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

Hear out Pakistan

By | Thursday, May 29, 2008

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

When U.S. policy-makers and lawmakers do not understand Pakistan - which is often - they should listen. They could do much worse than to listen to Asif Ali Zardari, Benazir Bhutto's widower and the co-chairman of the Pakistan People's Party. Columnist Harlan Ullman's exclusive interview with the influential Mr. Zardari on today's Op-Ed page can be read as a brief for American patience with this complex, volatile nation. Of course, the subtext is equally noteworthy. As one of Pakistan's most powerful political figures, Mr. Zardari is effectively asking for an arm's-length distance and material support as the government attempts to negotiate with militants and regional power brokers in the wild North-West Frontier Province and nearby areas. Washington would much rather hear that no such negotiations are taking place, since, it hopes, this would mean no enlargement of Pakistan's already unacceptable sanctuary for terrorists. But some finer distinctions between who is a "militant" and who is not - the latter being people that Pakistan and the United States can live with - are in order.

The same week that major Western media outlets report a series of sensitive and controversial Pakistani negotiations with Taliban militants, Mr. Zardari pledges that "the government of Pakistan will never negotiate with terrorists, but we fully intend to engage tribal leaders who have been abandoned by the previous government and have been co-opted by extremists by intimidation and coercion." It is important to note the choice of words. These "tribal leaders," largely Pashtuns, are often lumped in the category of "militant" in much Western reporting. We are rightly wary of any negotiations with Taliban. But Mr. Zardari wants the West to begin to see the difference between its own justifiable chief concerns about Taliban fighters and al Qaeda, and Pakistan's own fight against an insurgency that overlaps with these groups but does not consist solely of them.

Meanwhile, though, the tension in Washington seems to be ratcheting in the opposite direction. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, Michigan Democrat, who recently returned from a three-day trip to the region, is questioning the assistance the United States already provides. Taliban militants and arms are flowing into Afghanistan, Mr. Levin rightly notes. But is the corrective a cutoff of aid? Divergent as Mr. Zardari's platform is from President Pervez Musharraf's, he would not think so. He calls for proactive engagement in support of the new government's social and economic reforms in addition to its military cooperation, not in place of it.

The United States needs assurances that Pakistan is not handing the Taliban and related groups even greater sanctuary in the region than they already enjoy - sanctuary to worsen infiltration in neighboring Afghanistan or further destabilize nuclear-armed Pakistan. But, at the same time, it must better understand the differences between the many actors in this very important drama.

[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?

  • Pakistani protesters burned Israeli, Danish and U.S. flags during their procession to mark the 40th day of the martyrdom of Imam Hussain, the grandson of prophet Muhammad, in Karachi, Pakistan. "Down with USA," is written on the U.S. flag.

Click the photo to enlarge.

Advertisement

Top Stories

Most Read

  1. Inside the Ring
  2. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  3. Senate delays climate bill until September
  4. EDITORIAL: Sotomayor's secret files
  5. YON: Girl with no future

Most Shared

  1. EDITORIAL: Passing unread laws
  2. HOLMES: Deja vu on dictators, double standards
  3. EDITORIAL: Return of the Black Panther
  4. Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status
  5. Israeli know-how
  6. EDITORIAL: The fate of FedEx
  7. EDITORIAL: Dancing with the bear
  8. YON: Girl with no future
  9. EDITORIAL: Rewriting economic history
  10. LETTER TO EDITOR: Coming to grips with Palestinian guilty trips

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

Related Stories

Karzai asks NATO to explain civilian deaths

Taliban tighten their grip on NW Pakistan

Embassy Row

Taliban eyes new allies

Swat Taliban chief reportedly injured

Israeli know-how

Bloated deficits endanger dollar's global status

Polluting nations not on board with G-8

Tremors jar G-8

EDITORIAL: Dancing with the bear

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.