The South Asian subcontinent continued to feature prominently in the presidential race this week, as Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama clashed over U.S. policy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan during their debate on Friday night. In the New York Times, David Sanger characterizes the exchange as a "role reversal," with Obama seeming "more aligned" than McCain "with President Bush’s current policy of authorizing American special forces to cross the Afghan-Pakistan border into Pakistan’s tribal areas that Al Qaeda and the Taliban have used as a sanctuary."
Video of the exchange to the right. Other reactions to the debate, along with excerpts from the debate transcript, after the jump.
Global Voices rounds up a range of reactions by Pakistani bloggers. In the Christian Science Monitor, Mark Sappenfield reports on some of the reactions in Pakistan and Afghanistan:
In the countries for which Friday night’s debate perhaps held the most relevance – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Russia, Iran, and Iraq – the clear desire is for fresh ideas from US leaders. While this has generally led to more sympathy for Mr. Obama, Friday’s debate did little to project this image in several regions central to US foreign policy.
“The debate [in Pakistan] is how much policy is going to change,” says [political scientist Hasan Askari] Rizvi. “Many are concerned by Obama’s tough talking.”
Indeed, the debate in many ways represented a reversal of expectations. “The line John McCain took was quite reasonable,” says Rasul Baksh Rais, a political scientist at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, who teaches a class in American politics. “Extending the war into Pakistan has really aroused Pakistanis and made them much more interested in this race,” he says.
The same is true in Afghanistan, but for the opposite reasons. Many Afghans see one of the main sources of their problems as being across the border in Pakistan, where Al Qaeda and the Taliban find refuge from the coalition forces in Afghanistan....
Right or wrong, this widespread perception in Afghanistan has led many people to favor Obama’s tough talking. His comments Friday played well. [link]
Here in the United States, Ultrabrown's Manish Vij approvingly summarizes Obama's remarks during the debate graphically:
Foreign Policy's Blake Hounshell, by contrast, thinks that "Obama is making a huge mistake" on Pakistan and that McCain "[got] the better of the exchange." Hounshell cites a recent Foreign Policy piece, which presents the views of five Pakistani experts, in support of his conclusion that the Bush administration is "heading down the wrong path" in its current approach and that Obama is misguided in following what Hounshell takes to be a similar trajectory.
In a masthead editorial, however, Pakistan's Daily Times questions Hounshell's and Sanger's premise that the Obama approach to Pakistan would be more or less identical to the approach taken by the Bush administration in recent weeks. While that premise underlies much of the mainstream media's analysis of the Obama position, the Daily Times editorial identifies "an element of moderation in [Obama's] formulation of his position" when compared to the Bush administration's. The editorial also finds it reassuring that Obama's running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, supports a "'bipartisan' aid package of $15 billion for Pakistan over the next ten years for economic development," arguing that "[Biden's] position on Pakistan is the most nuanced of all on this subject inside the US Congress."
Some of my own reactions can be found at Dorf on Law, where I focus specifically on McCain's comments about the need to "get the support of the people of Pakistan" and his claim that "there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power":
The assertion goes well beyond defending the Bush administration's unconditional support for Musharraf in recent years against Obama's criticism. Rather, McCain necessarily seems to be asserting that Musharraf's decision to overthrow Pakistan's democratically elected government in the first place was justified. [link]
While McCain's appears to defend Musharraf's takeover in his comments during Friday's debate, McCain actually criticized the coup during an interview with CNN's Larry King back in 1999:
McCAIN: [I]t may have brought some semblance of stability, but we only want the institutions of democracy that -- to prevail in this and every other country in the world, and to have to resort to a military coup is not something the United States should support. The -- I think [Gov. Bush's] point was that this was a very corrupt government that was overthrown, but it's -- in my view, it's still not a reason to overthrow it. It's a reason for us to do everything we can to help clean up that corruption and have the rule of law prevail in Pakistan and every other country in the world. [link]
Finally, in the New York City Life Examiner, Mona Molarsky reports on the scene in Sree's neighborhood, New York's Upper West Side, where "[i]t was standing room only in the little bar of Indian Cafe":
We wanted to watch Obama and McCain slug it out, ... [b]ut at one bar after another, it was the Marlins who were slugging the Mets on widescreens....
