LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman. Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
May 22, 2013

 Choose a size
Text Size

Trending:     chris hedges     economy     elizabeth warren     politics     robert scheer
Most Read

Lock Up Washington

Rise Up or Die

Revenge of the Bear: Russia Strikes Back in Syria

California Man Sues Officers He Says Nearly Beat Him to Death

How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023

Most Comments
Most Emailed

Reports
 * NEW! * Glaciers Are Melting Slowly but Surely
 * NEW! * How America Became a Third World Country: 2013-2023
 * NEW! * Lock Up Washington
Too Soon to Tell: The Case for Hope, Continued

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Arts & Culture
Act of Congress
Daily Rituals
The Girls of Atomic City

Digs

Truthdig Bazaar
Heart of Darkness

Heart of Darkness

By Joseph Conrad

more items

 
Reports

Pakistan and America: The Bad Marriage

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on May 3, 2011

By Richard Reeves

The last time I saw Abbottabad, I was in a crowd of a couple of hundred men watching a dancing bear hopping up and down and then wrestling in the dust with the owner’s son. The crowd enjoyed it and stayed for the end, the collecting of coins. There was not a lot of entertainment around there; people looked and stopped at anything out of the ordinary.

So, like all people, the folks there gossiped about most anything they noticed—say, a million-dollar compound with 18-foot walls and opaque windows three times the size of anything else in what we would call a middle-class, maybe upper-middle-class, neighborhood. And, of course, Abbottabad has been a military town for more than a century. The name comes from a 19th-century British general who loved the place when he was commander of the British troops quartered in the cantonment there.

As in Kipling’s time, the military and its intelligence services are the only viable institutions in Pakistan. Only the name has changed from British to Pakistani. The army has its own housing, roads, factories and schools. It is inconceivable that the army, which as I’m sure you have read, has its equivalent of West Point less than two miles away from the compound, did not know that Osama bin Laden was living down the road for at least five years.

Like Gen. Abbott, I love Pakistan. However, when we were living there in the 1980s, an hour or so away in Islamabad, in a fancy neighborhood called E-7, one of our neighbors was A.Q. Khan, who was picked up each day by military vehicles and taken to Kahuta, where he was in charge of the program that produced Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry. Everyone knew that, including American diplomats, military liaisons and CIA agents.

But we were then, with significant help from the Pakistani government, fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. So we looked the other way at a lot of things—at the time, we needed Pakistan.

Advertisement

Actually, the other way was what led us to our current Pakistani conundrum. The other way was India. All, or almost all, Pakistani military and diplomatic concerns are not about the United States or Afghanistan, but about India. Pakistan’s nuclear missiles are pointed toward Delhi and Mumbai. Pakistan’s actions can only be understood by its concern that a new Afghanistan—probably a contradiction in terms—will be friendly toward India. It is in Pakistan’s interest that the Taliban prevail, or at least survive, in Afghanistan.

Pakistan is an odd product of colonial history or the denial of history. "The Land of the Pure," its name in English, was part of British India. But when the British cut and ran from the subcontinent in 1947, they created two countries, India (majority Hindu) and Pakistan (mostly Muslim). The latter was divided into two parts, a thousand miles from each other—West and East Pakistan. East Pakistan revolted against West Pakistani oppression and, with Indian help, became a new country, Bangladesh.

Many important Pakistanis live in a world both paranoid and delusional when it comes to India. The power and prosperity of the two countries could be compared to Canada and the United States. Except, I would think, there are very few Canadians who believe that someday in some way they are going to take on and take over the United States.

A lot of crazy things are about to happen between Pakistan and the United States because we still need them as we try to figure out how to get out of Afghanistan. So we will let them lie about Osama’s nest and the hiding places of others who war against America. Pakistan, once more looking the fool—they knew Osama was there, or they are incompetent—will be a little more forthcoming and helpful in battling Islamic terrorism.

But at the end of the day, in a very bad marriage of shifting convenience, we don’t trust them and they don’t trust us—and we’re both right.

 

COPYRIGHT 2011 UNIVERSAL UCLICK


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Inherit The Wind, May 7, 2011 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

First off, the Canada metaphor was not intended in any way, shape, or form to insult Canada. Instead, the rational inference is that Canada is a rational, reasonable and sensible nation that realizes that its noisy neighbor to the south, with a population ten times its own, is far better to have as a friend than as an enemy.

Yet somehow, Pakistan doesn’t realize that ITS noisy neighbor to the south, with ten times the population and one of the two hottest economies in the world, would make a much better friend than an enemy.  Plus, some in the Pakistani government DO think of invading India, at least to absorb Kashmir.  I doubt there is one Canadian official who even DREAMS about taking over, say, Alaska or Maine.

Further, while it’s obvious that much of Canada’s international policies MUST include the USA, it is not a paranoid conclusion that every relation will either help or hurt Canada in its “struggle” with the USA.  Of course there are conflicts and disagreements, but that doesn’t change the fact that Canada, not Britain, not Israel, and not Mexico, is, in fact, our closest ally and friend.

Pakistan, instead, sees EVERY relation with other nations in terms of how it affects its relations with India.

Reeves is contrasting the fundamentally sane and healthy views by Canada and Canadians with the rather loony, unhealthy and truly dangerous views of Pakistan, a seriously problematic nation.

Report this

By velo audix, May 5, 2011 at 10:43 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with Julia the Canada metaphor is inane and vague.

Report this
Mike789's avatar

By Mike789, May 5, 2011 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

Marriage? What marriage. It’s an expedient relationship at best. Cripes.

Report this

By samosamo, May 4, 2011 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

****************

 

Somewhere about the time bin laden was supposedly killed the
other day, an immediate reaction from the our military
government was ‘This does NOT mean we are leaving
Afghanistan’.

Report this

By SarcastiCanuck, May 4, 2011 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

If it is so easy to find a fugitive,ask the FBI where D.B.Cooper has been the last 40 years.Also your comparison of India and Pakistan to the U.S. and Canada was quite stupid,especially considering Canada’s dollar will cost you $1.04 U.S. today.Please use your brain on the next article you wright Mr.Reeves.

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, May 4, 2011 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Hey A-B-B-0-T-T-A-B-A-D.

I couldn’t resist that homage to Abbott and Costello.

Now for the more serious comment.  No doubt there are elements within the Pakistani government/military that supported UBL whether by effort or omission.  I don’t believe the Pakistani head of government was actively involved, but he is aware of the 80% rule which states that 80% of a country’s population is easily swayed and will follow the path of least resistance and in that regard had to tolerate those rogue elements.  Of course, after this operation, he will have some major politicking to do.

Report this

By felicity, May 4, 2011 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

So Pakistan decided to keep the residency of binLaden
to themselves.  Given what happened to its neighbor
Afghanistan because it harbored binLaden, bombed to
hell and gone by America etc., keeping binLaden’s
residency to themselves was probably a good idea? 

Most people, let alone countries, aren’t into self-
immolation.

Report this

By Julia, May 4, 2011 at 7:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

as a Canadian, you lost me with your reference to the US/Canada comparison - just which of those two countries do you think has the paranoid, delusional, religious population?

Report this
basho's avatar

By basho, May 3, 2011 at 11:46 pm Link to this comment

approximately 660 words strung together in meaningless fashion.

ever consider working for the CIA as an analyst?

Report this

By gerard, May 3, 2011 at 4:18 pm Link to this comment

It’s called “international relations” in a world crazed by too much war, too many weapons and not enough accurate information.  So what else is new?

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
 
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.