Charlie Rose

sika  03/26/2009 08:58 AM Report

To read more about Pakistan and the region in general, please visit

http://real-politique.blogspot.com

tartufe  03/23/2009 10:43 PM Report

Damon - send Drucker's book to Obama with your post pasted to it's cover. Give the screeners something to think about(?).

Dee02  03/23/2009 10:23 PM Report

Is Pakistani Ambassador begging money or ordering for it? Appears it is easiest way for Pakistani Government and politicians to earn money and maintain their parallel residence and businesses in Europe. Instead of funding Pakistani ministers' UBS account and making fool of ourselves, US Government needs to act independently. Pakistan will never fight against Al-Quaeda since it is the brain child of ISI, Pakistani Government run terrorist organization. We should not maintain these wars for long rather should 'act boldly and swiftly'. Waisting our money and troupe there, does not make sense, especially when we own Pakistan and its bombs. Instead go to Africa and create markets for our goods and services.

Damon  03/22/2009 04:14 PM Report

The Futility of Military Aid

Like Admiral Mullins, I too am pessimistic after watching this conversation about the crisis in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Joe Klein distinguishes between Bush’s previous policy of playing favorites and Obama’s resistance to get involved in internal Pakistani politics, but how can we say Obama is not making Zardari or the Pakistan Army a favorite when we give them military aid? Can anyone point to any successful outcome of military aid? Where has it not backfired?

Peter Drucker explained the problem with military aid in 1994: “Military aid does not create reliable allies. In all probability the aid recipients will turn against the aid giver – as Iran and Iraq turned against the United States and as Afghanistan turned against the Soviet Union. One reason is that recipients increasingly resent being dependent the more aid they receive. Another, more important, reason is that the aid giver becomes identified with the government to which the aid is being given. Even if the aid is not being used to keep a government in power, the aid giver is increasingly seen as the supporter of the incumbents: of the Colonels in Greece, for instance, or the Shah of Iran. When the incumbents are removed, even by peaceful means, the successor government is almost forced to turn against the foreign power that worked with its predecessors, that is, against the aid giver” (p. 161-162).

I fear most that military aid receivers misdirect their vision, resources, and energies toward military ends, and neglect everything else (Drucker, 1994). Rather than providing military aid to foreign governments, I would like to see the American government focus its energy on turning itself around, which means abandoning things that do not work. Unless someone can demonstrate where in history military aid has been shown to work, I recommend military aid be the first candidate for abandonment.

As for stamping out terrorism, action that goes beyond any sovereign state seems to be what is required. It seems the precedents for action are 1) the action against Iraq in 1991 and 2) the action against piracy and slave trade in the nineteenth-century. Mr. Rose, I recommend you invite retired LCDR Charles Swift onto your program and bring Noam Chomsky back. We must always be able to look at ourselves in the mirror as we attempt to stamp out terrorism.

Drucker, P. F. (1994). Post-Capitalist Society. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

mayne100  03/20/2009 12:15 AM Report

After seeing this segment i was surprised by the lack of depth and analysis by some of the guests. This was especially the case with Ambassador Husain Haqqani who came across as nothing more then a shrill for the Zadari administration; which is further highlighted by the fact that his wife is a member of parliament for the ruling Government. He (Haqqani) never mentioned that one of the chief reasons why Zadari refused for more than a year to reinstate the former Chief Justice (even though it was a campaign promise) was that he was afraid that the independently minded Judge would revoke the immunity he (Zadari) received from Musharf, and it was one of the principle reasons why the coalition between Zadari and Nawaz Sahrif broke up in October last year. By receiving this immunity it now reduces the number of countries who are after Zadari on fraud and money laundering charges to three. Zadari is as sleazy and shabby as they come.

As for his Presidency, Zadari was never elected by the people in fact he was appointed by the Majority of members of the various State Parliaments in Pakistan, and given that they tend to be member of his own political party, which he effectively controls as he was bequeathed the chairmanship of the party via Benazir Bhutto’s finial Will and testament, he was appointed the President. His personal approval ratings are as allow as 14%, he is certainly not and never was the people’s choice.

This by no means that iam a supporter of the sheriff brothers, who even give corruption a bad name. A lot of the ill-gotten gains the shrieff brothers got back in the 90’s are the current basis of their financial support. If the country returns to them then it will truely sink.

I just hope and pray that the country can some how come out of this darkness.

mayne100  03/19/2009 11:30 PM Report

Ambassador Husain Haqqani is a disgrace, i mean what a joke!

charlizecourriers  03/19/2009 08:43 PM Report

The Audacious Amateur triagulated himself on the Afganistan question. Now he begins to see how huge a mistake that was. Like Johnson he has to win in Afganistan(Vietnam) and Pakistan(Cambodia). Charlie and his guests weren't there, but those who were know that there are always dedicated, highly trained forces willing and able to engage all American forces anywhere and anytime in these regions. The fight will be to the death and there will be many,many deaths. Presidents also fall because of their overreaching rhetoric. Now is the time to leave, or expect eight years of war-or four, if the Audaciou Amateur stumbles.

design  03/19/2009 01:26 AM Report

Remember who steered the ship of state into the sand..., George W. Bush.

Now Obama has to get us off the bank/shoals (pun intended) as the financial storm pounds our backs.

Too many banks and people will not get out from "under water."

lulu35  03/18/2009 11:40 PM Report

Joe Klein a hack, who can take anything he say's serious.

tartufe  03/18/2009 06:32 PM Report

There's something poignantly sad about Obama. The great black hope failing on the two major crises kinda hurts. Unlike Limbaugh it would have been refreshing to have him successful all around. Probably unfair to expect 100%.

Citigroup, via Bobby Rubin, cheered on by Larry Summers, bought his soul with campaign contributions. Financial solutions will consequently skewed to the big banks - the perpetrators.

His docile acceptance of the jingo actions in A-P, by continuing the CS drone missile strikes, also will ultimately be a draining failure.

He is moving fast toward a one-term collapse of hope. Which in itself is a tragedy.

REMant  03/18/2009 03:35 PM Report

I think that between Bernanke's attempts to reflate the housing bubble, and Afghanistan, etc, the Obama admin is in real danger of going the way of the Bush admin, as Lee Hamilton fears.

tartufe  03/18/2009 01:12 PM Report

Obama will have a failed presidency on two counts: financial crisis, and Afghan-Pak.

Anti-American sentiment is an idea (and growing) and not geography. Or it's so pandemic, panglobal and growing because we persist. Geographic names that are just as ripe or more for fomenting terrorism: Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, N. Korea.

Our mission seems to be to decide a mission. Bin Laden has nothing to do with it any longer. Even if he were to be killed before he dies of old age - so what?

Our indiscriminant use of drone fired missiles recruits another 20-100 villagers into hard core Taliban or al-Qaida (like there's a difference) with each detonation.

You don't have to be arrogant with your head up your ass to be a foil for the M-I oligarchy but evidence shows it helps.

In the meantime, Pakistan is extorting billions from our overextended financial system to buid their infrastructure that should be going to our own.

Lastly our 'plan' seems to be to wait (hope?) for the Pakistani army to decide that it's in their interest to take out the Taliban. Well BS. That aint gonna happen. The Taliban are most likely Pashtun that come with the land.

The only winners - short term - are the slobbering profiteers in the M-I oligarchy. Have gun(s). Will travel. To the Mexican border, Iraq, Pakistan, ?, ?. . . .