http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5369198.stm

discusses threats made to Pakistan, by the Bush regime.

I have long ago come to the conclusion that George W is
just far too stupid to be prez. With that kind of foreign
policy, they need not be amazed that they are hated in
many countries. Given George's people skills, enemies
will appear from everywhere!

If I had my way, I'd bring back Bill and perhaps pay
Monika a good salary to keep him amused between matters
of State :) The world would certainly benefit enormously!

I don’t want to state the obvious here, Yabby, but the Republican Party in the US does not select its presidential candidates on the basis of brain power or grasp of world affairs or history, and has not done so for some time. If it were the case, do you think George W. would have been the best they could come up with from a pool of 280 million people? The desirable selection criteria are ability to read an autocue, a folksy manner, and not having too many ideas of your own that may come into conflict with those of the people who do, in fact, run the country. Having a dementing brain disease is no disqualification. (Oh, come on, do you really believe no one noticed until after Reagan finished his second term?).

Setting up a compliant patsy as the nominal figurehead of a government has been a standard practice for hundreds, if not thousands of years of human political history. The Republicans are not doing anything new here.

Notice how George Bush and Ahmadinejad have the same close beady eyes and tight lipped expressions.Could there be madness in both their methods?

Bush should have fixed Afghanistan first.They don't have enough troops there for long term stability,let alone Iraq.Now we learn that they we threatening Pakistan with oblivion.In the light of all the lies,the American public don't have the stomach for protracted conflicts.Their Muslim opponents have been doing it for centuries and some know nothing else but conflict.Bush needs another Sept 11 to keep the momentum of this war going and to win the next election.Would they be tempted to just drop their guard a little?

This problem isn't going to be fixed just with guns.We have to engage the Muslim communities around the world honestly and simply tell them what we think.John Howard and Peter Costello are the only Politicians of the Western World who have had the courage to spell out the reality.We need honest debate to happen within the Muslim community so no one feels intimidated by the potential violent tendencies of a few.You can't make omelets without cracking egg shells.

Snout, yup about your post, but thats exactly the problem. If a
world leader is regarded as an idiot, he's not going to achieve
much. Thats exactly why America is so hated around the world.
Its also why America is slowly going down the proverbial gurgler.

It seems to me the problem in America is that Americans are
so puritanical, that they are far more concerned with the
sexual habits of their leaders, then if they have any brains
at all. At election time, George scares them about Osama
being under the bed and little old ladies believe him and vote
for him etc.

"Could there be madness in both their methods?" I'd say so
Arjay, they both seem a little nuts to me, thats the worry,
as hundreds of millions of peoples lives are at stake here.

Arjay, I have little doubt there is a fair dose of madness in the methods of both Washington and Tehran. I don’t know about the beady eyes comparison, or enough about Ahmadinejad to know whether he is a patsy of other forces of if he belongs to the Outwit, Outplay and Outlast school of politics – the “Survivor” school. I suspect it’s the latter, but the Persians have a couple of thousand years head start on the Americans in politicking – nothing would surprise me.

There are numerous advantages to the Patsy style of government, particularly in a democracy. A patsy can draw the flack away from the real power brokers, including that unfortunate feature of US presidential politics, the would be assassin’s bullet. Additionally, a well chosen Patsy is usually easier to control and spin doctor than an intelligent or independently minded politician, particularly one who might, like any human being, have character flaws such as a congenital inability to keep his pants zipped.

"There are numerous advantages to the Patsy style of government, particularly in a democracy."

There are also many disavantages, as we can see with George!
Perhaps it reflects the sophistication of the voters. In Europe
a bit of hanky panky by a politician would have hardly raised
an eyebrow, IMHO they have a better understanding of the big
picture, unlike puritanical America.

