What's new

Obama deflects criticism of Pakistan

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
25,259
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Obama deflects criticism of Pakistan

By Anwar Iqbal

Thursday, 13 May, 2010 | 03:01 AM PST |



WASHINGTON: US President Barack Obama said on Wednesday that his administration was working with both Pakistan and Afghanistan to break down some of their old suspicions and bad habits.

At a White House news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the US president also indicated that Pakistan dominated at least part of his almost three-hour long consultations with the Afghan leader and his team.

“In support of the final part of our strategy, a regional approach, we discussed the importance of Afghanistan’s neighbours supporting Afghan sovereignty and security,” he said.

He then recalled that he had hosted President Karzai and President Asif Ali Zardari together at the White House a year ago. “And our trilateral cooperation will continue,” he declared.

“Indeed, Pakistan’s major offensive against extremist sanctuaries and our blows against the leadership of Al Qaeda and its affiliates advance the security of Pakistanis, Afghans and Americans alike,” observed Mr Obama.

One of Pakistan’s bad habits that Mr Obama mentioned in the news conference was its obsession with India.

While the US leader acknowledged that Pakistan was now overcoming this habit to also recognise extremists as a major threat, he forgot to mention that India had an equally unhealthy obsession with Pakistan.

“I think there has been in the past a view on the part of Pakistan that their primary rival, India, was their only concern,” he said.

“What you’ve seen over the last several months is a growing recognition that they have a cancer in their midst; that the extremist organisations that have been allowed to congregate and use as a base the frontier areas to then go into Afghanistan — that now threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

The US, he said, was determined to help improve relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

“Our goal is to break down some of the old suspicions and the old bad habits and continue to work with the Pakistani government to see their interest in a stable Afghanistan which is free from foreign meddling,” he said.

Mr Obama urged Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States and the international community to work together to reduce the influence of extremists in that region.

What coaxed a lengthy explanation from Mr Obama of his relations with Pakistan was a comment by an Afghan journalist who said that Pakistan was “the only reason that Afghanistan was not civilised” today.

“President Karzai and I have, in the past, President Zardari, as well as their intelligence officers, their military, their teams, and emphasised to Pakistan the fact that our security is intertwined,” said Mr Obama.

“And I am actually encouraged by what I’ve seen from the Pakistani government over the last several months,” he added.

“But just as it’s going to take some time for Afghanistan’s economy, for example, to fully recover from 30 years of war, it’s going to take some time for Pakistan, even where there is a will, to find a way in order to effectively deal with these extremists in areas that are fairly loosely governed from Islamabad.”

Mr Obama said that he had been encouraged by Pakistan’s willingness to start asserting more control over some of the areas where the extremists lived.

“But it is not going to happen overnight,” he warned, recalling that Pakistan too had taken “enormous casualties,” as the Pakistani military fought the extremists “fairly aggressively”.

President Obama, who came to the briefing after a detailed meeting with the Afghan leader at the White House, said President Karzai and he also discussed “the fact that the only way ultimately that Pakistan is secure is if Afghanistan is secure”.

“And the only way that Afghanistan is secure is if the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, the Afghan constitution, the Afghan people are respected by their neighbours.”

He said he believed that the message was starting to get through, “but it’s one that we have to continue to promote”.

Overshadowed by the Afghan obsession with Pakistan was President Karzai’s response to a question about his effort to seek reconciliation with the Taliban.

He said that there were thousands of Taliban who were “not against Afghanistan or against the Afghan people or their country; who are not against America either or the rest of the world”.

Such Taliban supporters, he noted, wanted to come back to Afghanistan if given an opportunity and provided the political means.

“It’s this group of the Taliban that you’re addressing in the peace Jirga. It is this group that is our intention,” said Mr Karzai who wants to hold a grand Jirga on this issue soon after he returns to Kabul.

Mr Karzai did not directly criticise Pakistan, but he made a reference to the Taliban who were “controlled from outside in any manner troublesome to us”.

This, and President Obama’s decision to mention Pakistan in his opening statement as well, confirmed the assumption that Kabul’s problems with Islamabad also dominated the talks between the two presidents.

“Today we are reaffirming our shared goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future,” said Mr Obama.

The United States, he said, was working to promote “regional cooperation, including with Pakistan, because our strategy has to succeed on both sides of the border”.
DAWN.COM | Front Page | Obama deflects criticism of Pakistan

====

The earlier thread started by AH had the usual Indian spin on the issue. Restarting the thread with a more neutral Dawn article.
 
One of Pakistan’s bad habits that Mr Obama mentioned in the news conference was its obsession with India.

Don't you think President Obama still considers it as a Pakistan's bad habbit ? where does he deflect criticism ? he still criticies more ...

