America’s whipping boy

[Indus Pakistan]

finds rubbish in the article.

I will explain why I called this article "rubbish". The use of "whipping boy" conveys victimhood. That is to say USA is whipping Pakistan. Such language carries the message that America is the thug and Pakistan is the innocent victim.

Such ridiculous language might carry traction with ignorants but does not sit easy with a senior diplomat like Mr Akram. Pakistan is not a victim. If Pakistan was indeed a victim than we need to "whip" those in charge of our diplomacy. After all they are paid to do a job - make sure Pakistan get's the best deal. If the deal is so bad that Pakistan is getting "whipped" then we need to hold people like Mr Akram to account and ask if they are doing their job. If Pakistan came out the loser those in charge (including Mr Akram) deserve public thrashing.

It is like sending out a cricket team. If they lose badly to the opposing team and get "whipped" then whose fault is it? The opposing team who "whipped" you or your team for failing? How would you feel if one of the senior players then wrote articles about being "whipped" by the opposing team and crying on about it. Would you not ask that player instead of crying why they failed on the field?

In international relations it's very simple. It's like playing Chess game. If you lose terribly that means you chewed something too big. That points to poor decision making. You should not enter into something that entails you losing badly. If Pakistan indeed got "whipped" it points to flawed policy decisions on part of our governments.

The appropriate response for that is too look where mistakes were made and than respond by adapting to your strengths and covering any weakness you might have. That is learn and move on. Not as Mr Akram does. Write articles that use cheap emotive language and play victim (when it was policy failure by people in government like himself) by using words like "whipping boy" to feed on the ignorance of the average Pakistani. The language used conveniently shifts the blame from those who failed (like this diplomat) to the bogeyman that is America and the victim that is Pakistan.

It turns a complex failure of foreign policy to simple narrative of "bad guy, good guy" and exorcises any failure on part of governments in Pakistan. Instead the focus is "bad guy" America. This suits the simple Pakistani mindset where everything is black and white. The sad part is the failure of diplomacy is never looked at thus ensuring more mistakes will be made in the future. Mr Akram should have used that piece as place for some introspection. Not a way to evade blame.

 

[VCheng]

I will explain why I called this article "rubbish". The use of "whipping boy" conveys victimhood. That is to say USA is whipping Pakistan. Such language carries the message that America is the thug and Pakistan is the innocent victim.

Such ridiculous language might carry traction with ignorants but does not sit easy with a senior diplomat like Mr Akram. Pakistan is not a victim. If Pakistan was indeed a victim than we need to "whip" those in charge of our diplomacy. After all they are paid to do a job - make sure Pakistan get's the best deal. If the deal is so bad that Pakistan is getting "whipped" then we need to hold people like Mr Akram to account and ask if they are doing their job. If Pakistan came out the loser those in charge (including Mr Akram) deserve public thrashing.

It is like sending out a cricket team. If they lose badly to the opposing team and get "whipped" then whose fault is it? The opposing team who "whipped" you or your team for failing? How would you feel if one of the senior players then wrote articles about being "whipped" by the opposing team and crying on about it. Would you not ask that player instead of crying why they failed on the field?

In international relations it's very simple. It's like playing Chess game. If you lose terribly that means you chewed something too big. That points to poor decision making. You should not enter into something that entails you losing badly. If Pakistan indeed got "whipped" it points to flawed policy decisions on part of our governments.

The appropriate response for that is too look where mistakes were made and than respond by adapting to your strengths and covering any weakness you might have. That is learn and move on. Not as Mr Akram does. Write articles that use cheap emotive language and play victim (when it was policy failure by people in government like himself) by using words like "whipping boy" to feed on the ignorance of the average Pakistani. The language used conveniently shifts the blame from those who failed (like this diplomat) to the bogeyman that is America and the victim that is Pakistan.

It turns a complex failure of foreign policy to simple narrative of "bad guy, good guy" and exorcises any failure on part of governments in Pakistan. Instead the focus is "bad guy" America. This suits the simple Pakistani mindset where everything is black and white. The sad part is the failure of diplomacy is never looked at thus ensuring more mistakes will be made in the future. Mr Akram should have used that piece as place for some introspection. Not a way to evade blame.

Good points, but please keep in mind that the audience of the article is not international. Such rubbish plays well to the domestic mindset in portraying America as the bad guy to justify victimhood, since that is the best way to cover up Pakistan's own chronic internal failures. The sad part is that such juvenile manipulation never fails to work internally while making Pakistan a laughingstock in the international community.

