Washington Held Hostage in Pakistan
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, outrage against Pakistan has become commonplace in Washington, as exasperation grows, pressure builds, and the threats multiply. Members of Congress from both parties have https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, outrage against Pakistan has become commonplace in Washington, as exasperation grows, pressure builds, and the threats multiply. Members of Congress from both parties have urged major cuts in the third largest U.S. aid program, which has gone mainly to the Pakistani military. (Republican Congressman Ted Poe caught the mood of the moment: "Pakistan has a lot of explaining to do... Unless the State Department can certify to Congress that Pakistan was not harboring America's number one enemy, Pakistan should not receive one more cent of American aid.") Meanwhile, members of the White House have reportedly called for "strong reprisals" if the Pakistanis aren't more cooperative on information-sharing in the war on terror, and Senator John Kerry traveled to Islamabad to demand from that country's leaders "a real demonstration of commitment" in fighting terrorism at a "make it or break it moment."
About that leadership, high American officials have lately minced few words. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was typical. At a press conference, he answered a question about whether the Pakistani senior leadership shouldn't "pay a price" for someone there knowing about bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout in the following way: "If I were in Pakistani shoes, I would say I've already paid a price. I've been humiliated. I've been shown that the Americans can come in here and do this with impunity." Impunity? It's not a word secretaries of defense usually wield when it comes to allies and was clearly meant to register in Islamabad -- and to humiliate.
Here's what's curious though: as Dilip Hiro, South Asian expert and author most recently of After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World, points out, the Pakistanis control American supply lines to Afghanistan and so the fate of the war there, a simple fact seldom highlighted in the U.S. And here is a simple reality to go with that: The U.S., which has contributed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001, certainly could cut back or cut off future infusions of financial support. It could also launch those "strong reprisals," but only if it first made a basic decision -- to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan and end its war there. Otherwise it remains in an uncomfortable marriage with Pakistan till, as they say, death do us part, a coupling in which, as Hiro indicates in his latest piece "Playing the China Card," Pakistan for all its internal weaknesses has a potentially stronger position than most Americans might imagine.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The above piece, published here with permission, first appeared at Tom Engelhardt's substack page, where you can find more of his writing.
Engelhardt, was editor-in-chief of TomDispatch.com for over 24 years, is the author of numerous books, including: "A Nation Unmade by War" (2018, Dispatch Books), "Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World" (2014, with an introduction by Glenn Greenwald), "Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050"(co-authored with Nick Turse), "The United States of Fear" (2011), "The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" (2010), and "The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond" (2007).
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, outrage against Pakistan has become commonplace in Washington, as exasperation grows, pressure builds, and the threats multiply. Members of Congress from both parties have urged major cuts in the third largest U.S. aid program, which has gone mainly to the Pakistani military. (Republican Congressman Ted Poe caught the mood of the moment: "Pakistan has a lot of explaining to do... Unless the State Department can certify to Congress that Pakistan was not harboring America's number one enemy, Pakistan should not receive one more cent of American aid.") Meanwhile, members of the White House have reportedly called for "strong reprisals" if the Pakistanis aren't more cooperative on information-sharing in the war on terror, and Senator John Kerry traveled to Islamabad to demand from that country's leaders "a real demonstration of commitment" in fighting terrorism at a "make it or break it moment."
About that leadership, high American officials have lately minced few words. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was typical. At a press conference, he answered a question about whether the Pakistani senior leadership shouldn't "pay a price" for someone there knowing about bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout in the following way: "If I were in Pakistani shoes, I would say I've already paid a price. I've been humiliated. I've been shown that the Americans can come in here and do this with impunity." Impunity? It's not a word secretaries of defense usually wield when it comes to allies and was clearly meant to register in Islamabad -- and to humiliate.
Here's what's curious though: as Dilip Hiro, South Asian expert and author most recently of After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World, points out, the Pakistanis control American supply lines to Afghanistan and so the fate of the war there, a simple fact seldom highlighted in the U.S. And here is a simple reality to go with that: The U.S., which has contributed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001, certainly could cut back or cut off future infusions of financial support. It could also launch those "strong reprisals," but only if it first made a basic decision -- to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan and end its war there. Otherwise it remains in an uncomfortable marriage with Pakistan till, as they say, death do us part, a coupling in which, as Hiro indicates in his latest piece "Playing the China Card," Pakistan for all its internal weaknesses has a potentially stronger position than most Americans might imagine.
The above piece, published here with permission, first appeared at Tom Engelhardt's substack page, where you can find more of his writing.
Engelhardt, was editor-in-chief of TomDispatch.com for over 24 years, is the author of numerous books, including: "A Nation Unmade by War" (2018, Dispatch Books), "Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World" (2014, with an introduction by Glenn Greenwald), "Terminator Planet: The First History of Drone Warfare, 2001-2050"(co-authored with Nick Turse), "The United States of Fear" (2011), "The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's" (2010), and "The End of Victory Culture: a History of the Cold War and Beyond" (2007).
In the wake of the killing of Osama bin Laden, outrage against Pakistan has become commonplace in Washington, as exasperation grows, pressure builds, and the threats multiply. Members of Congress from both parties have urged major cuts in the third largest U.S. aid program, which has gone mainly to the Pakistani military. (Republican Congressman Ted Poe caught the mood of the moment: "Pakistan has a lot of explaining to do... Unless the State Department can certify to Congress that Pakistan was not harboring America's number one enemy, Pakistan should not receive one more cent of American aid.") Meanwhile, members of the White House have reportedly called for "strong reprisals" if the Pakistanis aren't more cooperative on information-sharing in the war on terror, and Senator John Kerry traveled to Islamabad to demand from that country's leaders "a real demonstration of commitment" in fighting terrorism at a "make it or break it moment."
About that leadership, high American officials have lately minced few words. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was typical. At a press conference, he answered a question about whether the Pakistani senior leadership shouldn't "pay a price" for someone there knowing about bin Laden's Abbottabad hideout in the following way: "If I were in Pakistani shoes, I would say I've already paid a price. I've been humiliated. I've been shown that the Americans can come in here and do this with impunity." Impunity? It's not a word secretaries of defense usually wield when it comes to allies and was clearly meant to register in Islamabad -- and to humiliate.
Here's what's curious though: as Dilip Hiro, South Asian expert and author most recently of After Empire: The Birth of A Multipolar World, points out, the Pakistanis control American supply lines to Afghanistan and so the fate of the war there, a simple fact seldom highlighted in the U.S. And here is a simple reality to go with that: The U.S., which has contributed $20 billion in aid to Pakistan since 2001, certainly could cut back or cut off future infusions of financial support. It could also launch those "strong reprisals," but only if it first made a basic decision -- to withdraw American troops from Afghanistan and end its war there. Otherwise it remains in an uncomfortable marriage with Pakistan till, as they say, death do us part, a coupling in which, as Hiro indicates in his latest piece "Playing the China Card," Pakistan for all its internal weaknesses has a potentially stronger position than most Americans might imagine.