Comments on: More On Kashmir http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=more-on-kashmir n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: nagee76 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18705 nagee76 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:32:04 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18705 Here is something that caught my eye Obama links Israel peace plan to pre 1967 border http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093 Some one better tell Obama that he gets only 8 years as President according to the current version of the US Constitution. You can accuse Obama of many things but you cannot say that this guy lacks ambition or a vanity that seems infinite even for politicians . Here is something that caught my eye
Obama links Israel peace plan to pre 1967 border

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5162537.ece#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=797093

Some one better tell Obama that he gets only 8 years as President according to the current version of the US Constitution.

You can accuse Obama of many things but you cannot say that this guy lacks ambition or a vanity that seems infinite even for politicians .

]]> By: VictorT http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18686 VictorT Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:11:01 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18686 I might be guilty of looking at the situation with a medium/long term outlook, while the president of an unstable country such as Pakistan might be more interested in short term advantages. From a short term perspective, by encouraging American mediated talks with India on Kashmir, Zardari pleases the military, bolster his domestic support by fanning the flames of Pakistani nationalism and might quiet down violent and suicidal opposition by jihadists while there is hope of a resolution on Kashmir. The way I looked at it was more medium/long term. By promoting talks that are bound to fail, with an American presidents who will undoubtedly become less popular in the region as time goes, the Pakistani President makes himself vulnerable by showing his powerlessness after the talks lead to nothing and by being associated with a President who is bombing "innocent civilians" at the same time in the FATA (that's how Obama plan to take the war to Pakistan will be regarded in the country). At the same time, bringing back the Kashmir issue would give jihadists a propaganda and recruitment opportunity, by allowing them to change the focus from their unpopular bombing of Pakistanis to a self-righteous fight with India. But Zardari might not have the luxury of thinking medium/long term given his precarious position. So I think I agree with you that the current Pakistani President would probably be receptive to Obama's proposal. But I think that a stronger and more stable civilian Pakistani government would think twice before supporting it. In any case, this will be a story to follow closely. I might be guilty of looking at the situation with a medium/long term outlook, while the president of an unstable country such as Pakistan might be more interested in short term advantages.

From a short term perspective, by encouraging American mediated talks with India on Kashmir, Zardari pleases the military, bolster his domestic support by fanning the flames of Pakistani nationalism and might quiet down violent and suicidal opposition by jihadists while there is hope of a resolution on Kashmir.

The way I looked at it was more medium/long term. By promoting talks that are bound to fail, with an American presidents who will undoubtedly become less popular in the region as time goes, the Pakistani President makes himself vulnerable by showing his powerlessness after the talks lead to nothing and by being associated with a President who is bombing “innocent civilians” at the same time in the FATA (that’s how Obama plan to take the war to Pakistan will be regarded in the country). At the same time, bringing back the Kashmir issue would give jihadists a propaganda and recruitment opportunity, by allowing them to change the focus from their unpopular bombing of Pakistanis to a self-righteous fight with India.

But Zardari might not have the luxury of thinking medium/long term given his precarious position. So I think I agree with you that the current Pakistani President would probably be receptive to Obama’s proposal. But I think that a stronger and more stable civilian Pakistani government would think twice before supporting it.

In any case, this will be a story to follow closely.

]]> By: nagee76 http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18640 nagee76 Sun, 16 Nov 2008 06:21:56 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18640 Well, has Obama already made a foreign policy blunder EVEN BEFORE being sworn in as President ? I hope not. What I am most worried is that he seems to have an intense desire to differentiate himself from Bush on this issue - Bush and Rice had an almost hands off policy on the Kashmir issue. Obama atleast at first glance wants to get involved rather deeply. Well, has Obama already made a foreign policy blunder EVEN BEFORE being sworn in as President ? I hope not.

What I am most worried is that he seems to have an intense desire to differentiate himself from Bush on this issue – Bush and Rice had an almost hands off policy on the Kashmir issue. Obama atleast at first glance wants to get involved rather deeply.

]]> By: Redhand http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18620 Redhand Sun, 16 Nov 2008 02:07:08 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18620 I must admit ignorance on policy here, but maybe that gives me the freedom to ask <b>why</b> we would ever seriously consider helping Pakistan? Nuclear proliferater? Check. (Thanks Dr. Khan, who doubles as some kind of national hero over there). Supporter of Muslim fundamentalism through a virulently anti-American intelligence service? Check (Thanks ISI). Safe haven provider for OBL & Co, with a myriad of excuses why it can't or won't weed him out or allow us to go after him in country? (Check) (Not sure exactly who to thank here, but it's a fact). Underminer of our military efforts and policy goals (such as they are) in Afghanistan? Check (Thanks ISI) And we want to help <i>this</i> country obtain part of (all?) a long-disputed chunk of territory from India in the name of regional stability and peace? I think not. I must admit ignorance on policy here, but maybe that gives me the freedom to ask why we would ever seriously consider helping Pakistan?

