4 ms·

I don't think the Pakistan Army needs "help" getting prime ministers out of office.

by catlover76 3y ago

oa335 3y ago
It's not that they need "help", it's that the Americans dangled incentives for them. Read the intercept article.
- archgoon 3y ago
  [dead]
rayiner 3y ago
They don’t, but they also have no reason to depose a popular guy who doesn’t step out of his lane—unless the US tells them to.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  From your article: 'Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.” Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office. Asked about quotes from Lu in the Pakistani cable, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be.” Miller said he would not comment on private diplomatic discussions.' Yes, I think it's wholly justified for the American people and their politicians to go "Wow, you guys want to support Russia in this blatantly murderous invasion? Well our people don't look too kindly on that and our relations are going to deteriorate. We do understand this is because of Khan, so if Khan isn't leading the country, it's more acceptable." It's not regime-change for me to tell another country that their leadership concerns me, I do not support that leadership, and that I would like to trade and make less deals with you. We treat terrible governments like Putin's Russia or The Third Reich the same.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    Even the mafia’s threats are less direct than what the US said here. “I think if the vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington.” And remember that was communicated to the military, which has long interferes with the democratic process in that country, with America’s support. The fact that you’re willing to condone it just because hating Putin is “the current thing” is wild to me.
    - selimthegrim 3y ago
      At the end of the day people sitting in Pakistan took the final decision. This wasn’t the CIA going in there with guns. If the position on Ukraine was an inter-agency consultation, all these guys need their heads checked if they were going to throw under the bus a country that sold them tanks and supported them on Kashmir (and there’s not exactly a line of those countries out the door)
      - rayiner 3y ago
        The CIA rarely goes anywhere with guns. And this is way worse than drone strikes. Drone strikes kill some people, often terrorists. At least the US has a material self-interest in killing terrorists. Meddling with the internal affairs of a country with 241 million people has much greater consequences.
    - catlover76 3y ago
      It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Also, re your initial reply to my comment: it's not like Pakistan had a fully-functioning democratic government and suddenly the Army staged a coup because of American pressure. For many decades now, any civilian leader in Pakistan has occupied the position only so long as the Army at least tolerates them. The military in Pakistan has a range of interests, and it only wants to strengthen ties with the US insofar as it feels that suits its purposes and those of the country more broadly. The Army should not be absolved of its responsibility here, and the US doesn't deserve scorn for pursuing its interests abroad through this kind of strong arm diplomacy. The moral approbation should be saved for things like drone strikes.

I don't think the Pakistan Army needs "help" getting prime ministers out of office.

oa335 3y ago

It's not that they need "help", it's that the Americans dangled incentives for them. Read the intercept article.

archgoon 3y ago
[dead]

rayiner 3y ago

They don’t, but they also have no reason to depose a popular guy who doesn’t step out of his lane—unless the US tells them to.

reducesuffering 3y ago
From your article: 'Lu then bluntly raises the issue of a no-confidence vote: “I think if the no-confidence vote against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington because the Russia visit is being looked at as a decision by the Prime Minister,” Lu said, according to the document. “Otherwise,” he continued, “I think it will be tough going ahead.” Lu warned that if the situation wasn’t resolved, Pakistan would be marginalized by its Western allies. “I cannot tell how this will be seen by Europe but I suspect their reaction will be similar,” Lu said, adding that Khan could face “isolation” by Europe and the U.S. should he remain in office. Asked about quotes from Lu in the Pakistani cable, State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller said, “Nothing in these purported comments shows the United States taking a position on who the leader of Pakistan should be.” Miller said he would not comment on private diplomatic discussions.' Yes, I think it's wholly justified for the American people and their politicians to go "Wow, you guys want to support Russia in this blatantly murderous invasion? Well our people don't look too kindly on that and our relations are going to deteriorate. We do understand this is because of Khan, so if Khan isn't leading the country, it's more acceptable." It's not regime-change for me to tell another country that their leadership concerns me, I do not support that leadership, and that I would like to trade and make less deals with you. We treat terrible governments like Putin's Russia or The Third Reich the same.
- rayiner 3y ago
  Even the mafia’s threats are less direct than what the US said here. “I think if the vote of no confidence against the Prime Minister succeeds, all will be forgiven in Washington.” And remember that was communicated to the military, which has long interferes with the democratic process in that country, with America’s support. The fact that you’re willing to condone it just because hating Putin is “the current thing” is wild to me.
  - selimthegrim 3y ago
    At the end of the day people sitting in Pakistan took the final decision. This wasn’t the CIA going in there with guns. If the position on Ukraine was an inter-agency consultation, all these guys need their heads checked if they were going to throw under the bus a country that sold them tanks and supported them on Kashmir (and there’s not exactly a line of those countries out the door)
    - rayiner 3y ago
      The CIA rarely goes anywhere with guns. And this is way worse than drone strikes. Drone strikes kill some people, often terrorists. At least the US has a material self-interest in killing terrorists. Meddling with the internal affairs of a country with 241 million people has much greater consequences.
  - catlover76 3y ago
    It's pretty morally dense (to put it politely) to view "hating Putin" as merely "the current thing". Also, re your initial reply to my comment: it's not like Pakistan had a fully-functioning democratic government and suddenly the Army staged a coup because of American pressure. For many decades now, any civilian leader in Pakistan has occupied the position only so long as the Army at least tolerates them. The military in Pakistan has a range of interests, and it only wants to strengthen ties with the US insofar as it feels that suits its purposes and those of the country more broadly. The Army should not be absolved of its responsibility here, and the US doesn't deserve scorn for pursuing its interests abroad through this kind of strong arm diplomacy. The moral approbation should be saved for things like drone strikes.