There are also parallels to Cambodia where we bombed the countryside and angered a population leading to the "victory" of the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields.
Today, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US is bombing, and killing people with drones and other type of weapons and the governments of the two countries can do little or nothing to confront the US about the practice and the "collateral" damage, the deaths of innocents. The people in the countryside will be rightfully furious and the puppet governments of the countries will be the recipients of the anger. The upshot is that we will be looking at two countries (really one region) that will be a lawless area, and particularly lawless when the puppet governments fall. It is particularly sobering to consider the long term impact of the stupid US policies in the region when you consider the Pakistani nukes. There could be hell to pay for the monumentally and relentlessly stupid foreign policy the US has adopted toward the region.
Bush? Obama? makes no difference. Obama is ordering the drone attacks in Pakistan today and is the guy excited about stepping up the war in Afghanistan. No change there. This is not a smart policy the US is pursuing.
Posted by mike at May 4, 2009 07:29 AM"Today, in Pakistan and Afghanistan, the US is bombing, and killing people with drones and other type of weapons and the governments of the two countries can do little or nothing to confront the US about the practice and the "collateral" damage, the deaths of innocents."
Not to worry....Obama is making it possible for foreign governments to conduct war crime trials of our officials.
Next on the war crimes trial docket, Barrack Obama.
Posted by manapp99 at May 4, 2009 08:31 AMMike, as I recall the bombing in Cambodia had little to do with the Khmer Rouge success. Most of the US bombing occurred in areas which were very sparsely populated against targets which could be identified. US policy went south when it decided that having a mushy neutral in power was less desirable than having a known military man at the helm. Of course, the militaries we supported in SE Asia had a bad habit of being totally ineffectual, so establishing the new military regime had the opposite effect of the one desired.
Posted by PrahaPartizan at May 4, 2009 09:22 AMIt appears one ethnic group has pulled the proverbial veil over the rest using "Pan-Islamism" as the only glue. Reality says that devolved thinking is rapidly unraveling...
Reports out of Karachi aren't getting any traction in the echo chamber. There are much deeper dynamics that will be exposed with onset of Talibanisation.
Posted by Nemo at May 4, 2009 10:12 AMEriposte;
There is big gap between rich and poor in India too. However, that country has been able to maintain democracy since its independance from Britan. The reason I believe is that India is a secular country while Pakistan declared itself as an islamic state and drove out all non muslims. By driving out Sindhis (who are Hindus) from Sindh, Pakistan lost the enterpruner people. By driving out Sikhs, it lost the hard working farmers. Now what is left is a group of people who have no desire to better themselves and happy to be in worship of Allah as Islam teaches them.
Pakistan cannot do better without democracy and secularism. Unfortunately, Islam is not compatible with democracy and does not accept eqality of any other religion.
Posted by suresh at May 4, 2009 12:08 PMNext up in the award for biggest troll asswipe: the man-ape!!! congrats dumbass
Posted by headxray at May 4, 2009 02:31 PMsuresh,
without knowing the details, it sounds like you're touching on, then simplifying, what eriposte is getting to. clearly, the impact of ethnic suppression and the rise of islamization are his larger points; but he seems to want to explain how both happened, and how the latter was used to mask the impact of the former. you're putting the cart before the horse. islamization wasn't the cause of ethnic problems, it was merely a tool that exacerbated them.
i look forward to reading more...
Posted by Turkana at May 4, 2009 03:31 PMPrahaPartizan wrote: "Mike, as I recall the bombing in Cambodia had little to do with the Khmer Rouge success. Most of the US bombing occurred in areas which were very sparsely populated against targets which could be identified."
from the PBS Frontline website: On March 18, 1969, American B-52s began carpet-bombing eastern Cambodia. "Operation Breakfast" was the first course in a four-year bombing campaign that drew Cambodia headlong into the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration kept the bombings secret from Congress for several months, insisting they were directed against legitimate Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge targets. However, the raids exacted an enormous cost from the Cambodian people: the US dropped 540,000 tons of bombs , killing anywhere from 150,000 to 500,000 civilians. with assistance from North Vietnam and China, the guerrillas of the Khmer Rouge had grown into a formidable force. By 1974, they were beating the government on the battlefield and preparing for a final assault on Phnom Penh. And they had gained an unlikely new ally: Norodom Sihanouk, living in exile, who now hailed them as patriots fighting against an American puppet government.
Sihanouk's support boosted the Khmer Rouge's popularity among rural Cambodians. But some observers have argued that the devastating American bombing also helped fuel the Khmer Rouge's growth. Former New York Times correspondent Sydney Schanberg said the Khmer Rouge "... would point... at the bombs falling from B-52s as something they had to oppose if they were going to have freedom. And it became a recruiting tool until they grew to a fierce, indefatigable guerrilla army." Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger has dismissed the idea that the US bears any responsibility for the rise of the Khmer Rouge. As he argued in his memoir, "It was Hanoi-animated by an insatiable drive to dominate Indochina- that organized the Khmer Rouge long before any American bombs fell on Cambodian soil."
So, PrahaPartizan, you agree with Henry Kissinger regarding the Khmer Rouge. Does that give you pause?
I stand by my analysis that the US bombing of Cambodia played a significant part in the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the killing fields. I guess if you think carpet bombing that kills 150 to 500K of civilians does not have political effects, I will leave you to your own conclusions regarding same.
Posted by mike at May 4, 2009 08:10 PM