This is a quibble, but the main reason the Nixon administration was so loyal to Pakistan during the genocide in Bangladesh wasn't Pakistan's commitment to anti-communism, it was actually sort of the opposite; they were the administration's sole reliable means of secret communications with the Chinese. Yahya Khan was literally carrying letters back and forth between Kissinger and Deng Xiaoping. Nixon also seems to have had a bizarre degree of personal affection for Khan, seemingly just 'cause he'd been nice to him when he visited Pakistan as vice president, whereas he absolutely loathed "that bitch" Indira Gandhi.
I don’t criticize the idea of withdrawing from Afghanistan. I think an indefinite open-ended commitment to Afghanistan was neither sustainable nor desirable.
But I do criticize how that withdrawal was executed. In withdrawing, you want to do to things. First, get everyone out who wants to leave and is entitled to do so. This includes your own nationals, but might also include Afghanis whose cooperation with the US was such that they’d automatically be killed after withdrawal. Second, you want to withdraw militarily useful equipment. Either physically remove it or destroy it in place in a manner that makes it irreparable.
The Biden administration did neither of these things. We all know that Trump is allergic to forward planning, that he’s impulsive and announces policies before they’re ready to go. But the Biden people, with their four star general as SecDef were supposed to be adults capable of disciplined execution. Instead, they botched the withdrawal and nobody lost his job over it.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is dismaying in its intensity and longevity, but at least each side is motivated by a plausible existential threat. It’s much harder for me to see why three pretty enormous countries continue to refuse any compromise on their claims to little Kashmir.
"Americans failed in many ways when they elected Trump. One was a failure to understand the nature of world affairs. You cannot build an international order around yourself, then one day blow it up, and then expect everyone else to wait while you sort out your affairs and eventually try to course-correct.
That’s not how it works. The world spins on, even while the decadent bubbas and babbitts disappear into their screens and social media feeds. If, by some miracle, these very fine people wake up three years hence and realize they’ve made a terrible mistake, they will find that the rest of the world has not been patiently waiting for America to come to its senses; ready to gratefully welcome us back to our imperial throne."
Meanwhile, over on his Substack, Rick Wilson has fun imagining the headlines that would appear in mainstream and right-wing media if President Biden had accepted a $400 million gilded jet from Qatar.
>The New York Times: “Biden’s Acceptance of Qatar Jet Sparks Ethics Debate Amid Growing Foreign Influence Concerns”
>Infowars: “Biden’s Air Force One Upgrade Funded by Sharia Regime. Inside Sources Claim Jet Is Fueled By Baby Blood."
The world kind of, sort of, waited for us to get over our Trumping the first time around. I think they've concluded we won't really be getting over it any time soon, if ever, and so yes, they're moving on without us.
We're the cool kid in high school who hit his peak coolness senior year, but then never really grew from there. Ten years on you run into him and realize he's neither interesting nor relevant any more.
Not meaning to be a dick here, just kind of devil's advocating a bit. But aside from concern about fallout, etc., how could a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan increase the risk of the US/Europe having a nuclear war with Russia, China, etc?
I have a hard time imagining Russia going "Pakistan nuked India - our friends! Take this China!" Or some other variation on that. India and Pakistan are fairly isolated and have only been supported by the greater powers due to their utility. I seriously doubt that the US, Europe, China, or Russia have any great affinity for India or Pakistan.
Obviously, any US administration should try to prevent nuclear war just for the sake of human decency and protecting our environment. But I just don't understand how a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would necessarily "spread" to other nations. This just keeps getting repeated uncritically.
I think there’s relatively little increase in risk of nuclear war *between* the other nuclear powers. But I think it’s a bit fast to yadda yadda past the fallout, especially when it’s not at all implausible that some of that “fallout” might be a mis-targeted live weapon, or even a doomsday type device that is *intentionally* targeted at nuclear sites of other countries that one of the combatants might be worried about.
Could India have a failsafe that targets both Pakistani and Chinese nuclear sites just in case the system can’t automatically detect where incoming nukes were launched from? And would China want to include Pakistan in its nuclear umbrella to ensure India stays contained?
Most of these things don’t make much sense to do non-publicly but I don’t think it’s safe to assume they aren’t done.
Like a Keynesian beauty contest, even if you don't think someone is pretty but think everyone else does, you have to adapt for what you think other people think.
If India and Pakistan start trading nukes, every single nuclear arsenal goes on high alert, because they have to consider *someone else* might want to get involved, even if no one else really does, and be prepared to respond.
Assuming a nuclear war happens, a reasonable cause is that two local rivals went hot and then someone's hair trigger twitches.
(I am skeptical that *neighboring countries* would nuke each other, given that you don't want to be in the area. Things are also changed by the short response time, but I'm not sure which way. US and USSR had about a 30-minute travel time between each other. What's the time between India and Pakistan? 30 seconds?)
