marijuana | Healthcare | Gun Control | Foreign Policy | Muslim World | Terrorism | Capitol Hill | Social Issues

Resurgence of the Taliban in Pakistan: Hamid Mir

More from this series:

Commonwealth Club of California

More videos from this partner:

5
Likes
0
Dislikes
RATE

  • Info
  • Bio
  • Chapters
  • Preview
  • Download
  • Zoom In
Advertisement
There are 5 comments on this program

Please or register to post a comment.
Previous FORAtv comments:
afzalrizvi Avatar
afzalrizvi
Posted: 04.07.10, 11:47 AM
Mr Motown's opinion_ that since America is fostering economic aid regarding its war on terror in Afghanistan/ Fata- the Pakistan based territory, therefore the US administration does have the license to use the drones or make the drone attacks in Pakistan_ is not a warranted argument.The fact is that many Pakistanis view the us policy of drones attack as a tactical means as to defend its philosophy of strategic realism.
MotownJeff Avatar
MotownJeff
Posted: 04.05.10, 04:39 PM
Mr. Amid’s interview doesn’t really hearten me. The United States is in the worst possible condition regarding Pakistan. The only worse “ally” we have in the region Afghanistan itself and Karzai. He criticizes our drone attacks as inflaming Pakistani hatred toward us and contributing to the problem. Huh? As Mr. Amid points out, fighting strong insurgents within their own country should be Pakistan’s responsibility, not ours. But by his own admission Pakistan’s government is rife with corruption, political intrigue, and totalitarian tendencies. How are they then supposed to take care of the problem? Pakistan’s also getting billions of dollars of our aid, which to me seems counter-productive if it’s just wasted on corruption and ineptitude. If Pakistani’s hate American influence and our drone attacks that much, how about stop accepting huge sums of American aid and finally taking care of the Taliban sanctuaries yourself, once and for all!
pokerandwine Avatar
pokerandwine
Posted: 06.11.09, 02:29 PM
I am not sure whether it's all Robert Gates' fault or Obama's fault in keeping him as a secretary of the state. As far as I remember, when running for the president Obama has already expressed willingness to use force against Pakistan in case there will be an evidence of terrorist activity. Anyway total damage caused by drone attacks can hardly be justified by the minor success in eliminating insignificant terrorist figures. Thanks for the article.
tsmitheugene503 Avatar
tsmitheugene503
Posted: 06.11.09, 02:09 PM
The reason things have not yet changed is because Obama kept Robert Gates as his Secretary of Defense whom held that position with Bush in office. Didn't Obama learn from Bush's mistakes? Here is an article from The Australian explaining the damage that is being caused from our "drone attacks": http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...0-2703,00.html "the latest Predator strike, and reports that Washington was intensifying its aerial bombardment, were likely to reinforce sentiment in favour of the militants and make it even more difficult to achieve peace." This sounds all too familiar...
Bob B Avatar
Bob B
Posted: 06.11.09, 02:08 PM
Hamid Mir has some great advices for both Obama’s administration and regular Americans travelling to Pakistan. I have particularly liked the question asked by a state department official who was advised by his colleges to grow beard in preparation for his trip. Mir’s great sense of humor compounded by his hands-on experience as award-winning journalist is a source for a lively discussion on how US should engage Pakistan. I agree that it is important to differentiate between Taliban and Pakistan, although the US suspects that this country is currently a home of Osama bin Laden. It’s essential to understand that drone attacks will antagonize Pakistani people and ultimately create more suicide bombers rather that eliminate Al-Qaeda
Advertisement

Advertisement