Comments on: Hillary Clinton: USA’s Pakistan Policy “Incoherent”

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Thu, 21 May 2009 20:18:33 +0000

Sil, during the Cold War it was in OUR strategic interest, not just Britain's, to be a better ally to India than Russia, which also courted them. The same is true today. China and India are poised to be the next economic powerhouses. India is the democratic one, and it is clearly in our best interest to maintain a strong relationship with them.

Additionally, we have an interest in working to improve the standard of living of all those in poverty. For one thing, the desperately poor are prime targets for militant recruiting. For another, we'd like them to be able to buy American goods.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:20:04 +0000

We were the world babysitters for a long time. Now the parents are broke and the kids have to learn to play nice on their own.

Why are we ignoring the obvious: that Britain is who wants us meddling alongside them in India [and therefore Pakistan and Afghanistan] to keep the region unofficially under their control?

No more babysitting, no more favors for the Crown. We're broke and we're done..

By: GreenDreams

GreenDreams — Thu, 21 May 2009 19:01:57 +0000

Finally, someone gets it that hostile, non-state actors are making inroads because of our inability to meet the needs of local peoples. After the Israeli attacks on S. Lebanon, the Lebanese government responded in a very Katrina-like way. They told their displaced citizens, “wait while we meet to discuss how to begin developing a plan to figure out how to eventually help you.” Hezbollah meanwhile, was there the next morning with bulldozers, carpenters and electricians, repairing the damage and winning hearts and minds.

It appears that Clinton gets it. The emergency relief funding to the areas with battle damage might convince locals that it is we, not the Taliban, who stand to help them live better lives.