdu.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
“Getting them to think we can walk away” has never been a problem, considering that we’ve done it in the past after the Soviet Union fell. Not to mention that we’ve been cozying up to India as a potential partner (which I support, by the way), so they think we might one day just say “Screw you, Pakistan” and retreat to India and an India-supported Afghanistan (one of the things Pakistan has been always upset about is an Indian attempt to build up connections with Afghanistan).