With insurgent violence increasing in Afghanistan, the Bush administration’s top military official made a surprise visit to Pakistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, pressed Pakistani leaders to crack down on the Islamic militants moving freely about the country’s tribal areas. These militants are crossing unimpeded into Afghanistan to carry out terrorist attacks and destabilizing both countries. Mullen said,
“That border is more porous than it was a year ago.” [and] “It’s very important that action be taken to respond to that.”
Admiral Mullen and other senior U.S. military officials are placing the blame for these attacks squarely on the shoulders of the Pakistani government.
(and rightfully so!)
Of course Pakistani officials rebuffed these assertions. Pakistani Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi claims that,
“We are pursuing a policy of political engagement, but that does not mean that we will capitulate in front of terrorists.” [and that it was an] “exaggeration to just pass the buck to Pakistan.”
Mr. Foreign Minister, a “policy of political engagement” is just another way of saying you’re trying to solve this problem through diplomacy. Considering your efforts have resulted in increasing terrorist activity, the militants aren’t listening. Obviously, the terrorists aren’t concerned about the consequences of continued activity because your words don’t carry any bite. I’m afraid that your “policy of political engagement” has failed and is tantamount to capitulation in front of these terrorists.
(are you listening Obama?)
Tags: Admiral Mike Mullen, Afghanistan, Islam, militant, Pakistan, Shah Mahmood Qureshi
[ + ]
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://shyspeak.net/2008/07/13/violence-increases-as-pakistan-talks/trackback/
July 13, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Richard
The problem, my dear JOS, is that talking to the terrorists/fascists (take your pick) is that the objective of doing so is NOT the hope of actually preventing the terrorism through negotiation but instead indulging Obama’s/leftists world-view that all violence is counter-productive and therefore a considered and thoughtful approach (”tough minded diplomacy), where you are “honest”, “trustworthy” and “prepared to give and take” will lead to a mutually agreeable decision.
There is a rude commentary on this idea, Idiocy.
I believe the tough-minded diplomacy of Roosevelt’s “Speak softly and carry a big stick.” Diplomacy works if both sides are willing to compromise, and the terrorist won’t if he feels he’s dealing from a position of strength. He must be compelled to compromise out of a fear of the alternative, and this simply isn’t the case. After all Clausewitz said, war is “the continuation of politics by other means.” That’s what its come to.
- JOS
July 14, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Richard
Exactly and very well put. I had forgotten Teddy’s saying but it is eloquent and to the point.
Thanks. Unfortunately, it appears Obama has never even heard it! He has many of the qualities of Neville Chamberlain and Jimmy Carter.
- JOS
July 16, 2008 at 11:56 am
Richard
Not Neville Chaimberlain surely? Neville Chaimberlain tried to reach an agreement and then declared offered a guarantee to Poland when the agreement over Czechoslovakia was breached. When Hitler attacked Poland, Neville Chaimberlain gave Hitler an ultimatium. Withdraw German forces immediately from Poland or Britain would consider itself to be in a state of war with Germany.
He was wrong but when confronted with the facts, Chaimberlain changed his mind.
Jimmy Carter never did.
I was speaking of Chamberlain’s dismal appeasement policy. You’re right about Chamberlain changing his mind when he realized that an accord could not be reached with Hitler, but by that time wasn’t Churchill the PM? I believe Chamberlain actually supported Churchill in this regard, unlike Halifax who continued to believe appeasement was the way to go. I suppose Lord Halifax would’ve served as a better analogy, eh?
- JOS