I find this type of logic unconvincing. The US and Europe do not really have any kind of dog in this fight. China and Russia have been patrons of these nations, but only for their own ends. It seems unlikely to me that a nuclear exchange between these two would lead to suspicions between the great powers that WW3 is imminent.
I think the fallacy here is that people have this tendency to think of war as something that "breaks out" like it is a force of nature or a disaster beyond human control. While its certainly rightful to be cautious about war in general, and even more in the case of potential nuclear conflict, I can't really see a conflict here spreading beyond the borders of these two countries.
I am also doubtful that Pakistan and India will resort to any kind of nuclear conflict as the stakes of controlling Kashmir are so much lower than losing Dehli or Islamabad. Of course you can never say never, but the whole thing just seems like doomerism.
Adding to what FrigidWind said, I strongly suspect it also depends in large part on how long the control has existed.
If Russian forces overran your town a few weeks ago, you're probably either not paying taxes to anyone (because it seems highly unlikely that Russian tax authorities are on the ball enough to get information into their systems that quickly) or -- with modern electronic payroll systems and such -- maybe even still paying taxes to Ukraine (since if your employer and its bank are in Kyiv or somewhere else free of Russian influence, I doubt they'd change their accounting records to treat you as suddenly being employed in Russia).
In the case of Kashmir, on the other hand, the "Line of Control" hasn't moved substantially in decades, so the local populations are almost certainly paying taxes to the country that actually controls the physical location they are situated on.
“ And beyond his personal shortcomings, he has a philosophical disagreement with the notion that the United States should play a constructive role in the world.” Disappointing to see your TDS so embarrassingly displayed. Trump doesn’t think America should bear the costs, as much as we do, of defending the world. And he is right. In order to make substantial changes in this, Trump has to wield a sledgehammer against all of the entrenched interests, many of whom are at the trough - most notably the Democrat Party and its NGOs and media enablers.
What a pathetic, little man you are. Incapable of making a logical argument without the use of “TDS”, “Sleepy Joe”, “Democrat”, or any other phrase that makes it clear your natural home is the Breitbart message boards
An insightful comment on the India-Pakistan dilemma. I'm glad to see that no matter the subject at issue, it all comes down to lifting up Trump and dumping on the other side.
Matt said that Trump doesn’t think the US should play a constructive role. I answered that ridiculous charge by pointing out Trump’s actual views. And since my side was so gratuitously attacked, I punched back. That seems like a normal human response, but lefties have gotten so used to being the smug arbiters of morality that they are shocked when challenged.
It's so weird because I thought the comment was going to be reasonable with the first few lines. Trump does seem to genuinely want to stop wars, even if only for the pride of stopping wars. But it all comes down to the NGOs, again.
My understanding is the US got involved when India launched a missile attack near Pakistan’s nuclear command and control center. Apparently Pakistan’s government’s biggest fear is a decapitation strike as a prelude to Indian plan for a final solution to the problem of Muslims in South Asia. So Pakistan was dangerously close to hitting the button.
And with that about to blow up we ignored the comically inept JD Vance and the US used its influence to broker a cease fire.
I've been quite critical in the past about MY's writing on Asia (and I thought that during its good years, Vox's work on Asia was the weakest part of their coverage across the board), but this was quite a good piece for a non-specialist.
Also, up until recently (I haven't seen data for 2024), Bangladeshi Americans were possibly the most Democrat-aligned ethnic group in America, dating back to Nixon screwing them over and Ted Kennedy standing up for them. So they seem to hold animosity towards Nixon specifically rather than America as a whole. 🤷
I've posted this data before, but Bangladesh seems to be the only Muslim-majority country where a large number of residents are interested in moving to the US. Could be for school, not sure. The data doesn't get more specific than that.
This is a quibble, but the main reason the Nixon administration was so loyal to Pakistan during the genocide in Bangladesh wasn't Pakistan's commitment to anti-communism, it was actually sort of the opposite; they were the administration's sole reliable means of secret communications with the Chinese. Yahya Khan was literally carrying letters back and forth between Kissinger and Deng Xiaoping. Nixon also seems to have had a bizarre degree of personal affection for Khan, seemingly just 'cause he'd been nice to him when he visited Pakistan as vice president, whereas he absolutely loathed "that bitch" Indira Gandhi.
In theory, cooling down the Kashmir conflict would help a lot, but I’m not sure the US has any cards to play in that conflict.
I don’t criticize the idea of withdrawing from Afghanistan. I think an indefinite open-ended commitment to Afghanistan was neither sustainable nor desirable.
