Hearts and Minds Strategy/Pakistan flood response?

OK, here I am again with a France24 docu, kind like a donation drive for flood victims in Pakistan.



I know, that some people will get pretty outraged even by the idea of helping Pakis, as they believe everybody, living even close to that area is their either their personal enemy or by birth and religion the sworn enemy of the western civilization.
I would love to have those people consider
1. Almost all of the victims are simple farmers and their family. They probably care more about wether their stable needs repair, than what goes on beyond their village, so even if all phobia is true, their enmity does not pose an immediate threat to anyone living more than a few miles from their cottages.
2. Their goodwill on the other hand can determine the amount of intelligence available to any armed force in the area, and the amount of votes available for pro-western ideas in the Pakistan government.
2. Nukes do cause world-wide radioactive fall-out. They really do.



I want to link those two vids in this thread, because I know a lot of politically interested US-citizens are around.
The Pakistan flood seems to get almost no coverage by Fox/MSNBC/CNN. It does get a lot of coverage in the Paki News, thats sure.,
Now helping Paki Flood Victims might be a hard sell in the US, but it might actually help the NATO strategy a lot, as it will get a lot of regional attention.

The Pakistani government seriously took on a lot of heat, when they cleaned the Swat Valley and South Waziristan from Taliban tribes last summer and the ISI will have to keep an extremely low profile after the Wikileak, because what they did in the summers before.

reply to post by XenoStuffz


Seems my folks over here are two steps ahead of you, im proud to say. But, hey, thats just how we roll.

Here is something more about the hearts-and-minds-strategy. Despite the title of the vid (growing casualties in Afghanistan) it actually contains a bit of good news, if you think of "ISAF advancing its strategy" as a good thing.

Pro-government forces are suceeding in keeping their collateral death toll low, which puts some pressure on the Taliban to abstain from indiscrimate killing themselves. McChrystal may have been suceeded by Petraeus, but the strict Rules of Engagements for AfPak, that have been critiziced for endangering US armsmen, seem to impact the combat area in the way, they were intended.



If I understand the political calculus of this campaign at the moment, then it is a piece from Macchiavellis Il Principe about installing a government. Have someone do all the cruel, but unavoidable stuff, like executing possible opponents, first, and all at once, then make sure the offending person gets out of sight.
Obama set the time frame for the end of cruelties to 2011. By then, the message to Afghan armed opposition will probably change to: "The more reasonable you are, the faster we are gone. Support your local cookie monster". ISAF wont last long beyond 2014 as more than a symbolic gesture. Its simply to expensive for everyone involved.
I hope that someone can convince Karzai by then, that the hallmark of a democracy is not, that people get elected into office, but, that they also get elected out of office, and noone gets harmed.