On May 9, 6:49 am, nkdatta2...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2008/03/21/obama-on-pakistan-commit...
>
> March 21st, 2008
>
> Obama on Pakistan: commitment or contradiction?
> By Myra MacDonald
>
> For those who missed, it=92s worth looking closely at Barack Obama=92s
> latest comments on Pakistan made in a speech this week in which he
> repeats a call for the United States to ****ft its focus from Iraq to
> Afghanistan and Pakistan. =94This is the area where the 9/11 attacks
> were planned. This is where Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants
> still hide. This is where extremism poses its greatest threat.=94
>
> His plan is to rethink U.S. policy towards Pakistan =96 which has
> traditionally depended on cooperation with the military rather than
> civilian governments =97 to bolster the democratic aspirations of the
> Pakistani people, condition aid to Pakistan on its action against al
> Qaeda, and show Pakistan that America is on its side.
>
> But then comes the rub. If the United States has intelligence about
> al Qaeda targets hiding in Pakistan then America should act if
> Pakistan will not, or cannot do so, he says. So far that has meant
> sending in unmanned Predator aircraft to fire missiles at suspected
> Islamist hideouts, often leading to civilian casualties and outraging
> Pakistanis who feel their sovereignty has been violated.
>
> So is there a contradiction in Obama=92s commitment to Pakistan? Can the
> United States win over the people if it is also firing missiles at
> targets in its territory? Here is the whole excerpt:
>
> =93For years, we have sup****ted stability over democracy in Pakistan,
> and gotten neither. The core leader****p of al Qaeda has a safe-haven
> in Pakistan. The Taliban are able to strike inside Afghanistan and
> then return to the mountains of the Pakistani border. Throughout
> Pakistan, domestic unrest has been rising. The full democratic
> aspirations of the Pakistani people have been too long denied. A child
> growing up in Pakistan, more often than not, is taught to see America
> as a source of hate - not hope.
>
> =93This is why I stood up last summer and said we cannot base our entire
> Pakistan policy on President Musharraf. Pakistan is our ally, but we
> do our own security and our ally no favors by sup****ting its President
> while we are seen to be ignoring the interests of the people. Our
> counter-terrorism assistance must be conditioned on Pakistani action
> to root out the al Qaeda sanctuary. And any U.S. aid not directly
> needed for the fight against al Qaeda or to invest in the Pakistani
> people should be conditioned on the full restoration of Pakistan=92s
> democracy and rule of law.
>
> File photo of child at Benazir Bhutto=92s grave=93The choice is not
> between Musharraf and Islamic extremists. As the recent legislative
> elections showed, there is a moderate majority of Pakistanis, and they
> are the people we need on our side to win the war against al Qaeda.
> That is why we should dramatically increase our sup****t for the
> Pakistani people - for education, economic development, and democratic
> institutions. That child in Pakistan must know that we want a better
> life for him, that America is on his side, and that his interest in
> op****tunity is our interest as well. That=92s the promise that America
> must stand for.
>
> =93And for his sake and ours, we cannot tolerate a sanctuary for
> terrorists who threaten America=92s homeland and Pakistan=92s stability.
> If we have actionable intelligence about high-level al Qaeda targets
> in Pakistan=92s border region, we must act if Pakistan will not or
> cannot. Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, and President Bush have all
> distorted and derided this position, suggesting that I would invade or
> bomb Pakistan. This is politics, pure and simple. My position, in
> fact, is the same pragmatic policy that all three of them have
> belatedly - if tacitly - acknowledged is one we should pursue. Indeed,
> it was months after I called for this policy that a top al Qaeda
> leader was taken out in Pakistan by an American aircraft. And remember
> that the same three individuals who now criticize me for sup****ting a
> targeted strike on the terrorists who carried out the 9/11 attacks,
> are the same three individuals that sup****ted an invasion of Iraq - a
> country that had nothing to do with 9/11. =93
With Obama there is a better chance for America to be accepted by
people for whom america created insuperable hard****ps largely by using
Islam to undermine communism, and of course by trying to control
middle-east oil.
|
