Friends

All else equal, it’s harder to win a fight when the guy who can help you the most appears to want the other side to win.

I am not sure I agree with Caroline Glick

Caroline Glick, a columnist for the Jerusalem Post, believes one problem with the war or terror is that the US has been insufficiently aggressive in fighting it. In particular, she would like the US to expand its efforts to countries such as Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Although she doesn’t directly call for US-led regime change in these countries, it seems to me that at a minimum she would like the US to do something to make these countries more unstable than they already are. After carefully considering her point of view, I have come to the conclusion that she is totally nuts. Let’s leave the merits of the policy aside (of which I think there are few) and look at the US record on regime change in the broader Middle East over the past decade. We have tried it in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq, and the record is, to put it charitably, mixed at best.

Don’t get me wrong – I very pleased that Glick has such confidence in the US’s capacity to get other countries to govern as we wish they would through a policy of military aggression. The problem is that I find it really hard to believe that the world would be a safer place if the US provoked more instability in the Middle East. Perhaps in a future column Glick will outline why she thinks the US military would be more successful in Iran, Lebanon, and Syria than it has been in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. Until that day comes, I hope that our joint chiefs of staff don’t read her work and think, “hmm…she’s got a point. Lemme run it by Obama.”

Complicated Relationships in the War on Terror

To be blunt, the governments of the United States and Pakistan are far from kindred spirits.  Our national relationship with Pakistan is largely strategic in nature and is at best a unity of mutual benefit.  The Pakistani regime has been challenged throughout the war on terror by a need to balance its relationship with the United States with its own sovereignty and has suffered in the eyes of its people as a result.  Thus it strikes as particularly amazing to see pundits who weeks ago bemoaned our government’s failure to support our authoritarian allies in the Middle East, now  questioning Pakistan’s commitment to the war on terror in the wake of the death of Osama Bin Laden.
Continue reading »

US Pakistan Relations & Operational vs. Strategic Success

A week or so I wrote a brief academic paper on our activities and aims in Afghanistan in response to literature on the subject by Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson.  In part, Simon and Stevenson’s writing focused on the successes of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or “drones” in our war on terror, and more specifically problems in Pakistan.  Hinging upon the operational successes of drones in eliminating US targets, the authors spent some time discussing the legality of these tools of warfare and even at times the ethical implications of doing so. Yet the overall strategic viability of drones seems overlooked both by the authors and similar thinkers in our armed forces.  Thus in light of recent protests over the continued use of drones to essentially assassinate militants on Pakistani soil, the subject seemed worth bringing up here.

Continue reading »

“Pakistan’s Media” Webcast

Once again a friend at USIP contacted me to inform me of an event being webcast by their Center of Innovation for Science, Technology & Peacebuilding.  The event is to focus on Pakistan’s broadcast media and should be a quality opportunity to engage panelist and participants on issues of Pakistani society. Information on the event is listed below, enjoy!

Live Webcast and Online discussion: Pakistan’s Media: Dissecting its Coverage of Extremism, Terrorism and Pakistan-U.S. Relations

December 6, 2010, 2:30pm – 4:00pm EST

Location:
U.S. Institute of Peace
2nd floor
1200 17th Street NW
Washington, DC 20036

Click Here to find a full list of speakers and more details about the event.

Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 2:30pm EDT on December 6, 2010 at www.usip.org/webcast.html.  Online viewers will be able to engage panelists and each other through live chat and Twitter discussions (hashtag #usippak).

Predominantly state-run until a decade ago, Pakistan’s broadcast media has transformed into a largely independent and proactive presence in Pakistani society. Complementing this is the rich vernacular and English language print coverage that the country has possessed for years. Combined, the print and broadcast outlets have strengthened a significant element of Pakistan’s civil society as the media is now extremely vocal in covering international and national issues, heightening public awareness and critical understanding.

Perhaps most pertinent to understand from the U.S. perspective is the Pakistani media’s coverage of issues pertaining to extremism, the war in Afghanistan, and more broadly, the Pakistan-U.S. relationship. Often, there have been concerns raised by outside observers that Pakistani media outlets paint too negative a picture of the Pakistan-U.S. bilateral ties and that major Pakistani media outlets have not taken a strong enough stance against extremist outfits. Is this criticism true? What are the motivations and constraints which lead the Pakistani media to determine how they present issues? And what are the nuances and differences in messaging between broadcast and print, and vernacular and English language media?

This event, which will seek to answer these questions, is being co-sponsored by USIP’s Center for Conflict Analysis and Prevention and USIP’s Center of Innovation for Media, Conflict and Peacebuilding.