While the US leader acknowledged that Pakistan was now overcoming this habit to also recognise extremists as a major threat, he forgot to mention that India had an equally unhealthy obsession with Pakistan.

The earlier thread started by AH had the usual Indian spin on the issue. Restarting the thread with a more neutral Dawn article.

who said that he forgot something... did President Obama clarify that later... ? or is it by your own country men's(the reporter of this article) illusion ? is this the neutral article you could find in which reporter simply writes whatever comes to his mind without having a proof ? :woot: :blink::disagree:
 
Last edited:
i guess the only way to fc-uk their holy intentions is to get rid of the Irhabists through any possible means...and fast. At the same time maintaining the necessary strategic depth inside afghanistan,as theres always a risk that we might be engaged from the two fronts simultaneously/ and without that we wouldn't have got a chance of strategic dialogue with US in the first place. Cant help it,Mr Karzai likes it or not.
 
i guess the only way to fc-uk their holy intentions is to get rid of the Irhabists through any possible means...and fast. At the same time maintaining the necessary strategic depth inside afghanistan,as theres always a risk that we might be engaged from the two fronts simultaneously/ and without that we wouldn't have got a chance of strategic dialogue with US in the first place. Cant help it,Mr Karzai likes it or not.

dude the thread is about "obama deflecting criticism of Pakistan" Not about ideas for solving your terrorists problem...

Please share your opinion on whether from the report President Obama seems to deflect criticism or criticising more ? what do you infer from the report... ?

As far as I infer he seems to criticise more... what say ?

One of Pakistan’s bad habits that Mr Obama mentioned in the news conference was its obsession with India.
 
Don't you think President Obama still considers it as a Pakistan's bad habbit ? where does he deflect criticism ? he still criticies more ...
He was critical of an alleged past 'obsession', as he put it. The deflection part comes in with respect to his comments in response to the Afghan journalist.

who said that he forgot something... did President Obama clarify that later... ? or is it by your own country men's(the reporter of this article) illusion ?

It is valid criticizm by the author for the following reasons:

1. India has the majority of its mechanized and infantry divisions deployed against Pakistan.

2. India continues to act against Pakistani interests, whether they have any bearing on India or not, at international fora. Case in point the opposition to a civilian nuclear agreement for Pakistan.

3. India continues to whine about US military aid to Pakistan and other weapons purchases by Pakistan

4. Indian involvement in Afghanistan, which even as a stable and prosperous country would offer a tiny market (and it is nowhere close to that currently) is directly related to a desire to create a second front against Pakistan.

I'd say that 'Indian obsession with Pakistan' is pretty well established, and the criticism of Obama for not acknowledging it was valid.
is this the neutral article you could find in which reporter simply writes whatever comes to his mind without having a proof ? :woot: :blink::disagree:
Yes this is a far more balanced/neutral article since it presents a larger segment of Obama's comments without inflammatory rhetoric and poses a valid critique of one of Obama's comments.

The Indian article posted earlier editorialized heavily using derogatory and inflammatory language, and highlighted only one part of Obama's comments, those that you highlighted, and was therefore in no way neutral or balanced.
 
He was critical of an alleged past 'obsession', as he put it. The deflection part comes in with respect to his comments in response to the Afghan journalist.

In the article it is nowhere President Obama mentions that Pakistan is doing away with its "bad" habbit being obsessive about India...

What he says is he now Pakistan "also" recognises the extremists as major threat. This word "also" says that Pakistan is still obsessed with India. He still wants Pakistan to not being obsessed about India as he himself says that it is a bad habbit, right ? why would someone mention a trait of a person as a bad habbit if he doesn't think it is well placed ?


It is valid criticizm by the author for the following reasons:

1. India has the majority of its mechanized and infantry divisions deployed against Pakistan.

2. India continues to act against Pakistani interests, whether they have any bearing on India or not, at international fora. Case in point the opposition to a civilian nuclear agreement for Pakistan.

3. India continues to whine about US military aid to Pakistan and other weapons purchases by Pakistan

4. Indian involvement in Afghanistan, which even as a stable and prosperous country would offer a tiny market (and it is nowhere close to that currently) is directly related to a desire to create a second front against Pakistan.

I'd say that 'Indian obsession with Pakistan' is pretty well established, and the criticism of Obama for not acknowledging it was valid.

I would say I summarily disagree with the points you mentioned and will not debate on it as it will simply go the way other threads go...

Yes this is a far more balanced/neutral article since it presents a larger segment of Obama's comments without inflammatory rhetoric and poses a valid critique of one of Obama's comments.
If it is simply a valid critique then the reporter should not have said that President Obama forgot to mention, this gives an impression that he also shares the reporters opinion which President Obama never implied. He should have avoided saying that President Obama forgot. Instead he should have made it sound like it is more of his opinion than President Obama's opinion.