Amusing was last week in NY. Whilst George preached to the UN
about so called terrorists, Clinton held his own "Clinton
World Forum" down the road, to address the world's problems.
Some of the world's best brains attended, like Buffett, Gates
and Branson. Various Presidents turned up too. Still today
Clinton wins respect from other world leaders, whilst
George is seen as a bit of a buffoon. Clearly having a
patsy for prez has its own problems, as America is finding
out the hard way.

If I might ask a hypothetical -

In the context of the immediate 9/11 aftermath, what ought the US have done if the Pakistan government had refused to cooperate, given the clear links between Osama, the Taliban and Pakistan?

In response to your question Kalin, let me ask you a question.
If I came to your house and threatened to burn down your house
if you did not cooperate, would I really get your full cooperation
in future?

Rather then big threats, perhaps its better first to try the
reason approach, how you say things some times matters more then
what you say. Everyone knows that the US has lots of bombs.
To ram it down peoples throats only upsets their own egos
and makes them hostile before you even start! Thats the difference
between Clinton and Bush. Clinton understands all that, Bush
simply does not.

Yabby,

I agree that Bush is a clumsy idiotic cowboy next to his predecessor and it has no doubt been a great tragedy for the world that the US electoral system didn't allow Clinton another term.

Nevertheless, to answer your hypothetical question simply, the US had the big stick, made the big threat, and as history shows, obtained considerable cooperation from the Pakistan government. Whether this was morally sound is a different question, but noting the obvious rage in the US, I think a precipitous approach from the US was at least understandable.

Could they have obtained it by asking nicely? Possibly, however, Pakistan had long been known as a 'recruiting/training' ground for anti-western militant Islamist groups and the US had previously been unable to gain real cooperation from Pakistan to curb these activities using a purely diplomatic approach. This previous attitude of Pakistan, plus the believed (and subsequently proved) presence of many of the Al Queda hierarchy, would naturally have left the US VERY suspicious of Pakistan's role.

Do you truly believe that in the rage filled atmosphere of post 9/11, Bill Clinton would have taken a significantly less direct approach?

Had the US asked nicely and been rebuffed, as before, what ought the US have done then

Kalin, you forget that the US funded some of those Jihadi groups
and trained some, in order for them to defeat the Soviets. Alot
of the Arabs had gone to Afgahnistan, for that very purpose.

The camps you speak of were in Afgahnistan, they moved to Pakistan
later where they still remain. Do you really think that the US
won full cooperation from Pakistan? I see that Mullah Omar has
just done a deal with the Govt, they will leave him alone.

Clinton had the right approach to Bin Laden, he bombed his camp,
but sadly missed him by hours.

Look at it this way with threats. In the end politics is also about
people and relationships, thats why my analogy. If you tried to
win over a girl and she didn't agree right away, do you think she
will respect you more if you threaten to rape her if she doesent
agree?

The US has plenty of leverage over Pakistan, especially
economically. No need for the big stick approach. Its that big
stick approach that has upset so many. If you read Bin Laden's speeches, he goes on about Western humiliation of the Muslim world.
He has a point. We can be an arrogant, know all bunch. Look at Dick
Cheney, you could not meet a more arrogant man.

A skilled politician knows how to win peoples trust and respect and
then how to influence them from there. Look how close Clinton got
to solving the Middle East problem.

Yabby,

I think your analogies are a little biased. The US taking a menacing line with Pakistan, at a time when it was circumstantially implicated in terroism, cannot fairly be compared to "threatening to rape a girl." Such colourful hyperbole is not conducive to rational argument.

We can agree on Clinton's skill as a president and diplomat. I suspect history will be very kind to him and perhaps he would have done a better job. Nevertheless, Bush's threats were a very human response to a very trying situation. Oafish, undiplomatic, and likely to contribute to long lasting ill feeling between the US and Pakistan, but very human.

"Such colourful hyperbole is not conducive to rational argument."

Kalin you are free to call it that, but when people threaten
to burn your house down, rape you, or bomb you back to the
stone ages, the principle is much the same. Fact is if you
threaten people with those kinds of things, you are unlikely
to ever achieve their respect and full cooperation. Thats
very human too.