Nuclear proliferater? Check. (Thanks Dr. Khan, who doubles as some kind of national hero over there).

Supporter of Muslim fundamentalism through a virulently anti-American intelligence service? Check (Thanks ISI).

Safe haven provider for OBL & Co, with a myriad of excuses why it can’t or won’t weed him out or allow us to go after him in country? (Check) (Not sure exactly who to thank here, but it’s a fact).

Underminer of our military efforts and policy goals (such as they are) in Afghanistan? Check (Thanks ISI)

And we want to help this country obtain part of (all?) a long-disputed chunk of territory from India in the name of regional stability and peace? I think not.

]]> By: Daniel Larison http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18603 Daniel Larison Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:38:15 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18603 Pakistan has consistently pushed for U.S. involvement in the Kashmir dispute in the current and previous administrations as a way of bringing pressure to bear on India. So long as the matter remains purely bilateral, Pakistani objectives are out of the question. Unless I am quite mistaken, the thinking on the Pakistani side, particularly within the military, is that those objectives are more obtainable with outside pressure. This has been true under civilian and military governments alike, in part because of the strong influence of the military on Pakistani politics generally. Besides, while the military is perhaps most ideologically committed to gaining control of Kashmir it is not alone in this desire. If Washington were to hold out the possibility that Pakistan could make gains in this area, or at least promise that Washington would attempt to mediate the dispute, I think that would be very attractive to any Pakistani government, particularly a civilian one that needs something to boost its credibility and popularity at home. Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but this is how see it. If any of the commenters from the other Kashmir threads would like to correct me on this, I welcome their insights. Pakistan has consistently pushed for U.S. involvement in the Kashmir dispute in the current and previous administrations as a way of bringing pressure to bear on India. So long as the matter remains purely bilateral, Pakistani objectives are out of the question. Unless I am quite mistaken, the thinking on the Pakistani side, particularly within the military, is that those objectives are more obtainable with outside pressure. This has been true under civilian and military governments alike, in part because of the strong influence of the military on Pakistani politics generally. Besides, while the military is perhaps most ideologically committed to gaining control of Kashmir it is not alone in this desire. If Washington were to hold out the possibility that Pakistan could make gains in this area, or at least promise that Washington would attempt to mediate the dispute, I think that would be very attractive to any Pakistani government, particularly a civilian one that needs something to boost its credibility and popularity at home. Perhaps I am mistaken about this, but this is how see it. If any of the commenters from the other Kashmir threads would like to correct me on this, I welcome their insights.

]]> By: VictorT http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/11/15/more-on-kashmir/comment-page-1/#comment-18600 VictorT Sat, 15 Nov 2008 23:19:11 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/?p=7630#comment-18600 I think there's another question we need to ask ourselves. What's in it for Zardari in agreeing to attempt some kind of "Grand Bargain"? Right now we know that Obama seems to be interested in reviving the issue of Kashmir and that he talked about it with Zardari; but we haven't seen (or at least, I'm not aware) the Pakistani President ask Obama to step in on Kashmir. That is an important question because if he doesn't want the issue raised and tells Obama so in private, BO will never go public with his plan to solve Kashmir when both protagonists are opposed to his proposal. Maybe Zardari hopes to increase tensions with India to bolster nationalism domestically and reinforce his standing or maybe he hopes this will quiet down the jihadists from FATA who have killed his wife and want to kill him. But in the end I don't see how this could benefit him. As we know, talks on Kashmir will go nowhere and any nationalist surge will quickly morph into anger at the Zardari's powerlessness (better not to try something than to try it and fail), all his enemies will decry him as another fake leader who spend more time with Americans than Pakistanis and the jihadist will be encouraged by a new round of Kashmir hostility. I am by no mean an expert on the internal politics of Pakistan so I might be totally off track here. But I have trouble understanding why Zardari would encourage such talks. I think there’s another question we need to ask ourselves. What’s in it for Zardari in agreeing to attempt some kind of “Grand Bargain”? Right now we know that Obama seems to be interested in reviving the issue of Kashmir and that he talked about it with Zardari; but we haven’t seen (or at least, I’m not aware) the Pakistani President ask Obama to step in on Kashmir. That is an important question because if he doesn’t want the issue raised and tells Obama so in private, BO will never go public with his plan to solve Kashmir when both protagonists are opposed to his proposal.

Maybe Zardari hopes to increase tensions with India to bolster nationalism domestically and reinforce his standing or maybe he hopes this will quiet down the jihadists from FATA who have killed his wife and want to kill him. But in the end I don’t see how this could benefit him. As we know, talks on Kashmir will go nowhere and any nationalist surge will quickly morph into anger at the Zardari’s powerlessness (better not to try something than to try it and fail), all his enemies will decry him as another fake leader who spend more time with Americans than Pakistanis and the jihadist will be encouraged by a new round of Kashmir hostility.

I am by no mean an expert on the internal politics of Pakistan so I might be totally off track here. But I have trouble understanding why Zardari would encourage such talks.

]]>