Comments on: Oh, Fisk It!

By: Pakistan: A Primer for the New York Times | Madiha R. Tahir

Pakistan: A Primer for the New York Times | Madiha R. Tahir — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 01:00:56 +0000

[...] a sinister game of Chicken that might kill us all played by a cast smaller than the Sopranos. The apocalyptic narrative of crisis and crisis-averted is always the same, and it’s not limited to the NYT. See the [...]

By: What set Jawwad Farid off? | Tea Break

What set Jawwad Farid off? | Tea Break — Tue, 07 Apr 2009 07:22:30 +0000

[...] half way across the world, Mannan Ahmed who goes by the name Sepoy, on the blog Chapati Mystery, reacted to a NY Times Op-Ed piece – a rant (certainly worth reading) that was equally responsible for inspiring Jawwad Farid into [...]

By: You were saying, a rejoinder four… | Desi Back to desh

You were saying, a rejoinder four… | Desi Back to desh — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 12:28:31 +0000

[...] to think that you shouldn’t write off my home, on the basis of obnoxious and misinformed NYT Op-eds, WSJ commentary, CNN and FOX News hatchet [...]

By: Desi Back to desh » Blog Archive » I want to be a chapatti when I grow up, or, a middle class rejoinder, two

Sat, 04 Apr 2009 13:30:42 +0000

[...] Sepoy’s rant at Chapati Mystery on an NYT Oped by Patrick French on [...]

By: SJ

SJ — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:20:53 +0000

I didn’t understand one aspect of this post:

“So the army which trained and equipped and marshaled hundreds of thousands of Afghanistani counterinsurgents over a decade of fighting the Soviets has limited skills?”

Surely they created *insurgents*, not counterinsurgents?

By: Fahd

Fahd — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:45:57 +0000

great job, French’s article was utterly pathetic. there is no good reason that the NYTimes should give space to someone who does nothing but rehash the same tired old “conclusions” about pakistan. he offers no fresh analysis of his own, but just touts his own connections to pakistani elite… who themselves are not a reliable indicator as to the state of the nation.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 02:17:00 +0000

M: I don’t think that necessarily follows; the insurgency in Nagaland has continued basically from 1948; Mizoram from 1961 or so; surely we couldn’t infer from this that the Indian army “agree(s) with the basic philosophy” of the Naga or Mizo secessionists, would we? Even far more sophisticated militaries than India’s or Pakistan’s, such as the US’ or UK’s, find it very difficult to tackle guerilla insurgencies (the relative success in Iraq is due in large part to the fact that the US is basically paying tribesmen in the “Sunni triangle” to not fight; i.e. it isn’t just a function of military tactics; and even that stage took half a decade to reach. Afghanistan remains a mess 7+ years after the fall of the Taliban government in Kabul; heck even historically it took British forces a decade to tackle the Malay insurgency in the 1950s, and Indochina proved problematic for both France and the USA; Algeria was another one; I mean there are countless examples)…

By: Pakistan: A Primer for the New York Times « Action for a Progressive Pakistan

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:49:19 +0000

By: M

Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:31:25 +0000

I don’t get the angst – is there anything factually inaccurate in French’s op-ed. The Pakistani army does have limited counter-insurgency skills – look at how long it took them to crush Baluchi nationalism. Why don’t they do the same in Swat – its because they agree with the basic philosophy of the Taliban.

By: Pakistan: A Primer for the New York Times « the mob and the multitude

Pakistan: A Primer for the New York Times « the mob and the multitude — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:30:14 +0000

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 16:50:41 +0000

Bilal, I see where you’re coming from on the Chopra post (the irritating salman ahmed’s a co-author), but on balance I would say this sort of piece is a lot more welcome than the sort that typically appears — I think of Bernard Henri-Levi and his representations of Pakistan as a breathlessly insane place (where it’s always night) as the patron saint of the latter sort of piece. At least the Chopra/Ahmed piece is trying to explore some nuances, for an audience that likely isn’t going otherwise hear/read about them…

By: Raymond Turney

Raymond Turney — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:25:03 +0000

Hi,

I suspect I fall into your category of people who are basically pro-Indian. Of course, some Indians have denounced me as pro-Pakistani, so who knows?

That said, the New York Times has to find people whose positions can be understood without reading a fair amount about Pakistan. The situation in Pakistan is actually very confusing, with conflicts between big landowners and capitalists out of the Western early 19th century superimposed on conflicts between religious fanatics and the traditional landowning aristocracy right out of the Western late middle ages. To add to the confusion, Pakistan’s army promoted, back in the eighties, a Saudi inspired form of religious fanaticism, because this form of Islam tends to set Pakistan apart from India. As I understand it, this form of Islam has continued to be the semi-official preferred form. At the same time, the army is in many ways an independent power, capable of vetoing decisions by other actors on the political stage, if one is to believe Ayesha Siddiqa. All of this is happening in a country that speaks four different languages, which seem at this distance to support four different political cultures. Both the Pashtuns and the Balochs seem to have substantial independence movements, with the Pashtun independence types allied to the Taliban.

All this before you start to figure out India, the ISI, etc.

Even Pakistanis have a lot of trouble figuring out Pakistan. I usually believe Tariq Ali, but that is just to provide me with a starting point in figuring things out.

Which is to say that it is much easier to adopt currently fashionable attitudes in the US than it is to figure out Pakistan. So in a short piece, the NYT pretty much has to do that.

If you’re interested in my blog, it is at:

http://www.rememberjenkinsear.blogspot.com/

but I must confess, I haven’t figured out Pakistan yet:-).

Ray,

By: bilal

bilal — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 03:34:47 +0000

everyone is an expert on pakistan. even deepak chopra.

http://watandost.blogspot.com/2009/03/how-to-win-pakistans-culture-war.html

good job on french.

By: Neena

Neena — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:44:31 +0000

Patrick French’s account is quite right and logical except the part below where I think he was smoking something when he wrote it.
The only way forward is for the government and those opposition politicians, such as Mr. Sharif, who still have popular support to unite with progressive elements inside the Army, and to recognize the real and immediate danger of the Islamist threat.

By: aamir

aamir — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:53:59 +0000

Zack why don’t you read it first. Its like defending ‘Beyond Belief’ because you have read ‘Miguel Street. Who is he really warning when he predicts/ wishes pakistan as a nuclear-armed Afghanistan? Today it would be the least of an afghan’s worries if his country had the bomb.
And can anybody tell me Kristen L Rouse’s qualifications. Did Dyer get chance to show his soft side in The Guardian.

By: Zack

Zack — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 00:57:32 +0000

I haven’t read the op-ed but I have to defend Patrick French who wrote Liberty or Death, a very decent account of subcontinental independence and partition.

By: Qalandar

Qalandar — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:39:34 +0000

Re: “…this absurdly low bar exists only when one is talking about those brown people over there.”

Who can forget the NY-based Pakistani investment banker this or that channel would dredge up to offer commentary some years ago. And to think people say said’s theory is played out…

By: Conrad Barwa

Conrad Barwa — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:43:31 +0000

I read that article he wrote when he was on that flight with Nawaz Sharif – it was god-awful and there was just no defending it. This is a shame, I liked French’s book “Liberty or Death” which I think took a relatively balanced view of the Indian independence movement and partition. I have heard him speak and talked to him a few times; he is one of the few people interested in the region who isn’t Indo-centric in his approach – what struck me at the time was his insistence that Pakistan was the most interesting country in the region and the one he wanted to concentrate on/spend time in. It is a shame that it led to this, since he is one of the relatively small number of sympathetic external observers Pakistan has.