"Nevertheless, Bush's threats were a very human response to a very trying situation. Oafish, undiplomatic, and likely to contribute to long lasting ill feeling between the US and Pakistan, but very human."

Very human perhaps, if one lacks wisdom and people skills. There
are humans at various levels of intelligence on this planet.

Have you ever met an extremely rich and powerful person? If
that person spends his time telling you how rich and powerful
they are and what they could do with that power, would you
respect him for that? On the other hand, I've met rich and
powerful people who have no need for that kind of primitive
behaviour at all. They impress by their sheer humility despite
their obvious power. They impress by their reasoning skills and
their wisdom. They see the big picture and can swing others
around by those reasoning skills. They understand that cooperation
will achieve far more in the long term, then boasts about power.
Thats the difference between Clinton and Bush. One has wisdom
and intelligence, the other is a buffoon, sadly for all of us.

Yabby,

My issue with your analogy of a girl being threatened with rape is that you equate Pakistan with an innocent girl (Pakistan is far from innocent in a terrorist context) and equate a rightly enraged US with a threatening rapist (a highly prejudicial characterisation).

Obviously, such crass language as "We're gonna bomb you into the stone age" sounds thugish today, but you have to judge Bush's comments in the context of the immediate post 9/11 world. The US was enraged and the public demanding strong action and in that context, his words simply reflected extreme anger and loss of patience with Pakistan.

In short the US did not expect cooperation from Pakistan, which had been unhelpful for many years on this issue, and impressing them was never Bush's purpose. Pakistan and its government clearly had strong links to terrorist activities, and given the militant islamic schools which it hosts and its long standing links to the Taliban, was almost certainly viewed as a likely accomplice in (or at least tacitly supportive of) the 9/11 attacks.

I agree Bush's blunt approach was precipitous but I do not think Clinton, diplomatically more skillful though he is, could have dealt with things much differently. If Clinton had been president and had simply asked whether Pakistan was willing to cooperate fully to assist in the capture of Al Queda suspects, only a moron would not have heard the unstated threat which would have accompanied the 'request.' Today instead of having Pakistan's leader saying "America threatened to bomb us into the stone age" we would simply be hearing him say "it was plain to us that if we didn't cooperate, America would have attacked us." Either way, Mushareef (or whatever his name is) is probably just publishing the circumstances of his cooperation so as to sooth the domestic anger at his cooperation with the US.

So I ask you again, what do you think Clinton would/ought to have done if his hypothetical polite request for cooperation had been rebuffed?

Kalin, you have to be careful what you label "terrorists". Its not
as black and white as you think. Pakistan, like many countries, has
people who go from the secular to the fanatical. The US has their
own version of the "Christian Taleban" so to speak.

Yes Madrasses have existed for a long time, as schools teaching
religion. Saudi oil money is really the problem. It meant that
Wahabi Islam was taught, which is a fundamentalist Saudi version,
alot more militant then the Sunni or Shia schools.

Bin Laden, Al Zawahiri and their band, were actually only a small number,
follow the Sayd Qutb school, which is an offshoot from the Egyptian
Muslim brotherhood. Thats the one that wants to overthrow the
world etc. The Taleban are religious extremists, that does not
mean that they can be called terrorists. 9/11 was nearly all
Saudis.

What Bush's reaction to 911 has done, is in fact give many young
zealots good reasons to become terrorists, as we see in Iraq.

As to your hypothetical, I don't think it would ever have happened,
as Musharef himself had assasination attempts on him, he also respects Clinton.
What I think under your hypothetical, if it
still happened? Do exactly what Clinton did with Bin Laden, when he
nearly got him. The CIA is a bit of a lame duck these days, but
get that into gear, to deal with the Arab world, exactly pinpoint
the house where your target is, take it out. No need to overrun
countries and cause the deaths of so many civilians, if you are
only after a handful of people. The same applies in Iraq.