Having just finished reading Ahmed Rashid’s newest book ‘Descent into Chaos‘, wherein he reports that nearly all of the international mass casualty terrorist plots now can be traced back or linked to the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in Pakistan – and that the Afghan insurgency is based there – I think the most interesting part of Obama’s speech on Tuesday evening will be what he has to say about Pakistan.
Islam News @ NYT- Driving Miss Saudi: Young women in Riyadh try to balance Islam and modernity as the stunted desert kingdom makes progress in “Saudi Time.”
- Women’s Rights in Mideast:
- A Dispute on Using the Koran as a Path to Jesus: “The Camel Method” for preaching to Muslims has prompted controversy among Southern Baptists.
-
Would you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
bingregory 9:05 pm on November 30, 2009 Permalink |
Man, I wish my library had that one. Just finished “Taliban” last night, and it didn’t seem dated in the least. The amount of access Rashid has in the region is stunning. He’s talked to everybody!
Conrad Barwa 2:11 am on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
His first book was great; though I think it perhaps overplayed the UNOCAL pipeline proposition; ‘Descent’ is also very good on Afghanistan, I think it is a bit weaker on Pakistan, I didn’t like the near beautification of Benazir, Rashid seems to have glossed over a lot of the more unpalatable aspects of her administrations and the backroom deals that she made to be readmitted to the country. The assumption seems to be (by AR) that if she had lived and become President that it would have averted many problems. IMO she has by large been a disappointment whenever in power. Good book otherwise.
johnpi 12:17 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
I fully agree with you about the pipeline material. I suspect Michael Moore was heavily influenced by Rashid when he made “Farenheit 911″ which also carries on at some length about pipelines and oil deals. Moore goes even further off-track when he oversimplifies Karzai’s ascension to leadership as resulting from his having been a consultant to Unocal.
Regarding Bhutto: I got the sense that Rashid was somewhat partisan about her. The important insight I took away about Pakistani politics is how much the military and the ISI have worked to undermine or destroy (or kill) any civilian that shows potential for political leadership – hence, the corruption charges that Zardari faces now.
Given the extent of machinations against Pakistani civilian leadership, I’m surprised anyone even takes corruption charges seriously…
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 1:35 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
John, are you somehow implying that Zardari is not actually corrupt?
johnpi 1:56 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
Yes. Do you disagree?
Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 5:02 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
First of all, I’m shocked by this position. I’m not an expert on Pakistani politics or Mr. Zardari but I know a good number of Pakistanis (my wife is from Pakistan) and it is known by ‘ijma amongst all I have discussed this with that Zardari is corrupt. His very name is shorthand for wicked corruption and theft in the culture (which I guess you blame on the military?)
Here is a 1998 New York Times piece House of Graft tracing the unbelievable corruption of the sainted Benazir and her husband’s direct role in much of it.
johnpi 7:45 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
Check Wikipedia on Zardari’s corruption charges. Everytime Zardari has been given the opportunity to answer charges in a court of law he has been found not guilty, or the charges have been dropped because there was no evidence to affirm the rumors.
The American media, and especially the NY Times, has always kowtowed to white house policy objectives (see the Iraq war), and historically the US government has favored Pakistani military rulers over civilian leadership. No surprise the US media would have been amplifying these charges at that point in time.
Conrad Barwa 8:04 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
I think he is corrupt and quite corrupt to be honest; the first Benazir regime was marked by heavy corruption. This doesn’t bother me too much, unfortunately it is almost impossible to become head of the executive without having some taint in South Asia (I know of only one modern leader who managed to avoid a financial scandal in officer and after) Benazir, almost as admitted as much when she was quizzed in a newspaper interview several years back as to how she could afford keeping several establishments in the UK and Switz. including a large estate in southern England – she airily dismissed the question by saying the money came from her supporters – I lost a lot of respect for her after that one. I don’t think Zardari had credibly explained the huge boost in his declared wealth and assets, from before his marriage to after; suspicious given the very modest background he comes from.
But this isn’t a major problem imo, since pretty much any politician in this situation will tend to enrich themselves when in power- though Zardari was just a bit too greedy. More troublingly for me, is the role he played in the assassination by police of Murtaza Bhutto, Benazir’s brother. that was a sordid affair and Benazir is pretty much held to have been deeply implicated in it by both her family and the public at large (the sequence of events strongly supports this). This along with the rather poor record of the PPP on development, good governance, women’s rights, Kashmir and the Taliban certainly do not paint Benazir’s record in power as a good one. Very disappointing given her popularity at the time and the moral capital she built up by her campaign against Zia after the hanging of her father and her intellectual abilities.
It is however, true that Zardari is being undermined by the ISI and elements of the military who are unhappy about his policy towards the Taliban and the NWFP and his links with the US. This would be true of any civilian leader as any who would be seen to be crossing a line; will run the risk of being deposed by the Army.
johnpi 8:57 pm on December 2, 2009 Permalink |
From the standpoint of American policy, the question now is whether we’re going to support the creation of a civil society and robust civilian leadership, or are we going to fall back to relying on the generals…