Prodigious Songcraft Blooms in Sarah Jarosz - The Austin Chronicle

Critical tothe SuccessBY MICHAEL VENTURAPakistan, eh? Pakistan.At West Point last Dec. 1 the president said:“I am convinced that our security is at stake inAfghanistan and Pakistan. … In the past, therehave been those in Pakistan who’ve arguedthat the struggle against extremism is not theirfight, and that Pakistan is better off doing littleor seeking accommodation with those whouse violence. But in recent years … it hasbecome clear that it is the Pakistani peoplewho are the most endangered by extremism.Public opinion has turned.”Six days later The New York Times reportedthat Pakistani “public opinion runs stronglyagainst the United States” (Dec. 6, 2009,p.WK1). Even before the speech it was wellknown that “[m]any Pakistanis blame theUnited States for the country’s rising instability.… [A] surge of anti-American sentiment [isevident] even among the elite. … ‘There is ageneral perception in the educated class thatPakistan is paying a very heavy price for fightingalongside the United States,’” said one“prominent” Pakistani (The New York Times,Oct. 27, 2009, p.6). Public opinion sure isturning, but not in the direction indicated byour president.“The past” he referred to looksawfully like the present. “Thehead of Pakistan’s chief spy agency… met with senior officials atthe Central Intelligence Agency… in Washington, where heargued against sending moretroops to Afghanistan” (The NewYork Times, Oct. 6, 2009, p.1). Infact, according to The Economist(Nov. 28, 2009, p.27), “Pakistani generalsand diplomats argue … [that] America mustseek a high-level political settlement with itsTaliban enemies. … [S]ome steps have alreadybeen taken. ‘We’ve already been talking to theTaliban,’” said a “senior Pakistani official.”The White House knows that Pakistanis highand low oppose its Afghan policy and seekto subvert it. Nevertheless, at West Point, thepresident said what he said.He also said, “[W]e are committed to apartnership with Pakistan that is built on afoundation of mutual interest, mutual respect,and mutual trust,” while Pakistan’s presidentcountered in a New York Times op-ed: “[I]nboth countries there is deep suspicion towardthe other” (Dec. 10, 2009, p.43).Then things got crazy. Crazier.A page 1 New York Times headline, Dec.17, 2009: “U.S. Diplomats Face Backlash inIslamabad.” “Parts of the Pakistani militaryand intelligence services are mounting whatAmerican officials … describe as a campaign tolettersat 3amharass American diplomats. … The problemsaffected military attachés [and] C.I.A. officers.… American helicopters used by Pakistanto fight militants can no longer be servicedbecause visas for 14 American mechanics havenot been approved.” Visa extensions havebeen refused for “at least 125 American diplomats.”“Pakistani officials acknowledged thesituation but said the menacing atmosphereresulted from American arrogance and provocations.”What those officials “acknowledged”is that Pakistan does not want to play anddoes not have to if it does not want to.They even refused to renew the visa of theAmerican Embassy’s one remaining accountant,so goes the report. This was the personempowered to pay them $1 billion in “reimbursements.”When they’re turning downmoney, you know they’re serious.“[M]ost diplomats and aid workers no longerventure out [on the streets of Islamabad]freely” (The New York Times, Jan. 1, p.6). Notwhat you want to hear if our president is correctand “our security is at stake” there.He said at West Point that one of the “threecore elements of our strategy” is “an effectivepartnership with Pakistan,” but clearlythat core element does not exist.Nor did the White House haveany reason to suppose it exists,existed, or could exist – atleast, not on terms this WhiteHouse prefers.Nevertheless, at West Point,the president said what he said.Do you think it’s the water?Something in the pipes? Present andrecent occupants of the west wing seemto contract serious reality deficiencies afterdrinking and showering in the stuff.For instance, last November a WhiteHouse national security adviser broughttwo messages to Islamabad. The first was“that the new American strategy would workonly if Pakistan broadened its fight” (TheNew York Times, Nov. 16, 2009, p.1). (Onlyif!) The second message was a personal letterfrom our president to their presidentin which our president “expected” theirpresident “to rally the nation’s political andnational security institutions in a unitedcampaign against extremists.”But, according to The Economist, Pakistan’spresident “is one of the country’s most discreditedpoliticians” (Nov. 28, 2009, p.27).“He is fighting for his political life,” agreesThe New York Times (Dec. 16, 2009, p.8).As is widely known, this guy served 11years in jail on charges of corruption andmurder. Now he is barred from leaving hisJASON STOUTcountry by Pakistan’s Supreme Court inorder to face civil charges that could striphim of his presidency (The New York Times,Dec. 19, 2009, p.8). His interior and defenseministers are in even hotter water. In fact,the court’s ruling sent “senior governmentministers [scurrying] … for bail before theywere arrested” (The Economist, Jan. 2, p.33).As if that weren’t enough for a Marx Brothersscript, “the government’s lawyer” – so goesthis report – “made the astonishing claimthat [Pakistan] army headquarters and theCIA were conspiring against the [Pakistanipresident’s] government.”Yet our president expects and exhorts theirpresident to rally his people.The Pakistani army has been fighting Talibanand Taliban-like forces in Pakistan, it is true,but the “army’s impressive recent campaigns… have been directed at terrorists active inPakistan, not those who cross the border toattack … in Afghanistan” (The Economist, Dec.5, 2009, p.14). They’re not fighting the guyswe want them to fight.As for Pakistan “on the ground,” thesestats are from The Economist, Nov. 28, 2009,p.27: Only one-third of Pakistanis thinkdemocracy is best for their country – “thesame proportion as [advocate fundamentalist]sharia law.” Sixty percent say the armyis the most trusted Pakistan institution. Halftrust religious authorities. (Only half.) Just10% back the government. “Only a fifth of[the poll’s] respondents [have] a full-timejob. A quarter of them [are] illiterate.” Halfof Pakistan’s 170 million people are youngerthan 20, and “40% of Pakistani children[are] out of school.” In 2009 Pakistan’scurrency inflated at a rate of 20% (The NewYork Times, Jan. 3, p.WK9). When, at WestPoint, our president said that “America is …providing substantial resources to supportPakistan’s democracy,” he neglected to mentionthat two-thirds of Pakistanis don’t muchwant democracy.What are Pakistanis to think when thisWhite House warns “that if [Pakistan] doesnot act more aggressively the United States willuse considerably more force on the Pakistaniside of the border to shut down Talibanattacks” (The New York Times, Dec. 8, 2009,p.1)? Over a year ago, the chief of Pakistan’sarmy “denounced” such attacks and “vowedto defend Pakistan’s territory ‘at all cost’” (TheEconomist, Sept. 20, 2008, p.55). Pakistan hasnukes. When an army with nukes says “at allcost,” somebody should listen.At West Point our president said, “[T]here isno doubt that the United States and Pakistanshare a common enemy,” though he knewmost Pakistanis doubt that a lot. He spoke asthough no fact I’ve cited applies. And he didso after three months of deliberation duringwhich Pakistanis told him, in no uncertainterms, that they were not on board.American commanders “consider eliminating[Taliban and al Qaeda] sanctuaries in[Pakistan] to be critical to the success” of thepresident’s strategy (The New York Times, Jan.2, p.1). If that’s true, then, considering thefacts, what are you thinking, Mr. President?What, really, are you thinking?24 T H E A U S T I N C H R O N I C L E JANUARY 15, 2010 a u s t i n c h r o n i c l e . c o m