Dueling Partners

Dueling Partners: Pakistan and America

---

The duel, therefore, became one upper-class tool in political clashes. From the territorial elections of through the code became legitimized as never before or after. Alexander Hamilton , a political philosopher and politician who was present at the Constitutional Convention, met an untimely end in a duel with Aaron Burr, one-time Vice President of the United States. Hamilton and Burr had come into conflict as partners in a law firm and during Burr's presidential candidacy at the time, the runner-up in a presidential election became vice president.

Their dislike for each other boiled over one day into an exchange of insults, and Burr challenged Hamilton to a duel.

They met in Weehawken, New Jersey, on July 11, , and fired pistols at each other simultaneously. Burr's shot hit Hamilton, while Hamilton shot into the air. There is speculation that he fired that way intentionally so as not to hit Burr, though some think his shot was thrown off when he was struck by Burr's bullet [ ref ]. Hamilton died the next day.

Jim Roberts and the Cult of the Garbage Eaters. On One Pacific Island, a U. Soldier and Prince Philip Are Gods. Alone in the Amazon: Zardari suffered 11 years in prison on politically motivated charges without having been convicted. He went on to lead his party to victory in democratic elections and then skillfully helped to craft a viable democratic coalition. As president he will lead our nation decisively forward in its transition to a stable democracy.

My response to that quote is that it's fantasy politics. The only reason Zardari is where he is, is because of who is he was married to [Benazir Bhutto. He is a figure who was wanted in Swiss courts for money laundering and corruption. He is someone who has, over the years, utilized his wife's Prime Minister-ship on two occasions to become one of the richest people in the country. And to present him as the best hope for Pakistan is an incredibly sad reflection on the state of Pakistan. Essentially, they welcomed him in the international community.

Why is the US warming up to a man with such a dubious past? Well because they put him in power. They did a deal with his wife. They hoped he would fulfill the terms of that deal. It would be very surprising given that Pakistan is supposedly a crucial ally in this so called "war against terror" that they would not work with Zardari. I hope both guys - Obama and McCain - are aware of his checkered track record and the fact he is not very popular in the country. It has to be remembered he was elected indirectly by the parliament and the national assembly.

Were there to be direct elections of the presidency in Pakistan and were they to be free, it is unlikely Zardari would win. That's the first point. The second point is that as far as the US is concerned essentially there is only one serious institution in Pakistan and that is the Pakistan army.

They have done business with this institution for a long period of time, and the Pentagon knows fully well this is the only institution that they need and on which they have to rely in that country. So, officially, Zardari will be the official president, but the main force of the country remains the army. Aren't we seeing some tension right now?

Zardari remains mostly silent on America's offensive, which killed 20 people recently, and pilot-less drones carried out 4 more missile attacks in Waziristan. Pakistan said US didn't ask their permission. General Kiyani had harsh words for US, and America pretty much said they will do what they have to do to battle extremism. How will this tension play out between the Pakistani military, the United States and Zardari?

Well, I think the tension is between the US and the Pakistan military. Zardari will probably be the fall guy, that is if the tension mounts and were there to be something as foolish and irrational as a US troops entering Pakistan, then the military would be forced to resist.

So then what Zardari wants or doesn't want or what deal he made is completely irrelevant, because at that point the army would be in charge. You've probably heard the news that the largest 5 star hotel in Islamabad, the Marriott, has been blown sky high. It was incredibly well coordinated. I've been to that hotel. The security there is incredible. So how that has happened, it remains to be seen. But certainly they've created the impression that Pakistan is becoming ungovernable.

Steven Hadley, the head of the NSA, made an interesting comment: What is the repercussion of that? Do you believe it first of all, and does Pakistan need outside help? No, I think if the Pakistani military wished to do it they could certainly crush the organizations.

Connections

But then again it is something controversial within the army. A These people are citizens of Pakistan; B every time the army has engaged action against them a lot of innocents have died; C whenever the military has attempted to do this, it has created tension inside the military especially amongst the ordinary soldier and junior officers who say they don't like killing their own people. So, there is a problem with the Pakistani military doing this. However, were the US to go in and try to do it, they've met similar results: People not connected in anyway to the militants have died.

Presumably, I assume we have no real information that some jihadis have died as well. But to transform the North-West Frontier of Pakistan into a large killing field isn't going to help anyone. Essentially what we are seeing is spillage from the Afghan war, a war that has gone badly wrong. And a war which is being supported by consensual politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties of the US; a war which the politicians contending to power have not paid serious attention to.

Contribute to This Page

Several say that Central Asia, and not Iraq, is the major hot zone right now and needs to be contained. What can be done to destabilize the Taliban who are resurgent both in Afghanistan and now Pakistan? Isn't any type of offensive going to cause a significant reaction in the form of violence for both countries? Well, look; I don't accept that Iraq is quiet. You had US raids just last week that killed innocents in that country.

And the notion that even Petraeus isn't saying that the surge is succeeding for all time to come, that there is still a great deal of unrest. The majority of Iraqis don't want foreign bases there at all. It's not that Iraq is being pacified successfully; it would be an illusion to imagine that. However, it is true that the presidential contenders are concentrating on Afghanistan. But here we have a classic situation, a military occupation led by NATO, led by the US, which is killing too many civilians in its bombing raids.

I mean even [Afghan President] Karzai has said too many civilians are being killed. Secondly, you have Hamid Karzai and his cronies running Afghanistan. A situation in which Karzai's brother is reputed to be the country's largest drug smuggler and arms bearer. The result of this has been a big rise in Pashtun nationalism. And this rise in Pashtun nationalism takes the form at the moment of swelling the ranks of the old Taliban, which is why it is being called the neo-Taliban by many, many British observers on the ground.

They see the composition and character of this organization has changed as a result of the NATO occupation, that is what is going on and the support for the neo-Taliban is increasing every single day. In order to confront this, it is no use that the US and the West say it is the fault of Pakistan.

• In Our Time
• Creating a Haven
• Werde still und lausche dem Leben: Christliche Texte zum Entspannen, Loslassen und Kraft schöpfen (German Edition)
• Youre Happy When...
• Shivas Mother and Other Stories