U.S. Finally Letting Go Of Failed “Relationship” With Pakistan?

Looks like the U.S. Is having a bad breakup with its frenemy Pakistan.

NYT 12/26/2011 top of p. A1: “U.S. Redraws Pakistani Ties With Limits” “New Agreements Will Affect Security”

Like all “important” NYT stories is sourced almost entirely to shadowy, anonymous Government officials-

[I wonder if the self-proclaimed “Newspaper of Record” held the story until the day after Christmas to spare its “important” readers heartburn?] [Posted on NYT website as "U.S. Prepares for a Curtailed Relationship With Pakistan"]

Dateline Islamabad: “With the United States facing the reality that its broad security partnership with Pakistan is over, American officials are seeking to salvage a more limited counterterrorism alliance that they acknowledge will complicate their ability to launch attacks against extremists and move supplies into Afghanistan.”

The U.S. will be cutting back drone strikes in Pakistan (suspended since the November battle with Paki  troops that the Pakis lost, losing 26 soldiers), the CIA will be hemmed in to the Embassy, and the Pakis will be upping their shakedown fees for allowing U.S. supplies to transit Pakistan to Afghanistan. (Presumably the theft and destruction of a portion of said supplies will continue as before.)

A little deconstructing of that first paragraph is in order: “Broad security partnership” refers to the Pakis snookering the U.S. and milking it for billions in arms and shakedown money in “transit fees” for shipping supplies to the U.S. expeditionary army in Afghanistan while ripping off portions for sale to terrorists- I just read an article describing the U.S. military gear for sale in markets there- and the Pakis, while sheltering bin Laden, dribbling out intel, and at the outset selling to the U.S. as “terrorists” foreign Muslims unfortunate enough to be on its soil, for shipment to Guantanamo Bay concentration camp. “Counterterrorism alliance” means letting the U.S. Kill certain Islamofascist terrorists but continuing to protect others, and indeed use them to attack both India and Afghanistan.

The Paks are holding to their demand for an apology from the U.S. For winning that November battle, while they refused to participate in an investigation, and are holding fast to the lie that their troops weren't firing on a U.S.-Afghan commando unit. This lie inflames their population to hate the U.S. And falsely believe itself victimized by the U.S. (To illustrate how twisted the Pakis are, they think they were victimized by the killing of bin Laden. They also think India is victimizing them, not vice versa. That mental illness is also a characteristic of the fascist mentality, which believes itself to be the victim of outrageous crimes by those it in fact commits outrageous crimes against.)

One Paki poobah whined in the article that “the U.S. treats Pakistan like a rainy-day girlfriend.” That's one of their milder beefs.

Get a load of this from the third to last paragraph of the story- When the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin E. Dempsey, called the real ruler of Pakistan, General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on December 21^st, and asked, as the Times said, “if the relationship could be repaired” [i.e. “can't we get back together?”] Kayani moped that, in the Times' words, “Pakistan needed some space.”

The Paks are really into this jilted girlfriend jag. They've been nursing a grudge over being “abandoned” by the U.S. after the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan. So in the Pakis' minds, the U.S. walked out on Pakistan, then came back when “he” needed “her” again. How neurotic is that?

jasonzenith.blogspot.com

taboo-truths.blogspot.com