Its easy to bag on Pakistan (and I dont disagree with very much of the article) but I think the bigger question is how you prevent it from getting worse. Pakistan has become a far bigger problem than any of the Middle Eastern countries. Even Afghanistan is much better off (even if we withdrew all troops tomorrow I'd venture to say they'd still be better off in some ways). Most Afghans have little love for the Taliban and many resent Pakistan for introducing the Taliban into Afghanistan. Pakistan today has been polled as the most unpopular country in Afghanistan. Even the Middle Eastern governments are at least trying to do something about extremism. (even if they are doing far too little) In the case of pakistan, the ISI foments and encourages it for its own strategic purposes. When you have a military that is doing things that are counter to the goals of the civilian government, you have a recipe for disaster. I'm honestly not sure what the answer is. Unless Pakistan elects someone who isn't a complete coward, nothing will change. It's sad that the only reason the military isn't overthrowing the government is that Zardari is such a pansy that they dont have to. But at this point I'm all for ending military aid to the Pakistanis. They've shown no ability to do anything responsible with our billions of dollars.
Nothing will change. In 5-10 years, Pakistan and Indonesia will make Saudi Arabia look like a Hooters outlet.
The country shouldn't exist. 1/2 of the country should be part of Afghanistan (or better, an independent Pashtunistan), and the other half (the part with all the people who currently run things) should be part of an independent Kashmir.
Agree we'd be better off if it didnt exist but an independent Kashmir with the rest of Pakistan wouldn't do anything. They'd still have the same crappy leadership that they have now. The Northwest Frontier Province isn't why the military and the ISI are run by a bunch of crooks. The right answer in my mind is partition not happening. Aside from the 1 million or so that died and the several million that were forced to migrate, both countries have wasted billions of dollars to build up a military force to defend against the other side. That problem wouldn't exist in a united country.
I understand the sentiment that Hitchens is voicing, but feel that he clearly embellished a few points and overlooks quite a bit... To suggest that the $3 billion is being provided in foreign aid purely for Pakistani military purposes requires some level of proof. Most foreign aid gets funneled through US contractors and non-governmental organizations; So, in fact, a major beneficiary of foreign aid ends up being the US and its job market. Beyond that, it has long been speculated that a large portion gets devoured by the reigning political establishment, which then spends that money on frivolous personal luxuries or launders it to offsite bank accounts. If Hosni Mubarak's personal wealth was rumored at about $70 billion in offshore accounts, then one can only assume that the same dynamic is probably playing out in comparable developing and underdeveloped nations. Hitchens tone also suggests that the United States deserves more gratitude for its perceived foreign philanthropy. That is, to say, that the 'aid' is a gesture borne out of altruism with an expectation for minimal cooperation in return. But that overlooks the significant role that diplomatic relations play in governing US-Pakistani relations. The US has multiple military bases residing in Pakistan. It executes missions to topple suspected extremists at will, and has the flexibility to carry out drone attacks with little to no Pakistani intervention. Pakistan also served as the initial site where the US launched its war against Afghanistan some ten years ago. This is obviously a major political inconvenience for Pakistani leadership, to say the least, for it always projects them as weaklings to their own people, swaying with the whims of perceived American hegemony while their weakest and poorest villages live in fear of raids, arrests without due process, and shellings. Further, American national interests are regularly protected in Pakistan. Even someone like Raymond Allen Davis, a covert CIA operative who killed two people, was eventually returned to the US after a financial agreement, despite the overwhelming public sentiment against it. There are also a number of American citizens who visit Pakistan and have their rights disproportionately protected in comparison to their Pakistani non-American counterparts. In short, the problems are multifaceted, interdependent, and mutually troublesome. The Pakistani populace sees the American military presence as a destabilizing factor in the region and undermining to their national sovereignty. The Pakistani military sees the American military presence as undermining their institutional authority. The ongoing raids and drone attacks targeting extremists breed new ones, and continue the vicious cycle of hunting down terrorists to prevent terrorism, only to create a new batch of terrorists in response to that terrorist arrest/killing. America needs to evaluate its approach when it comes to Pakistan. I'm in favor of continual 'aid' that serves as a pay off to political elites- its not a moral position, but a realistic one that serves our national interest. I also believe that the US has to invest in foreign development; economic development and education being at the top of the list. The US has to enable and empower the Pakistani military at some level and let them take charge of their own conflict; they are bound to be less effective than the US military, but it has to be their fight to win, not ours. This question is not only about Pakistan, but many nations equally impoverished with similar political dymanics- Yemen and Somalia being two names that come to mind. It is easy to see why anti-Americanism exists in these regions, and rather than viewing them through the lens of jingoists, we should consider the other side and work towards real solutions, otherwise we are looking at a situation where we get bogged down in foreign military endeavors that are almost certain to bear no fruit.
