Pakistan erupts against U.S.A.

NATO planes bombed  a Pakistani military base, killing 24 soldiers.  (Afghans claim that the Pakistanis were firing on them as they patrolled with NATO troops.)  So the country is refusing to allow allied convoys into Afghanistan and the people are rioting.

Hundreds of enraged Pakistanis took to the streets across the country Sunday, burning an effigy of President Barack Obama and setting fire to US flags after 24 soldiers died in NATO air strikes.

The rallies were organised by opposition and right-wing Islamist groups in major cities of the nuclear-armed country of 167 million people, where opposition to the government’s US alliance is rampant.

In Karachi, the port city used by the United States to ship supplies to troops fighting in Afghanistan, more than 700 people gathered outside the US consulate, an AFP photographer said.

They shouted: “down with America, stay away Americans, Pakistan is ours, we stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our army”, while Pakistani riot police were deployed near the consulate.

Outside the press club in Karachi, dozens of political activists burnt an effigy of President Obama, an AFP photographer added.

In the central city of Multan, more than 300 activists loyal to the former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, as well as local traders took to the streets, burning US and NATO flags.

They carried placards and banners, and shouted: “down with America,” “down with NATO,” “Yankees go back”, “vacate Afghanistan and Pakistan” and “stop drone attacks” — a reference to a CIA drone war against Islamist militants.

Speaking at the rally, opposition lawmaker Javed Hashmi demanded that the government end its alliance in the US-led “war on terror”.

In Islamabad, at least 200 activists of the radical Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) party held a rally in the middle-class I-10 neighbourhood.

“We strongly condemn the attack and the killing of our soldiers,” local JI chief Mian Aslam told the rally in reference to the air strike early Saturday, as protestors chanted “Pakistan is America’s graveyard.”

Pakistan has reacted with fury over the killings, and has called the attack by NATO helicopters and fighter jets on two military posts close to the Afghan border “unprovoked”.

In response, Islamabad has sealed its Afghan border to NATO supply convoys and is reviewing its alliance with the United States and NATO, mulling whether to boycott a key international conference on Afghanistan next month.

via Enraged Pakistanis burn Obama effigy, slam US – Yahoo! News.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    The strategy may be to get Pakistan to end our alliance, and fully turn against us, so (A.) we’re free to do whatever we like there, militarily, and (B.) we appear justified in doing it.

  • Tom Hering

    The strategy may be to get Pakistan to end our alliance, and fully turn against us, so (A.) we’re free to do whatever we like there, militarily, and (B.) we appear justified in doing it.

  • MarkB

    Isn’t this the same president who received the Nobel Peace Prize? Hmmmmmm!

  • MarkB

    Isn’t this the same president who received the Nobel Peace Prize? Hmmmmmm!

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I think Tom is a bit negative towards this, but I think he is probably right. This does actually force Pakistan to put its cards on the table. But I don’t know that Pakistan, when it sobers up, will be all that willing to go to war with the U.S. It might lead instead, we can hope, to a purging of their military of those who support terror, the taliban, and so on. It might lead them to question why there were troops firing on the U.S. an “Allie” from a Pakistani base.
    Remember, we can destroy any country, any government in less than two days, but it will take quite a bit longer for any civil war etc. to come to an equilibrium, for commerce to return to normal. I don’t think Pakistan’s middle class is really desiring that.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    I think Tom is a bit negative towards this, but I think he is probably right. This does actually force Pakistan to put its cards on the table. But I don’t know that Pakistan, when it sobers up, will be all that willing to go to war with the U.S. It might lead instead, we can hope, to a purging of their military of those who support terror, the taliban, and so on. It might lead them to question why there were troops firing on the U.S. an “Allie” from a Pakistani base.
    Remember, we can destroy any country, any government in less than two days, but it will take quite a bit longer for any civil war etc. to come to an equilibrium, for commerce to return to normal. I don’t think Pakistan’s middle class is really desiring that.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    MarkB, shows you just how corrupt/naive that committee is, doesn’t it. But then I knew Obama wasn’t going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do, back when he was saying it. And there were only two options for me then concerning him. Very naive, or compulsive liar. Neither are good. I went with naive, and I think I’m right.
    But this is the problem. People are saying Obama has hit foreign policy out of the park and made it something progressive liberals, democrats, can be proud of. I’m not seeing it. He has done better than he would have had he stuck to what he said in campaign speeches. But he was naive about how these things work. And the events have been driving him, the foreign powers that be have been driving him. He is only reacting. He reacts well, but he is merely reacting. (Uganda might be an exception, but the details of what we are doing there and why are far and few in between.)
    A good president, with good foreign policy skills, wouldn’t be begged into Libya, and might have anticipated Pakistan a bit more than he has.

  • http://www.utah-lutheran.blogspot.com Bror Erickson

    MarkB, shows you just how corrupt/naive that committee is, doesn’t it. But then I knew Obama wasn’t going to be able to do what he said he wanted to do, back when he was saying it. And there were only two options for me then concerning him. Very naive, or compulsive liar. Neither are good. I went with naive, and I think I’m right.
    But this is the problem. People are saying Obama has hit foreign policy out of the park and made it something progressive liberals, democrats, can be proud of. I’m not seeing it. He has done better than he would have had he stuck to what he said in campaign speeches. But he was naive about how these things work. And the events have been driving him, the foreign powers that be have been driving him. He is only reacting. He reacts well, but he is merely reacting. (Uganda might be an exception, but the details of what we are doing there and why are far and few in between.)
    A good president, with good foreign policy skills, wouldn’t be begged into Libya, and might have anticipated Pakistan a bit more than he has.

