Dress Code

My nomination for scariest Halloween costume -- that burqa, or whatever it was, that Hillary had to wear on her head when she confronted the Pakistanis on their foot-dragging when it comes to "supporting" our efforts to use them in a proxy war against their neighbor to the west -- or at least one element of that neighbor, consisting of the former regime, "lawless tribesmen", Al Qaeda, and various and assorted wedding parties and hookah bashes. Not to mention poppy fields. In other words, basically everything Afghanistan is, was, and -- in all probability -- ever will be. In other words, Pakistan is supposed to help us grind their co-religionists across the mountains into fine power (but not the naughty kind made from poppies, mind!) -- and for what? For, I guess, not siccing Hillary on them any more -- and frankly, I consider that quite an incentive. All she has to do is show them a few clips of Waco. But really, can Hillary, Obama, et al really expect them to take our side against their co-religionists? Especially when they are involved in all of the same scams? What can we possibly offer them besides an opportunity to become the new star pupil in the American Empire? Well... I guess we could offer to back them up in the event they go to war with India. But wait, we're supposed to be friends with India too -- that got fixed when Hillary showed up there in a sari. (Let's hope she never gets sent into the Amazon jungle to talk with those Indians -- that could get ugly.) You know, just like "Silent Cal" Coolidge who thought he could make friends with our own Indians by putting on a war bonnet, we think all we have to do is put on the right hat, or sample the right food, or sit watching the right folk dancers, and we will win hearts and minds and all will be well. Well, I guess it beats carpet bombing, but still... anyone with any sense over there must be laughing their butt off. Because the custom of nations around the globe, for many generations now, has been to smoke a bogus peace pipe with America in order to get more and bigger handouts, then simply proceed to do what they intended to do all along, namely beat the crap out of their neighbors (or their own domestic minorities). Then we fly back in, scolding ("Don't make us come up there!"), they get all smiley, take more of our money, and the whole tiresome process begins again. It seems that, contrary to the old saw, we don't have any more luck with honey than with vinegar. We offer bribes -- nothing happens. We threaten -- ditto. We bomb and strafe -- still nothing. You don't suppose these people have decided, in secret, to continue to assert their own traditions, culture, and identity no matter what we say or do, do you? Now wouldn't that be rude of them. So... "non-global"... so provincial... so parochial. But so typical as well. The weapon of the "weaker" party for time immemorial has been to smile and nod and serve tea, and wait for the stronger party to go away (after writing a hefty check). Because, ultimately, these people cannot be threatened, and they can't be punished either. (How do you bomb a place back to the Stone Age when they're ** already ** in the Stone Age?) They can only be bribed, which simply reinforces their behavior and provides them more resources to do the opposite of what we want.

So why did I refer to these people as the "weaker" party? They are actually in charge.