But I do criticize how that withdrawal was executed. In withdrawing, you want to do to things. First, get everyone out who wants to leave and is entitled to do so. This includes your own nationals, but might also include Afghanis whose cooperation with the US was such that they’d automatically be killed after withdrawal. Second, you want to withdraw militarily useful equipment. Either physically remove it or destroy it in place in a manner that makes it irreparable.
The Biden administration did neither of these things. We all know that Trump is allergic to forward planning, that he’s impulsive and announces policies before they’re ready to go. But the Biden people, with their four star general as SecDef were supposed to be adults capable of disciplined execution. Instead, they botched the withdrawal and nobody lost his job over it.
The Israel-Palestine conflict is dismaying in its intensity and longevity, but at least each side is motivated by a plausible existential threat. It’s much harder for me to see why three pretty enormous countries continue to refuse any compromise on their claims to little Kashmir.
I really like it when Slow Boring covers foreign policy!
The Bulwark's JVL is spitting fire in his latest piece: https://www.thebulwark.com/p/the-world-is-moving-on-without-us
"Americans failed in many ways when they elected Trump. One was a failure to understand the nature of world affairs. You cannot build an international order around yourself, then one day blow it up, and then expect everyone else to wait while you sort out your affairs and eventually try to course-correct.
That’s not how it works. The world spins on, even while the decadent bubbas and babbitts disappear into their screens and social media feeds. If, by some miracle, these very fine people wake up three years hence and realize they’ve made a terrible mistake, they will find that the rest of the world has not been patiently waiting for America to come to its senses; ready to gratefully welcome us back to our imperial throne."
Meanwhile, over on his Substack, Rick Wilson has fun imagining the headlines that would appear in mainstream and right-wing media if President Biden had accepted a $400 million gilded jet from Qatar.
>The New York Times: “Biden’s Acceptance of Qatar Jet Sparks Ethics Debate Amid Growing Foreign Influence Concerns”
>Infowars: “Biden’s Air Force One Upgrade Funded by Sharia Regime. Inside Sources Claim Jet Is Fueled By Baby Blood."
https://therickwilson.substack.com/p/qatars-boeing-bribe-an-alternate
The world kind of, sort of, waited for us to get over our Trumping the first time around. I think they've concluded we won't really be getting over it any time soon, if ever, and so yes, they're moving on without us.
We're the cool kid in high school who hit his peak coolness senior year, but then never really grew from there. Ten years on you run into him and realize he's neither interesting nor relevant any more.
Nixon kept congress in the dark about his actions in Pakistan, with Trump the darkness is self imposed 😆
Not meaning to be a dick here, just kind of devil's advocating a bit. But aside from concern about fallout, etc., how could a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan increase the risk of the US/Europe having a nuclear war with Russia, China, etc?
I have a hard time imagining Russia going "Pakistan nuked India - our friends! Take this China!" Or some other variation on that. India and Pakistan are fairly isolated and have only been supported by the greater powers due to their utility. I seriously doubt that the US, Europe, China, or Russia have any great affinity for India or Pakistan.
Obviously, any US administration should try to prevent nuclear war just for the sake of human decency and protecting our environment. But I just don't understand how a nuclear conflict between India and Pakistan would necessarily "spread" to other nations. This just keeps getting repeated uncritically.
Please educate me if I am off base here.
I think there’s relatively little increase in risk of nuclear war *between* the other nuclear powers. But I think it’s a bit fast to yadda yadda past the fallout, especially when it’s not at all implausible that some of that “fallout” might be a mis-targeted live weapon, or even a doomsday type device that is *intentionally* targeted at nuclear sites of other countries that one of the combatants might be worried about.
Could India have a failsafe that targets both Pakistani and Chinese nuclear sites just in case the system can’t automatically detect where incoming nukes were launched from? And would China want to include Pakistan in its nuclear umbrella to ensure India stays contained?
Most of these things don’t make much sense to do non-publicly but I don’t think it’s safe to assume they aren’t done.
Like a Keynesian beauty contest, even if you don't think someone is pretty but think everyone else does, you have to adapt for what you think other people think.
If India and Pakistan start trading nukes, every single nuclear arsenal goes on high alert, because they have to consider *someone else* might want to get involved, even if no one else really does, and be prepared to respond.
Assuming a nuclear war happens, a reasonable cause is that two local rivals went hot and then someone's hair trigger twitches.
(I am skeptical that *neighboring countries* would nuke each other, given that you don't want to be in the area. Things are also changed by the short response time, but I'm not sure which way. US and USSR had about a 30-minute travel time between each other. What's the time between India and Pakistan? 30 seconds?)
I find this type of logic unconvincing. The US and Europe do not really have any kind of dog in this fight. China and Russia have been patrons of these nations, but only for their own ends. It seems unlikely to me that a nuclear exchange between these two would lead to suspicions between the great powers that WW3 is imminent.
