Why Obama Has to Win for Pakistan
By Imran H. Khan
Saratoga, CA
As the race for the White House draws to a penultimate conclusion and enters the twilight zone of a possible transubstantiation, Pakistanis await the results of the Presidential outcome in candid stupor.
Respected pollsters such as Gallup, Rasmussen, and Zogby et al have almost guaranteed Obama a unanimous victory that in accordance to their polls has him leading by a colossal double digit points margin. A substantial lead when one takes into consideration the previous elections and the nail biting finishes they almost all produced.
Barack Hussain Obama, an articulate prodigy of a working class, family has outshined, outclassed and outplayed his septuagenarian opponent. He has utilized his altruistic hand with a degree of responsibility and confidence that is usually the preserve of revolutionaries and martyrs. Obama has managed primarily through his obsequious manner to colligate the facets of self-righteous morality with a somber realism that Americans, fatigued from the tirades of war, economic rapine and the malfeasance meanderings of a mendacious government are desperate to hear.
The reticent policies of the incumbent Bush government have almost single handedly brought into fruition the caveat of Huntington's prophecies and a global economic meltdown that will inevitably bring recession and add to the already rampant inflation. Thus, Obama's twin mantras of 'Change we can believe in' and 'Yes We Can' must sound like music to the disgruntled billions around the world.
This mellifluous tune is exactly what a nation like Pakistan needs to hear. The initial offerings and portents of US foreign policy in the 21st century have not been extremely promising for the nascent nation. It has been involuntarily placated as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of neo-conservative nimbyism. The nation has been embroiled in a war of attrition at a greater loss than any of the so-called allies who have taken it upon themselves to police the world. Therefore, one would heed Obama's message and demeanor as a sobering tonic that would eventually bring much vaunted relief and stability to the region.
However, the old adage that not all that glitters is gold is presumptuously brought into manifestation when Obama's stance on Pakistan is queried. His statements can be viewed as being ambiguous at the very least and highly contentious at best.
In recent televised debates Obama has made it clear that he views Pakistani leaders as having "reached out to terrorists." He insists that they "go after their militants", and says, "We have to act" and "kill bin Laden even if we have to chase him into Pakistan." This point has obviously not been well received by the Pakistani populace and is arguably Obama's most serious 'gaff' of the entire campaign.
What people have to realize however, is the context in which these comments have been made. Barack Hussain Obama has already endured a complicated counter campaign that accuses him of colluding with terrorists as a closet Muslim and thus being a fifth column for the Islamic world. He (Obama) to his discredit has vehemently denied any Islamic connection and by default furthered the nefarious connotation of Islam as being synonymous with terrorism or a malevolent ideology.
Although as a populace and a nation we acknowledge and note quite rightly the irresponsible manner in which Obama has proposed to possibly violate the sovereignty of Pakistan, we as a nation must rise above our own perceptions and comprehensions of the world.
The mainstay arguments have provided a mixture of bellicose belligerence compiled with an altruistic twinge of morality and ethical philosophizing on Pakistan. The pressures facing Obama are unprecedented and in order to appease a certain pertinent class of American society he has been compelled to engage in this sort of verbosity.
John McCain has rebutted on this issue when accusing Obama of “talking loudly," and Obama's announcement that "he would go into Pakistan” as “not the right approach, you have to work with countries to try to get them to work with us.”
This strategic approach by McCain has pleased many in Pakistan and according to the Pew Global Attitudes survey only 10 percent of Pakistanis support Obama. They feel that his stance on compromising Pakistan’s sovereignty and his soft attitude on Israel is a detrimental flaw in his global outlook. These are all valid concerns and thus provide the ammunition with which Obama can be denounced as an apparatchik of a Zionist or white evangelical conspiracy against Muslims and Pakistan. However, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found McCain collecting about 68 percent of the white evangelical vote, compared to Barack Obama's 22 percent. One can deduce from these facts that, either Obama is attempting to garner the support of this voting bloc through his open ended aggressive assertions, or that we have failed to comprehend the superficial nature of Obama’s statements that are designed to appease a domestic audience in words alone.
What the Pakistani people have to realize and digest is that the alternative choice for President, John McCain, imbues policies which have rightly been labeled by the Obama camp as 'More of the Same' in reference to the disastrous two-term shenanigans of the Bush era. McCain has openly attacked Iran, Syria and North Korea and refused to even consider negotiations or discussions with any nation or group the Americans deem left of centre. Many Pakistani commentators have vilified Obama's gung ho approach to Pakistan but completely missed McCain’s stealthily concealed counter argument of "using force, but talking softly."
McCain says he "won't telegraph his punches and promises to act responsibly to get bin Laden". This tired approach for one-upmanship is cloaked in a chicanery that is both conceited and no different from what we are currently witnessing. The US military is arrogantly launching pre-emptive strikes at will into Pakistani territory and then denying responsibility. One should consider that at least Obama has the courage to openly declare a possible US policy that is not based on conducting a covert internecine war designed to undermine the very fabric of Pakistani society.
According to the distinguished American writer Gore Vidal, the neo-conservatives have already entered the world into an era of ‘perpetual war for perpetual peace’ at the expense of nations just like ours.
Sara Palin, although a very presentable offering as VP for all those hawkish right wingers, espouses dangerous nationalistic sentiments that border on the awaking of a fascist bent through a technique designed to rabble rouse and shock. The election of the Republicans into the White House has almost become synonymous with military coups, dictatorships and economic catastrophes for Pakistan. Therefore, those in authority and responsible for social engineering as commentators, analysts, the media in essence must restrain their initial self-conceited comprehensions and think more strategically and look to champion those global partners who provide an avenue through dialogue and what may be termed as a ‘democratic process’.
We cannot depend on either of the candidates to fundamentally change the situation in Pakistan to one of prosperity and peace but at least we can root for someone who is willing to look at an alternative solution to the ones we already have.
The much venerated global village of the Clinton years and Fukuyama‘s end of history have all proven to be fallacious notions of an American grandeur much akin to a Roman empire of its day. Successive American governments working under the aegis of emancipation and liberation have in reality usurped power and forged for ultimate global hegemony. Ironically it was the great Roman senator Tacitus who said ‘They make slaughter and they call it peace.’
