Two perspectives on the Pakistan problem
05/02/2011 - 21:15
James Besser

 Amid the journalistic outpouring on the killing of terrorist mastermind Osama bin-Laden, I was struck by this Daily Beast opinion piece by novelist Salman Rushdie, who focused on the issue of Pakistan.

He wrote:


The time may have come, he said, to “declare it a terrorist state and expel it from the comity of nations.”

The Atlantic's Jeff Goldberg disagrees. Today he blogged this:

Yes, there are most likely elements of the Pakistani power structure that are sympathetic to the Taliban and al Qaeda, and some of these elements might have helped Bin Laden, or at least turned a blind eye to his presence. But: These elements, if they do exist, do not represent the entirety of Pakistan. They certainly don't represent the civilian leadership of the country, a leadership we should be buttressing, not demonizing. I'll say it again: Our only option in Pakistan is to provide aid and support for government and economic reform, health care, and universal education. And we can fight terrorism at the same time. But what we can't do is declare Pakistan an enemy. That would be ridiculous.

I get Rushdie's argument and see some big holes in Goldberg's; it's hard for me to believe supporting economic reform, health care and universal education is going to fix this unholy mess of a country.

But I also see Goldberg's point about the limits of U.S. leverage; Pakistan is a “well-armed, nuclear-weapons state of almost 200 million people,” and we're not likely to go to war there – especially with our troops mired in neighboring Afghanistan and our new adventure in Libya.

The difference between the two writers may reflect the real bottom line of our Pakistan policy: after decades of ineffective, ambivalent U.S. policy in the region, our policy options may come down to a choice between bad and worse.

Yes, Iran's potential nuclear program is a problem, but I'm a lot more worried about the big stockpile of weapons Pakistan, with its dysfunctional government, already has, and about the possibility those weapons could end up in the hands of fanatics eager to strike catastrophic blows against the United States and Israel.


you know what? when the fat is in the fire everyone tries to protect its own skin. India is next door and Pakistan is rabidly anti-india. In fact they want to capture india and make a caliphate because muslims ruled there for 1000 years in the past . Now that osama is dead they will play the Islam and Nuclear card as they have lost out on all other cards.

In your myopic view, the United States and Israel are the two prominent targets. Not next door India?
When will the west learn? This so called state was created on the base of religion - supposedly means the land of the pure. for 50 years the West has dilly dallied with Pakistan and learnt squat. You should have taken out their nuclear facilities a long time back. Today they are sitting on 200 warheads and you are still speculating and waiting.
Remember - Israel is a small country. India is massive. An errant Pakistan, India will survive. Not so much Israel.
Dont leave it until too late! TAKE THEM OUT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE

China seems to be the one dancing with the devil now, but when authority in China falls, so will their 'strategic co-operation' with Pakistan.

Comment Guidelines


Add comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.