This article still proves none about "Obama deflects criticism of Pakistan". President Obama acknowledges that Pakistan has started recognising terrorism as a there to itself, but he never says that Pakistan has started to do away with being obsessed about India.


The Indian article posted earlier editorialized heavily using derogatory and inflammatory language, and highlighted only one part of Obama's comments, those that you highlighted, and was therefore in no way neutral or balanced.

I don't know what were all the derogatory and infalmmatory language used in the Indian article, yes I do agree there are a few Indian media sources which jump the gun. I cannot bat for all, but there are a lot of decent Indian media as well.
If Indian media says something you find inflammatory, and you find a Pakistani media which also uses inflammatory language (reporter while stating his comments, puts them as though President Obama also shares his thougts) how does it make it neutral. This is only a tit for tat by your reporter.
 
Last edited:
The core problem with Obama's pakistan approach is that it is totally predicated on a monetary-based philosophy.

Obama has pledged approximately ~2 billion a year in military/econ aid for 2010, which brings Pakistan's total aid since 2002 at ~19 billion.

70% of this has been siphoned off by the leadership.

we also have to look at pakistan's performance in the north, which has been sub-par until NWO offensive since march. pakistan military has scored at least 900KIA with minimal civilian deaths (but pakistan military has banned the media so we really don't know) and has cooperated well with USA drones that have taken out HV targets. i think 5 bad guys were killed a couple days ago in US/Pakistan coordinated airstrike.

BUT, obama has yet to justify or explain his reasoning behind boosting military support. about 25% of pakistan's military budget is subsidized by US tax dollars, and i think obama needs to tell the world in simple terms what his strategy is.

afghanistan is still corrupt as ever and the taliban is far more efficient and capable than the "democratically-elected" "pro-american" leadership.

i think these days criticizing obama in general doesn't sell well in the media. i have yet to see any meaningful criticism of pakistan's military performance outside of india.

it seems most don't care.
 
Obama deflects criticism of Pakistan

“In support of the final part of our strategy, a regional approach, we discussed the importance of Afghanistan’s neighbours supporting Afghan sovereignty and security,” he said.

One of Pakistan’s bad habits that Mr Obama mentioned in the news conference was its obsession with India.

“I think there has been in the past a view on the part of Pakistan that their primary rival, India, was their only concern,” he said.

“What you’ve seen over the last several months is a growing recognition that they have a cancer in their midst; that the extremist organisations that have been allowed to congregate and use as a base the frontier areas to then go into Afghanistan — that now threatens Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

“Our goal is to break down some of the old suspicions and the old bad habits and continue to work with the Pakistani government to see their interest in a stable Afghanistan which is free from foreign meddling,” he said.

“President Karzai and I have, in the past, President Zardari, as well as their intelligence officers, their military, their teams, and emphasised to Pakistan the fact that our security is intertwined,” said Mr Obama.

“But just as it’s going to take some time for Afghanistan’s economy, for example, to fully recover from 30 years of war, it’s going to take some time for Pakistan, even where there is a will, to find a way in order to effectively deal with these extremists in areas that are fairly loosely governed from Islamabad.”

“And the only way that Afghanistan is secure is if the sovereignty, the territorial integrity, the Afghan constitution, the Afghan people are respected by their neighbours.”

He said he believed that the message was starting to get through, “but it’s one that we have to continue to promote”.

Mr Karzai did not directly criticise Pakistan, but he made a reference to the Taliban who were “controlled from outside in any manner troublesome to us”.

This, and President Obama’s decision to mention Pakistan in his opening statement as well, confirmed the assumption that Kabul’s problems with Islamabad also dominated the talks between the two presidents.

“Today we are reaffirming our shared goal: to disrupt, dismantle and defeat Al Qaeda and its extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan and to prevent its capacity to threaten America and our allies in the future,” said Mr Obama.


Where is the deflection? President Obama spoke his mind in as many words. Just in a diplomatic language warranted of the new policy of US towards Pakistan. The objectives clearly remain the same but the language is of course is not anymore like Armitage to Musharraf = "We will bomb you to stoneage" but everything from India obsession to meddling in Afganistan and to terrorist tolerance has been touched upon very clearly and has been advised as an approach that the U.S does not support and would like Pakistan to change.

“But it is not going to happen overnight,” he warned, recalling that Pakistan too had taken “enormous casualties,” as the Pakistani military fought the extremists “fairly aggressively”.


That is the truth and credit is due to Pakistan for a long due change in its course bearing and approach.
 
That is the truth and credit is due to Pakistan for a long due change in its course bearing and approach.

Very true, the people's mind has to really change fully yet. anyways a welcome change from Pakistan.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom