Rarely are transcripts of official events eye-opening, but this account of Defense Secretary Gates’ Q&A at the Pakistani National Defense University yesterday is amazing. It’s hard to tell, because I wasn’t there, but the vitriol expressed to Gates appears to knock him back on his heels. For instance:
Q (Inaudible). You gave a statement with regard to some future terrorist threat or action that may take place over there. And you said that India may run out patience. The Pakistan army’s resolve against terrorism — (inaudible).
I would remind you have predisposed Pakistan as perhaps siding with the terrorists. So could you please tell us with regard to fighting against terrorism are you with us or against us? Thank you. (Applause.)
Gates responds, “We’re very much with you.” Because we are! We just gave the Pakistani government $1.5 billion in aid, every year for the next five years. And still, the next questioner says, “this relationship between military and military has not fared well in the past.” But it’s obviously way more than just mil-mil! The Obama administration is doing absolutely everything it can — well, almost everything, as we’ll see in a second — to convince the Pakistanis we’re on their side. But they don’t buy it. The depth of antipathy is– well, will I sound like a naive asshole if I say “startling”?
Sir, there’s a large section of the Pakistani population who feel that the present mess that Pakistan finds itself today in, in large part, is due to the United States. The war on our Western borders in which not only the army but the whole country is embroiled in, and there’s no end in sight, initially was not our war but now it has become our war. So what is your message to these people, sir?
The answer Gates gives boils down to: It would be your war eventually. That… is true, I would argue. But it’s not going to convince anyone who simply doesn’t see it that way.
And then there’s this, which is lurking in the background of the whole conversation, as the first question indicates:
During the run to the elections, Mr. Obama — in other statements, he mentioned that there was an understanding now that — (inaudible) — problem, India and Pakistan, particularly, their — (inaudible) — connection with extremism and also from — (inaudible) — Afghanistan.
Now after — (off mike) — same old thing. The United States is refusing to mediate between India and Pakistan since the war — (inaudible). And India was even taken out of — (off mike). My question with this — (inaudible) — first, is the United States administration unable to see how hollow is the Indian argument that the India-Pakistan problem can be resolved only through dialogue — (inaudible). Secondly, is the U.S. policy of India subject — (inaudible). And third is is the U.S. unable to see that its policy of propping up India — (inaudible) — especially with reference to Afghanistan because if there’s one sure guaranteed way of ensuring the eastern region of Afghanistan — (off mike)?
Simple and plain: the Obama administration has to do something about Pakistan’s legitimate security fears emanating from India. As Gates points out, it’s completely absurd to argue that the U.S. has had a policy of “propping up” formerly-Soviet-allied India, but it doesn’t matter at this point (yes, yes, you guys who are big on “narrative”; score one for you). The Pakistanis believe that the lack of U.S. hectoring directed at India is part of a concerted policy of supporting India at Pakistan’s expense. Consequently, pushing the Pakistani military into Waziristan, to fight fellow Pakistanis, is easily misconstrued as weakening Pakistan for India’s sake.
There were good arguments for not stuffing the India relationship into Richard Holbrooke’s pillbox of headaches. India is too big a relationship to reduce to just a security issue. And for much of last year, the U.S. was waiting for India to elect a new government. But if we mean what we say about security, diplomacy, politics and development being interrelated and mutually supportive/corrosive, then it’s time to broker a real India-Pakistan peace process. Unless we want Gates’ next appearance at the Islamabad NDU to go even worse.
Update: As Shekissesfrogs points out in the comments, DOD appears to have yanked the transcript from its website. All I can tell you is that I have the actual transcript in my email…



62 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Well, that transcript is missing now, and the latest is numbered 4560. The one you linked was 4561. Got a copy?
So, beside cleaning up the mess in Palestine, we’re also going to have to resolve the other mess from the 1940s in Kashmir?
Kashmir is the theatre, but what drives the conflict is the living memory of Indian intervention in the Pakistani Civil War. Pakistan’s not hyperconcerned by the mere fact that India wants a big chunk of their territory (after all they want a big chunk of India’s), and under normal circumstances they could have negotiated some mutually unsatisfactory agreement long ago. What upsets Pakistan is not the fear that India might someday attack and cost them a third of their country, but the fact that they already have and might do so again.
excellent points.
I was highlighting the implications, parallels, and magnitude of the task Spencer is suggesting and scanted the truth.
WEIRD. Yeah, DOD emailed it to reporters. It’s in my inbox. Scouts honor, I just cut-n-pasted those quotes…
Why did Gates expose himself in this forum to begin with? Does he do that kind of think often? And what do you think he expected with the U.S. conducting an unacknowledged war in their country? The comments seem mild, considering the circumstancces.
I’m pretty sure that Pakistan never forgets that India has both nukes and people who want to use them. And they really don’t trust which side we’re on – hell, I don’t trust our government.
We SHOULD be siding with India against terror/Pakistan.
Pakistan has been a failed state for decades. Decades I might add in which major members of the government supported Al Qadia and the Taliban. The Taliban was set up in the first place by Pakistan because they wanted a proxy state in the war with India and Afghanistan seemed like a good idea to them.
They beg us for help on the one hand, and betray us with the other.
India, despite some former dealings with Russia, is Democratic, English speaking, and on the right side of every major question internationally almost..
When Obama announced his plans for Afghanistan, tons of us on this site screamed that he was ignoring the war in Pakistan. and that right there, we ARE at war in Pakistan whether they say so or not.
Pakistan is NOT our ally, India is.
I’m sorry, but I just hafta say….KEWL hat!
Wow, even the current and future officers of the Pakistani military are alienated by the US enterprise in Central Asia. If you’ve gone too far for even the officers’ class of a militarist Central Asian regime you KNOW it’s time to change your approach.
It’s all about blue eyed white man imperialism. The young Muslim men of a number of national backgrounds hate it sufficiently to blow themselves up. It’s not Pakistan’s war and they are not our allies. They are our client state and better like what we do to them or we will fund and supply our Indian buddies for their war on the other border.
It’s an old joke
You may have heard it before. Heard this joke or not, the point stands so obvious by itself, that you think that we might have gotten the point a while ago.
The Lone Ranger and Tonto, his faithful Indian sidekick, are surrounded by an Apache war band. The circle of whooping braves, firing from horseback at a gallop, draws ever closer to our two heros as they try to find cover among some rocks and return fire. The Lone Ranger turns to Tonto and says, “Well, Tonto, it looks like those savage redskins have us surrounded this time!” To which Tonto replies, “What do you mean, ‘us’, paleass!?”
Look at the players in this little struggle we have engineered, and only one of them is pale of ass. It really doesn’t help that the paleasses just can’t keep themselves from conflating Islam with some such construct as “Islamism”, and can’t keep from using “jihad” as a dirty word. Muslims just aren’t going to look at it that way, ever, not as long as there are Christianisrts and Zionists out there crusading away freely against their world.
We’re not on their side, which is totally unremarkable, because we’re two different countries! They’re not on our side either, for the same reason! Wow! Who knew things worked like that?
Our current relationship with India seems to be to allow Bill Gates to use highly-educated and relatively-inexpensive Indian professionals who don’t need to go into debt to go to college as a way to screw American workers in his preparation to eventually move Microsoft to India.
See, unlike in the US, India’s key tech hotspot states — and Socialist states — subsidize their kids’ education all the way up to the university level; that’s why they, and not perpetual free-market disasters like Uttar Pradesh, are driving India’s high-tech economy.
Yeah, he’s done it a bunch. It’s a confidence-building measure, frank exchanges, etc.
I’ll agree that there are tons of crusading Christian nutbags around. But just because they’re wrong means we can’t say some jihadist lunatic is wrong?
You’re one of the people that must think 9/11 was our own fault.
and THAT is what gives the left a bad name.
Meanwhile, it looks like at least one Indian commentator sees the end of the relative good times (and free passes) for India and is playing the ChiComs card in order to scare the US away from doing anything that Pakistan might like: http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_58392.shtml
We don’t subsidize kids’ education all the way up to the university level? Come on. We most certainly do in many ways.
What an amazingly convenient absolution of American actions. Those brown ragheads would have started killing each other eventually. The ongoing 8 year war and occupation in the nation next to them caused by us? Inconsequential. They would have started killing each other anyway.
The fact that we are launching missiles into civilian populations as assassinations strikes is an expression of our moral justice against terrorist as it reflects on their savage depraved living within missile explosion of a terrorist, and not an expression of the US’s own depraved indifference to innocent civilian lives and disregard for international law.
The fact that we consistently have to threaten the Pakistani government and military with not giving them money if they dont increase their war efforts, and are forced to bribe them to even conduct our war, clearly shows these savage dirty ragheads would have started killing each other anyway, kind of the same way that War is Peace.
What a convenient little absolution. It converts our own imperial barbarism into pre-destined and inevitable chaos in dirty, savage, raghead communities.
Reminiscent of abusers claiming the bitch was asking for it.
Hey now. Don’t put words in the guy’s mouth. You wouldn’t like that if it was done to you. Let’s keep this civil & respectful.
For now.
There are a lot of people in this country who don’t want subsidized education, though.
(Every anti-tax idjit, for one. Most of whom would also quite happily blow up both India and Pakistan, because they’re all brown non-Xtian furriners.)
Come on. Nothing we did in Afghanistan in any way caused the Mehsuds to form the Pakistani Taliban and begin killing tribal chiefs in Waziristan before exporting its violence southward through Swat. Nor did we cause them to assassinate Benazir Bhutto. Nor did we cause them to blow up the Islamabad Marriott. The Pakistani Taliban has a ton of Pakistani blood on its hands.
We have made a ton of mistakes and generally possess an overly militaristic foreign policy. But not everything is our fault. As the saying goes, they can do bad all by themselves.
You mean it used to be a confidence building exercise.
Perhaps I went a bit far, but my point remains.
We must call evil evil, be it Christian or Islamic, or we are fighting for nothing. His train of thought scares me.
In the end, I hope everyone realizes that the cause of all of this is Religion. The sooner we get rid of it the better.
When you cant even acknowledge that our ongoing war and occupation in Afghanistan is inherently destabilizing to the Pashtun community that spreads seamlessly from Afghanistan into Pakistan (and Waziristan), you show yourself to not even argue from a good faith recognition of reality. You think whether something happens on a particular side of a border that some Pashtuns dont even recognize as making a huge difference with them? You think that we killed their second cousin in Afghanistan instead of Pakistan makes a difference? Or is it just convenient to argue that for your point and to maintain US exceptionalism?
Also, CIA Predatory Strikes in Pakistan have been happening for years now, before all the things you mentioned, so yes, you can say part of the destabilization that led to all those things was directly in part by American forces in Pakistan. And we are only starting to find out what JSOC has been doing in Pakistan, and we still dont know how long that has been going on for.
We certainly have been a very active force in stirring up unrest in Pakistan, both by our actions in Afghanistan and by clear and direct action in Pakistan. To argue otherwise is remarkably disingenuous. That does not mean we directly handed extremists the bombs to go kill people. Nice strawman though. We did play a significant role in creating unrest and anger in the country which allows a much easier recruitment of people to engage in terrorist acts.
Our own military in its own recent reports even claims that our own killing of civilians in Afghanistan is a driving force of the insurgency (ie, increasing recruitment of people to act like terrorist). Why would that suddenly be different when we kill civilians in Pakistan?
Spencer, why on earth would you side with an asshole like Gates who is saying to the Pakistanis:
“This problem that WE have created for you, would eventually have become your problem anyway, so that makes it OK for us to use it to sustain and aggravate the problem which, again, WE have created. I go now to have some tea with Alice and the White Rabbit. Isn’t my big hat kool?”
There are several facts to keep in mind here without approving of Obama’s pointless Afghanistan war.
Pakistan has been since its independence an unstable country veering between corrupt military and civilian governments.
Pakistan’s intelligence services, notably the ISI, had a major hand in creating the Taliban.
It is not our responsibility to negotiate a peace between Pakistan and India. They have had 60 years to do it and haven’t.
Pakistan’s actions toward India have been surprisingly provocative from the Kargil incursion in 1999, the attacks on the Indian parliament in 2001, and on Mumbai in 2008. All of these either had direct Pakistani government involvement or emanated from groups which the Pakistani government was protecting. So it is a bit bizarre that we should be blamed for doing so little to promote peace between Pakistan and India when Pakistan has done so little in that endeavor on its own.
While Pakistan has a very large army, it still does not control much of its own territory. The Tribal Territories are a case in point. You would think that a nation of a 166 million with a 500,000 man army could exercise control over a region with about 6 million of its citizens in it.
Pakistan also has significant intra-communal violence between minority Shia and majority Sunni sects.
All the political instability has meant that Pakistan’s development is falling further and further behind India’s. This has caused a lot of frustration in the country.
Antipathy toward the US is nothing new. Our approval ratings in Moslem countries has been in the pits for years.
This is batshit, in the style of Glenn Beck.
BTW, Talkingstick@11 nails it.
So, Hugh; are you saying that since Pakistan has a history of instability that makes it alright for us to add to the mix? Which we unspinnably have done.
Incidentally, the LEVEL of antipathy toward the U.S. IS new.
The degree of security required for american interests there has gone up exponentially.
I’d call this obvious:
“our own killing of civilians in Afghanistan is a driving force of the insurgency”
and it calls into question the whole effort and it’s expense. If all we can do with our military is make more enemies, how is it the military is “increasing” our security? Militarily or ecomonically?
It seems that cuts to the heart of the non-existant debate.
Tell that to all the folks I know struggling to pay off college student loans. One reason why so few med students want to be general practitioners is because GP jobs won’t pay off a quarter-million in student loans anywhere near as fast as specialist medical jobs will.
As you allude to, when you look at the “cause and effect” results that our “War on Terror” strategy generates, one would think its purpose is to create a steady stream of enemies for us to wage “War” with.
“Pakistan’s actions toward India have been surprisingly provocative”
Always easier to blame “them” than to reflect on oneself.
“You would think that a nation of a 166 million with a 500,000 man army could exercise control over a region with about 6 million of its citizens in it”
Sorry, that is just wrong on every level, as the US is demonstrating in Iraq, Aghanistan & now Parkistan, and did not learn in Vietnam.
It’s not realistic of the terrain. Difficult mountinous regious have alwys been hard to control, and sending in the army of “not us” is exactly the wrong approach, as without civil benefits (investment in schools, water, health, and roads) all the army can do is raise resentment and rebellion.
Nah, it’s an argument for universal free college education, such as what exists in India’s high-tech and Socialist states Karnataka and Kerala. Unless you’re saying that Greg Palast is Glenn Beck? Nice straw man, but no sale.
A lot of folks are deploying strawmen in this thread, because they don’t want to face facts in context.
Yes, but is that the plan or is it opportunism?
It’s hard to tell and asserting it is a plan somewhat unrealistic, as our political masters have not demonstrated much skill at planning. Asserting it’s a plan get one into the conspiracy theory wackjobs, and I don’t like to go there.
I prefer to believe it’s a combination of greed, opportunism, careerism, incompetence, stupidity, and mendacity.
“Incidentally, the LEVEL of antipathy toward the U.S. IS
newexacerbated.”There, fixed. You really do not understand that level of antipathy toward the US that has existed since WW II. When did the phrase “The Ugly American” originate? Not recentally.
It is good sarcasm.
What I am saying is that the Pakistanis are not Boy Scouts that we have led astray. We should have pulled out of Afghanistan in 2002. Our actions have further destabilized Pakistan but this is only because Pakistan was such a deeply unstable and troubled country to start with.
To me you answered your first question with your last statement. Its both, because its a combination of all the things you mentioned. Clearly there is a ton of opportunism, but I cant accept the American is just accidentally in a constant state of war.
Your argument is cold. “Its ok because they were messed up already.”
“It doesnt matter that I shot him in the leg officer. He was already shot in the stomach.”
One could argue what we did is even worse because we subjected a “deeply unstable and troubled country” to further hardship. But for you, apparently that should make us feel better, and somehow excuse us, further maintaining US exceptionalism.
Synoia, it is part of the definition of a modern nation state that its government exercises control over its own territory. Countries that do not are called failed states. Of course, the Pakistanis have mismanaged the Tribal Territories. They could have done a much better job but then that could be said of pretty much everything throughout their society. All this pre-dates 9/11. It is rather condescending to think that Pakistan and the Tribal Areas would be OK except for us. The Pakistanis and the Pushtun are perfectly capable of screwing things up on their own.
How often are there discussions between our senior officers and officials and their counterparts from Pakistan?
Everybody, please: the U.S. does lots and lots and lots of mistaken things. That includes killing Pakistani civilians in drone strikes. The Pakistanis are also capable of their own mistakes. The Pakistani insurgency is capable of its own iniquity. Everyone here is intelligent enough to keep these three basic facts/assessments in their minds at the same time. Emphasizing one does not mean ignoring another.
We are all adults, so let’s argue like adults.
Very often. Adm. Mullen practically shuttled to Pakistan every other month in 2008 and 2009.
Nice. Instead of answering points like an adult, you just pretend to be an adult scolding children. In that case I’m out for recess. No more learning to be done here. Woot Superbowl!
Why would you expect it to be easy for Pakistanis to automatically and unquestioningly blame their coreligionists for this conflict that we have got them into the middle of? When it’s our country, you see any ability to view the matter from the other point of view, to even formulate an understanding that, at least by their own lights, the folks who did 9/11 might have thought that what they were doing was justified, and for x, y, and z reasons, as something so horribly treasonous and shamefully weak that the very thought of taking that line must result in ideological quarantine, lest the perpetrator of such ideas taint “the Left”, whatever that is. But the Pakistanis are expected, as a matter of course, to be able to “hate Pakistan”, to foregive and forget, to set aside, to view with sweet reason, every crime committed by Israel or the US, and view with horror and loathing equal to that of any Zionist or Christianist, the actions of any Muslim who seeks to pay them back an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. You demand tribalism from fellow Americans, but think it a moral outrage in members of any other tribe.
cont.
I don’t think that American tribalism is any worse than the tribalism of any other nation, creed or tribe. But it’s not any better either, and it’s armed with more power to do its destruction than any other tribe enjoys. It would be wonderful if we could get beyond tribalism. But that effort isn’t helped by expecting, even demanding, that all the other nations, creeds, and tribes get beyond their tribalism, while we insist on keeping our own.
The only condition under which tribalism is even a half-way, interim, reasonable approach in confronting reality, is when everyone else goes by it, and they’re stronger than you are, so the game has to be played by their rules. We’re in the opposite situation. We’re way stronger than everyone else, and they all so studiously and regularly bend over backwards to be reasonable and accommodating to our every tribal whim, that the exceptions to that behavior, a 9/11, or Pakistani officials being even mildly and politely confrontational with our SecDef, are newsworthy. Man bites dog. We expect, demand, that the rest of the world accept whatever destructive folly that results from our actions be accepted as some sort of, at worst unfortunate, collateral damage, while any countermeasure, however milder than our action, by people who object, is a war crime so horrible that to even try to tease out motives is morally reprehensible. The least departure from smiling acceptance of our actions, and outraged denununciation of whatever anyone does in retaliation, we treat as a moral outrage.
cont.
Should we continue to hold ourselves to no higher standards than those that govern a rabid dog, should we continue to reject with the disdain you express, the ability to see ourselves as everyone else see us, which is the irreplaceable beginning of self-criticism, self-knowledge and self-control, the world will eventually realize that it has to quit being accommodating as a matter of course, that continuing to be reasonable is just facilitating and enabling a mad dog. Eventually they will figure out how to put down the rabid animal without getting bitten. Yes, we have lots of power, but it’s made us quite stupid and predictable because it’s made us imagine that we don’t have to pay attention to what anyone else thinks or feels.
Dog bites man. It’s not news. It must be getting old to the rest of the world.
Is this like OJ wanting to find the real killer?
One thing that should be mentioned in reference to those quotes: the issue over how the Kashmir issue should be resolved is itself an international dispute. India believes it must be a bilateral solution, Pakistan believes it should be internationally mediated. That’s what the references are about solving it with “dialog”. If you don’t know that that itself is a major dispute, then some of the student comments will look like something other than what they are.