It [was] my husband’s idea to try our local Indian restaurant, after striking out at every other bar in the neighborhood. He was sure they would be watching the debate there because, as he put it, “foreigners are the only ones interested in politics these days.”
No sooner had Baburam [the Nepalese bartender at the Indian Cafe] tuned in CNN, than Mr. Sharma, the Indian owner of the restaurant, made a beeline towards us. For optimal TV viewing, he positioned himself right behind me and a few steps from the painting of Ganesha, the Hindu elephant deity....
Throughout the debate, Baburam moved back and forth, quickly, refilling customer’s glasses almost to the rim. But when Obama said, “This notion that by not talking with people we are punishing them—I believe this is a mistake.” Baburam put down a bottle of rum he was pouring and applauded, along with everyone else in the room.
It was Obama’s closing remarks... that seemed to speak loudest to this particular crowd.
“It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference in terms of our capacity to get cooperation…” Obama began. But the end of his sentence was drowned out by the cheers of everyone at the bar.
Behind me, Mr. Sharma was clapping and grinning broadly. “Everybody gets a drink on the house!” he announced, laughingly. (Not that anyone needed one by then.) And he pressed his hands together in front of his chest and made a little bow. [link]
* *
Excerpts from the transcript of the candidates' exchange over Afghanistan and Pakistan:
OBAMA: [W]e've got to deal with Pakistan, because Al Qaida and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the northwest regions, and although, you know, under George Bush, with the support of Senator McCain, we've been giving them $10 billion over the last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe havens.
And until we do, Americans here at home are not going to be safe.
MCCAIN: Now, on this issue of aiding Pakistan, if you're going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state, told me once, you'd better be prepared to pull the trigger.
I'm not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I'm not prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.
We've got to get the support of the people of -- of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan.
Now, you don't do that. You don't say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.
Now, the new president of Pakistan, Kardari (sic), has got his hands full. And this area on the border has not been governed since the days of Alexander the Great.
I've been to Waziristan. I can see how tough that terrain is. It's ruled by a handful of tribes....
And we're going to have to help the Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. And it's going to be tough. They've intermarried with Al Qaida and the Taliban. And it's going to be tough. But we have to get the cooperation of the people in those areas.
And the Pakistanis are going to have to understand that that bombing in the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad was a signal from the terrorists that they don't want that government to cooperate with us in combating the Taliban and jihadist elements.
So we've got a lot of work to do in Afghanistan. But I'm confident, now that General Petraeus is in the new position of command, that we will employ a strategy which not only means additional troops -- and, by the way, there have been 20,000 additional troops, from 32,000 to 53,000, and there needs to be more.
So it's not just the addition of troops that matters. It's a strategy that will succeed. And Pakistan is a very important element in this. And I know how to work with him. And I guarantee you I would not publicly state that I'm going to attack them.
OBAMA: Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan. Here's what I said.
And if John wants to disagree with this, he can let me know, that, if the United States has Al Qaida, bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our sights, and Pakistan is unable or unwilling to act, then we should take them out.
Now, I think that's the right strategy; I think that's the right policy.
And, John, I -- you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is. I think this is the right strategy.
Now, Senator McCain is also right that it's difficult. This is not an easy situation. You've got cross-border attacks against U.S. troops.
And we've got a choice. We could allow our troops to just be on the defensive and absorb those blows again and again and again, if Pakistan is unwilling to cooperate, or we have to start making some decisions.
And the problem, John, with the strategy that's been pursued was that, for 10 years, we coddled Musharraf, we alienated the Pakistani population, because we were anti-democratic. We had a 20th-century mindset that basically said, "Well, you know, he may be a dictator, but he's our dictator."
And as a consequence, we lost legitimacy in Pakistan. We spent $10 billion. And in the meantime, they weren't going after Al Qaida, and they are more powerful now than at any time since we began the war in Afghanistan.
That's going to change when I'm president of the United States.
MCCAIN: I -- I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state. [transcript, NY Times interactive debate guide]
More debate resources available at C-SPAN.
Post your own reactions to the debate, and any links to other reactions, in the comments below.