  • kerner

    My first response was, “what kind of an F@#%ed up alliance is this in which we find ourselves and our “allies” shooting at each other (on purpose). Then I read this:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Deadly-Airstrike-Renews-Focus-on-US-Pakistani-Ties-134559568.html

    John Huntsman says that our relationship with Pakistan is purely “transactional”, which means, I think, that the only reason we are allies is that we pay the Pakistani government a lot of money in return for supply lines into Afghanistan. The government apparently needs our money so badly that they will keep taking it despite the fact that the Pakistanis themselves, including their soldiers, despise us. We, in turn, despise them. But we need supply lines into Afghanistan so we are willing to tolerate allies who shoot at us and who we obviously cannot trust.

    We have got to re-evaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan and whether it is worth what we have to go through to do it.

  • kerner

    My first response was, “what kind of an F@#%ed up alliance is this in which we find ourselves and our “allies” shooting at each other (on purpose). Then I read this:

    http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa/Deadly-Airstrike-Renews-Focus-on-US-Pakistani-Ties-134559568.html

    John Huntsman says that our relationship with Pakistan is purely “transactional”, which means, I think, that the only reason we are allies is that we pay the Pakistani government a lot of money in return for supply lines into Afghanistan. The government apparently needs our money so badly that they will keep taking it despite the fact that the Pakistanis themselves, including their soldiers, despise us. We, in turn, despise them. But we need supply lines into Afghanistan so we are willing to tolerate allies who shoot at us and who we obviously cannot trust.

    We have got to re-evaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan and whether it is worth what we have to go through to do it.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Good analysis there from both Bror and Kerner. But where this will lead is anybody’s guess. That part of the world is much worse than the Balkans, and whoever sticks his nose in, is going to get hurt….

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Good analysis there from both Bror and Kerner. But where this will lead is anybody’s guess. That part of the world is much worse than the Balkans, and whoever sticks his nose in, is going to get hurt….

  • helen

    We have got to re-evaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan
    and whether it is worth what we have to go through to do it.

    “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

  • helen

    We have got to re-evaluate what we are doing in Afghanistan
    and whether it is worth what we have to go through to do it.

    “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.”

  • Jon

    This “accident” was not part of a strategy to get us in a position where we are at odds with Pakistan. That would do us absolutely no good. As unpleasant as it may be, we need them to be with us, or at least outwardly so. That said, it would not be surprising to find that they really were shooting at the Afghan/coalition. But for you conspiracy-minded, that may be thing we actually don’t hear, at least not officially/diplomatically. In that respect, it would be more efficient for us to offer a “mea culpa” because, again, we need to have them working “with” us. Oh, and let’s not forget, folks, that Pakistan has nukes and they’re not really all that afraid to use them.

  • Jon

    This “accident” was not part of a strategy to get us in a position where we are at odds with Pakistan. That would do us absolutely no good. As unpleasant as it may be, we need them to be with us, or at least outwardly so. That said, it would not be surprising to find that they really were shooting at the Afghan/coalition. But for you conspiracy-minded, that may be thing we actually don’t hear, at least not officially/diplomatically. In that respect, it would be more efficient for us to offer a “mea culpa” because, again, we need to have them working “with” us. Oh, and let’s not forget, folks, that Pakistan has nukes and they’re not really all that afraid to use them.

  • Tom Hering

    Jon @ 8, your last sentence undermines your argument. We could be setting things up so we’re justified in taking out Pakistan’s nuclear capability. Soon, before it falls into worse hands. I mean, it’s not like our government has never set things up, just so it could take the action it wanted to take in that region.

  • Tom Hering

    Jon @ 8, your last sentence undermines your argument. We could be setting things up so we’re justified in taking out Pakistan’s nuclear capability. Soon, before it falls into worse hands. I mean, it’s not like our government has never set things up, just so it could take the action it wanted to take in that region.

  • Jon

    Tom, respectfully, that’s nonsense. The Paks have their fingers on the button. We have 10′s of thousands of our troops in Afg. It took us 8 years to figure out where Osama was hiding in Pakistan–and that’s just *one* guy the Paks were hiding. You think we can be assured of taking out their nuclear capability in one go? No, we will continue to issue the public mea culpa’s when necessary and then privately renegotiate more funds to these creeps.

  • Jon

    Tom, respectfully, that’s nonsense. The Paks have their fingers on the button. We have 10′s of thousands of our troops in Afg. It took us 8 years to figure out where Osama was hiding in Pakistan–and that’s just *one* guy the Paks were hiding. You think we can be assured of taking out their nuclear capability in one go? No, we will continue to issue the public mea culpa’s when necessary and then privately renegotiate more funds to these creeps.

  • Tom Hering

    Jon, your prediction may prove correct. But I still suspect we’re up to something more.

  • Tom Hering

    Jon, your prediction may prove correct. But I still suspect we’re up to something more.

  • Jon

    Tom, the something is not through some nefarious surrepticious government action as you suspect. We simply have got to deal with these rogues best we can in a grit your teeth and bear it sort of way. Our military’s standing rules of engagement always permit the right of self defense–bottom line. If they were firing on us or our allies, we are going to protect ourselves/them. Let the diplomats handle the state relations matters as they need to through a mea culpa if necessary. But we don’t have any need to pick a fight with the Paks, that’s not part of the strategy in Afg.

  • Jon

    Tom, the something is not through some nefarious surrepticious government action as you suspect. We simply have got to deal with these rogues best we can in a grit your teeth and bear it sort of way. Our military’s standing rules of engagement always permit the right of self defense–bottom line. If they were firing on us or our allies, we are going to protect ourselves/them. Let the diplomats handle the state relations matters as they need to through a mea culpa if necessary. But we don’t have any need to pick a fight with the Paks, that’s not part of the strategy in Afg.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X