Excellent point.
Anybody who thinks that any American Corporation is not a.)Looking to screw the American Taxpayer. b.) Move to some other country to do a.) is not just batshit crazy, has not been paying attention for the last 40+ years. Treason is the primary job requirement to be a CEO being a Satanist doesn’t hurt either ergo Dick Cheney.
I recall reading that the US’s popularity is lower in Pakistan than in most other Muslim countries. This isn’t just because of our activities in Iraq and Afghanistan or even because we allowed AQ leaders to flee Afghanistan into Pakistan. That all plays into it, but there is much more. Pakistan has fluctuated between military dictators and weak democracies since their inception. And we have a history of supporting their unpopular military dictators, most recently Musharraf.
Also, I read in Steve Coll’s “On the Grand Trunk Road”, that US archivists are more paranoid about releasing old documents about US government’s activities in Pakistan (even from the 60′s & 70′s) than they are about any other country besides Israel.
There’s a long history with many buried secrets. It’s not a simple – we’re the good guys and they’re the failed state.
I suspect any current “national interest” paper out of the State Department would represent US National Interest vis a vis the region, as seeing India develop as a balance of power to China. This is a relatively new national interest concept — very much post cold war.
During the Cold War the US national interest understood Pakistan, and the continuning series of conflicts between India and Pakistan in the context of the Soviet Union as the Main Enemy — and in a loose way, India was in the Soviet Orbit. India had a Friendship Treaty with the Soviets, but most important, India had complex trade relations with the Soviet block. It was able to sell products into the Soviet Economy, earn COMCON trade Rubels, and use these to purchase capital goods from the Soviets as well as from Eastern Europe. India purchased military equipment, steel mills, railroad cars, mining equipment and much else via this arrangement, an arrangement that went the way of the Berlin Wall in the early 1990′s.
The US involvement with Pakistan included critical aspects of the US interest in China. We worked through Pakistan to exploit the Sino-Soviet conflicts in the 1970′s into the 1990′s in service to our view of the Soviet’s as the Main Enemy.
We need to comprehend that the alignments of the Cold War became totally jumbled with the retreat of the Soviets in the 1990′s and formal understandings of US National Interests (the policy driver) radically changed.
Synoia @ 38:
Your history is lousy. The level of threat to americans in Pakistan, has never been as high as it is today. Saying differently is nonsense.
it was higher two years ago than it is today.
This combined with ‘Domino Theory’-based fears on our part. Our Cold War adventures in Afghanistan were very much about protecting Pakistan from the Red Menace. (Granted, a Soviet fleet out of Karachi would have been a game changer, but it was never the realistic possibility we treated it as)
I’ve put the original transcript up for those searching for it:
http://people.hws.edu/vyadav/2010/02/gates-grilled-at-pakistans-national.html
You guys don’t seem to understand the meaning of a failed state.
Pakistan is a failed state because it spends 45% of it’s budget on it’s army – which has never managed to win a war yet.
It does not spend that money on improving the lot of it’s people -like Roads, airports communications , and most important it’s eduacation.
This leaves it so short of money , that it’s education is carried out by Maddrassas – religious schools which only teach the koran , and only in Arabic , which the Pakistani’s do not understand.
The Koran is well versed in teaching people how to kill other people who are not Muslims.
The army , which has held power for 70% of Pakistan’s post colonial period , supports terrorists , both financially and Morally. This is why Bin Laden is able to hide there.
When a Goverment cares more about supporting people like Bin Laden and less about the Welfare of it’s people , it eventually becomes a failed state.
Remember – This country hates Christians and everything Western – because these are Unislamic.
let us bring some sense into this discussion.
Before the US went into Afghanistan , Pakistan had the choice of pressuring their clients , the Taliban into giving up Bin Laden.
They did not.
Any country that supports terrorists , should be made into a Pariah state like Libya was once.
This country has supported the very people that it is now fighting. Its has harboured the very terrorists that fight and kill US army personel in Afghanistan.
Any US citizens still think that these people are good people ?