An internally displaced woman fleeing a military offensive in the Swat valley holds her child as she stands in her tent at the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission for Refugees) Jalozai camp. May, 23 2009. Photo: REUTERS/Ali Imam (PAKISTAN POLITICS SOCIETY)
The other day I pointed out that the United States had just encouraged Pakistan's army to drive over a million people out of their homes. I'm trying to follow that story.
I do my homework and I try to figure out what is going on. Sometimes I just get more confused. [Emphasis mine.]
Okay -- so Mr. Coll says the U.S. has good intentions about the displaced people, but Pakistan resists us tromping around. All understandable, though it does seem it would have been simpler (and easier for a lot of Pakistanis) if the U.S. had been inclined to discourage the sort of military operation that causes a refugee crisis. I am not yet ready to believe we want to make Pakistan more unstable. I hope.
Then I read this:
That reads like a vigorous request for help from a member of parliament.
So is Coll accurate? Or is Clift?
In general, the Clift article is both worth reading and pretty dopey. Dopey because it's an example of the wide-eyed, racist wonder genre: Oh gee, five Muslim women members of the Pakistan Parliament can actually talk, think and make demands -- who'd have thought it? Worth reading because the Pakistanis do have something to say about this Afghanistan-Pakistan war we're carrying on in their country -- and the fact they don't like it is liable to derail the effort.
We are warned.