Yesterday, in a speech at the Ronald Regan Trade Building in Washington, D.C., presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama declared that he would shift “the central front in the War on Terror” from Iraq to Afghanistan [see video above]. He said, “Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia.” As a result of this growing threat, the senator advocated changing the U.S. approach to Pakistan, suggesting that the United States cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure their homeland unless they change their Pakistan policy.
Although Obama suggested, “…we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights,” his reference to the country was not purely security-related. Instead he noted, “We must expect more of the Pakistani government, but we must offer more than a blank check to a General who has lost the confidence of his people. It’s time to strengthen stability by standing up for the aspirations of the Pakistani people.” In recognizing the writ of the Pakistani people and the sovereignty of the new coalition government, Obama announced during Wednesday’s speech that he is co-sponsoring a Congressional bill that would “triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to sustain it for a decade…” He asserted, “We must move beyond a purely military alliance built on convenience, or face mounting popular opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of terror and radical Islam.”
Despite these statements, media outlets blared in their headlines, “Obama Targets Pakistan With New Anti-Terror Policy,” [the AFP] and “Obama Threatens Direct Action in FATA,” [Dawn newspaper], using buzz words that seemed to focus solely on the security aspect of Wednesday’s speech. Moreover, several media outlets, including Pakistani news agencies Dawn and The News, did not even mention the Democratic nominee’s references to nonmilitary aid, his support for Pakistan’s democracy, or his recognition of mounting anti-U.S. sentiment in the country, [the Daily Times, it should be added, did cite the nonmilitary aid statement]. The News, for instance, merely noted, “Obama said the greatest threat came from tribal regions of Pakistan. ‘We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I won’t,’ he said. ‘We must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like (Osama) bin Laden if we have them in our sights.'”
Yes, those statements were made (and can be construed in several ways), but the media’s framing of the event made it seem that they were the only references to Pakistan, which could subsequently impact reader opinion. Perhaps the contrast between the media coverage and the actual speech [the full text is available here] appeared more stark because I had the opportunity to be in the audience yesterday. However, it led me to ponder how many of us digest and receive our news. I am often guilty of blindly accepting what is portrayed in the press, at times not delving further into an issue by reading other coverage. It is no secret that news agencies often frame events in polarizing and sometimes simplistic terms in order to make it digestible for their audiences. However, perhaps in order for our own opinions to be more holistic, such realities should be taken into consideration.
With Obamas ongoing war of hatred against America in full swing, and escalating, there isn’t a whole lot of humor going around about his presidential dreams these days. Being Americas greatest enemy from the inside isn’t anything anyone can find a happy future in. And America is only beginning to pay the price for his life in Washington DC that is still only speculation at best.
[…] islam, ronald regan, sovereignty, terrorist targets, train ride, war on terror, writ Read more at: CHUP! – Changing Up Pakistan This post […]
Well it had to happen. Its just matter of time when we’ll see a practical display of it too. US is super power today, either u like it or not, u agree or not so we have to be careful with them. We don’t dictate super power, its the other way round. So we should check ground realities. If they are giving us money for something, u can cheat until certain time. U can’t do it forever. When they didn’t see result then they wanted to achieve, so they will make sure now. If you said that u wanted to talk to them so you did but it didn’t bear favourable results. Terrorists got even more strengthened since they got stronger in the mean time. And we have seen coward taliban already in 2001 when they ran like rats when US invaded. So barking dogs seldom bite. They can’t fight like men, they have to fight like coward and stupid jack asses and attacking from the back. I think their supply line should be cut. Their financers should be held responsible for all the mess they created for Pakistan. At the end, all I want to say is that God Bless Pakistan.
[…] Authored by Kalsoom – CHUP editor […]
[…] Authored by Kalsoom – CHUP editor […]
Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs and a nuclear arsenol. Pakistan also has the support of China. The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.
Hi all you guys who have taken oath of loyalty to America cannot give any other remark.
You cannot say openly that the Saudies are the real creators of the mess in your nation and they are fascilatating the attack by america just before the american election through their surrogates in ISI, the Jehadies
What does John mean when he refers to our population as “160 million ARABS”?
[…] Link to the original site Author: wtfpakistan Time: Thursday, July 24th, 2008 at 5:19 am Category: Pakistan Comments: You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. RSS: You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Navigation: « Urvashi Sharma […]
@ Obama, Sir, learn to think before speaking !
@ Indian involvement in Afghanistan has changed
drastically the strategie, Pakistan can play full energy
to divert the whole mess towards India the
main responsible for the current intensity of American
interventionist strat. Must recall Indian participation in
the meetings held in Badakhshan and Faizabad, the
participants were CIA, M6, Mosad, KGB, and Raw, just
two months before Benazir’s killing.
Indian and Israeli involvement can not be ignored.
[…] this issue in a recent speech at the Woodrow WIlson International Center for Scholars this summer, [see CHUP’s commentary on the speech], he also asserted his respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, also noting his support and […]
[…] this issue in a recent speech at the Woodrow WIlson International Center for Scholars this summer, [see CHUP’s commentary on the speech], he also asserted his respect for Pakistan’s sovereignty, also noting his support and […]