The Washington Times
  • Subscribe
  • Customer Services
  • RSS
  • Mobile Headlines
  • e-edition
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • REGISTER
  • LOG IN
  • E-MAIL ALERTS
  • WELCOME
  • Your Profile
  • Log Out

  • Front Page Image
  • Classifieds
  • Autos
  • Real Estate
  • Jobs
  • Special Sections
  • Times News Services
  • Home
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Sports
    • NFL
    • NBA/WNBA
    • MLB
    • NHL
    • Tennis
    • Golf
    • Motorsports
    • Soccer
    • NCAA
    • Olympics
    • Outdoors
    • Алекс Овечкин
  • Culture
    • Home & Living
    • Family & Kids
    • Fashion
    • Food
    • Travel
    • Health
    • Washington Visitors
    • Books
    • Military History
    • Life
    • Auto
    • TV Listings
    • Movie Listings
    • Death Notices
    • Entertainment
  • Themes
  • Communities
    • Donne Travels
    • Lives Common
    • National Pastime
    • Politics 101
    • Stories of Faith
    • Civil War
    • Middle - America
    • Chicago Blue State
    • Zadzooks
  • Marketplace
    • Autos
    • Jobs
    • Real Estate
    • Classifieds
    • Shopping
    • Dining Out
    • Education
    • TWT Store
  • Videos
    • Two Guys
    • Birnbaum on Washington
    • Liz Glover
    • Amanda Carpenter
    • Morning Briefing
    • Documentaries
  • Podcasts
    • About Headlines
    • Inside the Beltway
    • Inside the Story
Home > Opinion > Editorials

EDITORIAL: Pakistan's pendulum swings

By | Wednesday, July 2, 2008

  • Bookmark and Share
  • Article
  • Comments ()
  • Print
  • [-][+] Font Size
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Tell a Friend
  • Got a Question?
  • You Report
  • Click-2-Listen

At least a few of the dividends of the Pakistani coalition government's new security strategy - and of continued American pressure - are on display this week. Under heightened scrutiny following its unprecedented Taliban negotiations and a surge of violence in Afghanistan, Pakistan ordered security forces to encircle Peshawar beginning Saturday. Targeted raids of militants in lawless corners of the nuclear-armed country are underway. On Monday, what may have been a U.S. drone reduced the house of a leading terrorist in Khyber district to rubble.

Militant chief Haji Namdar survived the attack, but, as Pakistani Ambassador Husain Haqqani put it to The Washington Times in an Editorial Board meeting this week, "there will be several actions in the next few days that will make it completely clear that Pakistan wants total cooperation with NATO forces." Time will tell.

The reality is that Pakistan's new coalition government must engage in the same precarious balancing act that President Pervez Musharraf faced before February elections gave rise to this new government. These new powerbrokers provoked much consternation in recent months when they engaged in unprecedented negotiations with the Taliban and militants in border regions. Those talks appear to have broken down. So, for the time being, under mounting international pressure, we see a more muscular approach from a government that originally seemed likely to underperform rooting out terrorists.

But the balancing act remains the same: Any Pakistani government must reckon with the fact that its countrymen prefer negotiation over military action against al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist militants. In a recent study by Terror Free Tomorrow and the New America Foundation, more than half of Pakistanis said the United States was to blame for violence inside the country today, as compared to only 8 percent blaming al Qaeda. This is a perception gap of enormous proportions, and a similarly epic public-diplomacy failure.

Mr. Haqqani's perceptive words regarding this public-diplomacy failure are worth recounting. He recounted youthful years studying inside an air-conditioned American library - this was the Cold War era - at a time when even well-to-do Pakistani families had few similarly attractive options (and exceedingly rare air conditioning). Where are public-diplomacy efforts today? The sorry truth is that they have failed in Pakistan just as they have in most Muslim-majority countries. Insofar as the United States can change this context, it creates room for Pakistan's government in the unpopular business of combating terrorism.

Toward that end, President Bush should heed his own words from 2005: "We are not doing a very good job of getting our message out."

[Get Copyright Permissions] Click here for reprint permissions!
Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC

Bookmark and Share

Comments

Read Comments

Post your comment:

Please login or register to post a comment

Do you have another point of view, photos, audio, video or more information about a story?

  • AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
CHALLENGE: Pakistan Peoples Party activists march in Lahore on Monday in support of military action in the tribal areas along the Afghan border. The first operation on Saturday achieved the "basic objective" of destroying bases belonging to a Taliban-allied leader, Ambassador Husain Haqqani said.

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  2. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  3. CIA chief urged to 'correct' record
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate

Most Shared

  1. EXCLUSIVE: Career diplomats protest Obama appointments
  2. GOP hits Pelosi for mouse funds
  3. PRUDEN: Ministry of Apology would cure all ills
  4. Obama agenda stalls on Capitol Hill
  5. EDITORIAL: Killing Cap & Trade
  6. YON: Girl with no future
  7. EDITORIAL: Stonewalling on Walpin-gate
  8. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  9. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files
  10. Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese

Most Commented

  1. Jeb Bush, GOP: Time to leave Reagan behind
  2. WH communications director leaving
  3. Freddie Mac acting CFO found dead
  4. Kerry aims to rescue newspapers
  5. Fidel Castro: Obama 'misinterpreted' words
  6. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  7. President Obama said those who approved harsh interrogation techniques for suspected terrorists may be subjected to criminal charges. Do you agree?
  8. Gibbs: Pay no attention to what Rahm said
  9. Politics' Talking Heads Highlight Speaker Series
  10. Fleecing Mike Ditka

Poll

Do you think the G-8 is still effective in today's times?

Market Data

Advertising Links
TWT Store
  • e-edition
  • Print Edition
  • Weekly Washington Times
TWT Affiliates
  • Middle East Times
  • Golf
  • UPI
  • Arbor Ballroom
  • Washington Times Global
  • About TWT
  • Press Room
  • F.A.Q.
  • Work for TWT
  • Advertise
  • Sponsors
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map

All site contents © Copyright 2009 The Washington Times, LLC.