There was a very interesting exchange on CNN this weekend with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri. Considering how often U.S. pundits defend American interventionism and militarism it is worth reading this exchange to see how some, including those among our “allies”, view American actions.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Just a short while ago, I spoke with Pakistani foreign minister, Khurshid Kasuri, who had some tough words for the U.S. assessment of Pakistan’s handling of the Taliban and Al Qaida.

BLITZER: Foreign Minister, thanks very much for joining us. Will the Pakistani military go into that tribal area along the border with Afghanistan and crush the Taliban and Al Qaida?

KASURI: The Pakistani military is already there in the tribal area. We had 85,000 earlier. Two divisions have been sent recently in the tribal area and in some other areas adjoining the tribal areas.

Pakistan’s commitment cannot be doubted by anybody, and that is why some of our people do not like what we read in some of your newspapers, which are more like leaks and calculated leaks. And we hear of safe havens in Pakistan.

It really makes us very angry when we are suffering so many casualties, when our troops are suffering so many casualties. You know, I know you’re a friend, but the way you frame your question is something that people in Pakistan don’t like.

…

BLITZER: It’s not just leaks. These are official statements from the U.S. government, including the president’s national security adviser. So the question is, what do you do now?

KASURI: OK. Wolf, here’s my response. You were quoting me the National Intelligence Estimate. Is that what it’s called?

BLITZER: Yes.

KASURI: Yes, now, here — and against an estimate, we have the 9/11 Commission report, which was a bipartisan commission report. It took stock of the entire situation, and it came to a conclusion that it would be completely counterproductive, if, as we hearing in American newspapers — and that’s what I meant by leaks, that there are some people who are talking irresponsibly of attacks in the tribal areas of Pakistan by the United States.

And that’s what I had in mind. After all, one is supposed to pay a much, much greater attention to the 9/11 Commission report, which is a bipartisan report, which takes into consideration all the intelligence that they had and, in fact, the best, you know, your think tanks could produce. And I think the deliberations lasted over months.

All I’m saying is this: I am not trying to underestimate the situation. I know it’s a difficult situation. We’ve suffered casualties in the last three days. What we need is actionable intelligence. We do not want, you know, something said just for the purpose of having an effect on American public opinion.

Now, I want to say one thing very clearly. The whole purpose of this exercise: to win hearts and minds of the people. Now, we are aware of that, and we have to carry our public opinion with us. And here is a figure which I would like you and the American audience to ponder over. Look at the ratio of casualties between your troops and Iraqi civilians.

And do you know what our casualties have been? When 500 or 600 of our soldiers died — and I’m talking the past year and not the recent ones — we were able to get hold of about 800 or 900 fatalities by the militants. Which means the ratio is 1:1.2, whereas the ratio in Iraq, I do not even wish to mention.

The difference is that we cannot afford what is conveniently called collateral damage. We have committed to controlling terrorism. We have demonstrated that at the time of Lal Masjid, recently, the Red Mosque, and it lasted over six months. We’ve tried our best to save human lives. It was only as a last resort that force was used.

And people in Pakistan get very upset when, despite all the sacrifices that Pakistan has been making, you know, you have the sort of questions that are sometimes asked by the American media.

And as far as the media is concerned, I don’t wish to be more frank that I’m going to be in this interview. We heard a lot of what was said before the Iraq war. A lot of newspapers now have been gracious enough to admit that they made certain mistakes. Maybe they are making bigger mistakes at this moment.

Meanwhile, later on in the program, Frances Townsend, the Homeland Security Adviser to President Bush, tried to smooth troubled waters, but failed:

BLITZER: But what is angering the Pakistani government is statements, including statements from you and the president and others, that you’re not ruling out a U.S. strike on Pakistani soil, if necessary, to kill Osama bin Laden or other high-ranking Al Qaida leaders.

TOWNSEND: Well, I understand their anger, but of course, Wolf, the president has made perfectly clear that job number one is protecting the American people. There are no tools off the table, and we use all our instruments of national power to be effective.

BLITZER: So let’s just be precise. Are you ready, the United States government, to go in and use direct military force against whether Taliban or Al Qaida elements inside Pakistan?

TOWNSEND: No question that we will use any instrument at our disposal to deal with the problem of Osama bin Laden and Zawahiri and Al Qaida.

In other words, we respect your sovereignty and your delicate internal political situation but we still reserve the right to bomb you when we feel it is necessary. But, hey, no hard feelings.  

No related posts.