I think the fallacy here is that people have this tendency to think of war as something that "breaks out" like it is a force of nature or a disaster beyond human control. While its certainly rightful to be cautious about war in general, and even more in the case of potential nuclear conflict, I can't really see a conflict here spreading beyond the borders of these two countries.
I am also doubtful that Pakistan and India will resort to any kind of nuclear conflict as the stakes of controlling Kashmir are so much lower than losing Dehli or Islamabad. Of course you can never say never, but the whole thing just seems like doomerism.
dumb question but I hope someone will answer:
if you live in a disputed territory (e.g. Kashmir, eastern Ukraine, etc.)...who do you pay taxes to?
Adding to what FrigidWind said, I strongly suspect it also depends in large part on how long the control has existed.
If Russian forces overran your town a few weeks ago, you're probably either not paying taxes to anyone (because it seems highly unlikely that Russian tax authorities are on the ball enough to get information into their systems that quickly) or -- with modern electronic payroll systems and such -- maybe even still paying taxes to Ukraine (since if your employer and its bank are in Kyiv or somewhere else free of Russian influence, I doubt they'd change their accounting records to treat you as suddenly being employed in Russia).
In the case of Kashmir, on the other hand, the "Line of Control" hasn't moved substantially in decades, so the local populations are almost certainly paying taxes to the country that actually controls the physical location they are situated on.
my feeling at the moment: https://youtu.be/yLrUiUadG50?si=SQXvFc-6mFqTUvJC
“ And beyond his personal shortcomings, he has a philosophical disagreement with the notion that the United States should play a constructive role in the world.” Disappointing to see your TDS so embarrassingly displayed. Trump doesn’t think America should bear the costs, as much as we do, of defending the world. And he is right. In order to make substantial changes in this, Trump has to wield a sledgehammer against all of the entrenched interests, many of whom are at the trough - most notably the Democrat Party and its NGOs and media enablers.
What a pathetic, little man you are. Incapable of making a logical argument without the use of “TDS”, “Sleepy Joe”, “Democrat”, or any other phrase that makes it clear your natural home is the Breitbart message boards
Don't feed the troll
An insightful comment on the India-Pakistan dilemma. I'm glad to see that no matter the subject at issue, it all comes down to lifting up Trump and dumping on the other side.
Matt said that Trump doesn’t think the US should play a constructive role. I answered that ridiculous charge by pointing out Trump’s actual views. And since my side was so gratuitously attacked, I punched back. That seems like a normal human response, but lefties have gotten so used to being the smug arbiters of morality that they are shocked when challenged.
It's so weird because I thought the comment was going to be reasonable with the first few lines. Trump does seem to genuinely want to stop wars, even if only for the pride of stopping wars. But it all comes down to the NGOs, again.
Are the comment threads on Fox down today?
My understanding is the US got involved when India launched a missile attack near Pakistan’s nuclear command and control center. Apparently Pakistan’s government’s biggest fear is a decapitation strike as a prelude to Indian plan for a final solution to the problem of Muslims in South Asia. So Pakistan was dangerously close to hitting the button.
And with that about to blow up we ignored the comically inept JD Vance and the US used its influence to broker a cease fire.
There is one place in the social media landscape where this is a huge deal: Blind
Reading through this generates a kind of inverse Gell-Mann amnesia effect.
You think you know something about the subject, yet come away learning more from the post and the comments.
I've been quite critical in the past about MY's writing on Asia (and I thought that during its good years, Vox's work on Asia was the weakest part of their coverage across the board), but this was quite a good piece for a non-specialist.
Random tidbit of information:
In spite of the Nixon administration screwing over Bangladesh, Bangladeshis seems to like us pretty well while Pakistanis hate us. Go figure.
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/06/11/views-of-the-u-s/
https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/06/23/1-americas-global-image/
Also, up until recently (I haven't seen data for 2024), Bangladeshi Americans were possibly the most Democrat-aligned ethnic group in America, dating back to Nixon screwing them over and Ted Kennedy standing up for them. So they seem to hold animosity towards Nixon specifically rather than America as a whole. 🤷
Looking at Hamtramack, I would be astounded if those BD-American #s were true.
Which numbers? Their approval of us or something else?
Sorry, thats regarding the last point on Bangladeshi Americans post 2024
Oh, voting Democrat? No I don't think they do anymore. A ton of Muslims voted for Jill Stein lol a lot of good that did
I think there is also a pretty long standing tradition of Bangladeshis immigrating to the US for school.
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/212687/coming-america.aspx
I've posted this data before, but Bangladesh seems to be the only Muslim-majority country where a large number of residents are interested in moving to the US. Could be for school, not sure. The data doesn't get more specific than that.