Saturday, April 05, 2008

Pissed Off Commenter Of The Day

Many thanks to Asad for sending in this New Republic article by Dennis Ross (remember that name, kids). The article does a good job of setting up the conundrum the U.S. faces in Pakistan in the post-February 18 world. And if you don't read it for Ross' words, read it for this comment by "o_zaalim":
Pakistan stood shoulder to shoulder with the west and specially with America all those years. We helped you so you could win the cold war in Afghanistan against Russia. Did America do anything to stop East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh? Did you ever help us? Why should you expect more favours from us? You are the worst friend anyone could ask for. Would you bomb parts of your own country if there was threat against your ally? i.e. Pakistan? Why not put yourselves in our shoes? Fair enough do what ever you want in your own land but f***** leave us alone. We should have gone with the Russians. Look at India, reaping rewards for backing Russia. Did you do anything for us to solve Kashmir Issue? You are the most undeserving selfish buggers. Democracy for self but not for others eh>? Is that what Democracy is about? supporting Musharraf? shame on your two face morals.

Come on, o_zaalim. Tell us how you really feel.


shariq said...

According to Hitchens, the Nixon/Kissinger regime supported Pakistan's genocidal activities in East Pakistan because they saw Pakistan as better allies than Indira Gandhi's socialist India.

Also, I sometimes wonder if the Pakistani army/establishment ever really wanted the Kashmir issue to be solved, because it would mean that they wouldn't be as important.

Ahsan said...


I would just say that the establishment would want a solution to Kashmir, just on its terms. I don't think the military is averse to a settlement on Kashmir, because it doesn't need the Kashmir issue per se to guarantee its importance. Irrespective of a political solution to Kashmir, India would remain a much stronger state, and, depending on said solution, would remain a threatening/aggressive one. Such a status quo would ensure the paramountcy of the Army. It is India as a rival, not the Kashmir issue, which has partly contributed to the rise of the military as a strong and powerful force in our polity.

shariq said...

Ahsan, that's a convincing explanation. The idea just occurred to me, so I was throwing it out there to see if it made any sense.