 

[LeGenD]

Good points, but please keep in mind that the audience of the article is not international. Such rubbish plays well to the domestic mindset in portraying America as the bad guy to justify victimhood, since that is the best way to cover up Pakistan's own chronic internal failures. The sad part is that such juvenile manipulation never fails to work internally while making Pakistan a laughingstock in the international community.

Is it really advisable to paint America as the bad guy in front of the Pakistani public? How about teaching the nation the importance of introspection and competent diplomacy?

Problem is that the future diplomats will emerge from the same public. And if much of the nation is brainwashed into thinking that America is the bad guy and enemy of Pakistan, then how will the future diplomats do their duty with levelheadedness?

 

[Indus Pakistan]

Is it really advisable to paint America as the bad guy in front of the Pakistani public? How about teaching the nation the importance of introspection and competent diplomacy?

Problem is that the future diplomats will emerge from the same public. And if much of the nation is brainwashed into thinking that America is the bad guy and enemy of Pakistan, then how will the future diplomats do their duty with levelheadedness?

My son was big fan of war films. Everytime he watched a movie he would ask "who are the bad guys". I would tell him there are no bad guys. Each side has soldiers who are fighting for their country. It's that simple. In the same way Pakistan public has to realize that in the diplomatic fora there are no bad guys. Just competing interests trying to carve the best deal and if you think you failed to extract the maximum you could have it does not help going around using language like "whipping boy".

Instead you sanction those who failed and learn from your mistakes. Then move on.

 

[VCheng]

Is it really advisable to paint America as the bad guy in front of the Pakistani public? How about teaching the nation the importance of introspection and competent diplomacy?

Problem is that the future diplomats will emerge from the same public. And if much of the nation is brainwashed into thinking that America is the bad guy and enemy of Pakistan, then how will the future diplomats do their duty with levelheadedness?

It is far easier to paint USA as the bad guy than it is to teach and implement effective diplomacy. It is not just future diplomats that fall prey to this easy way out, but most levels of civil society. Just take a fair look at senior levels of management and title holders right here on PDF, who have a similar outlook of Pakistani victimhood caused by the big bad USA, just the same as in the article, an one example. This particular mental disease is widespread in the Pakistani mind, and indeed encouraged, but to its own detriment.

 

[Arsalan]

I will explain why I called this article "rubbish". The use of "whipping boy" conveys victimhood. That is to say USA is whipping Pakistan. Such language carries the message that America is the thug and Pakistan is the innocent victim.

Such ridiculous language might carry traction with ignorants but does not sit easy with a senior diplomat like Mr Akram. Pakistan is not a victim. If Pakistan was indeed a victim than we need to "whip" those in charge of our diplomacy. After all they are paid to do a job - make sure Pakistan get's the best deal. If the deal is so bad that Pakistan is getting "whipped" then we need to hold people like Mr Akram to account and ask if they are doing their job. If Pakistan came out the loser those in charge (including Mr Akram) deserve public thrashing.

It is like sending out a cricket team. If they lose badly to the opposing team and get "whipped" then whose fault is it? The opposing team who "whipped" you or your team for failing? How would you feel if one of the senior players then wrote articles about being "whipped" by the opposing team and crying on about it. Would you not ask that player instead of crying why they failed on the field?

In international relations it's very simple. It's like playing Chess game. If you lose terribly that means you chewed something too big. That points to poor decision making. You should not enter into something that entails you losing badly. If Pakistan indeed got "whipped" it points to flawed policy decisions on part of our governments.

The appropriate response for that is too look where mistakes were made and than respond by adapting to your strengths and covering any weakness you might have. That is learn and move on. Not as Mr Akram does. Write articles that use cheap emotive language and play victim (when it was policy failure by people in government like himself) by using words like "whipping boy" to feed on the ignorance of the average Pakistani. The language used conveniently shifts the blame from those who failed (like this diplomat) to the bogeyman that is America and the victim that is Pakistan.

It turns a complex failure of foreign policy to simple narrative of "bad guy, good guy" and exorcises any failure on part of governments in Pakistan. Instead the focus is "bad guy" America. This suits the simple Pakistani mindset where everything is black and white. The sad part is the failure of diplomacy is never looked at thus ensuring more mistakes will be made in the future. Mr Akram should have used that piece as place for some introspection. Not a way to evade blame.

Most of us share the same views, we just never looked at it as the article being rubbish.
Perhaps it is because i see the article actually not claiming that WE ARE THE innocents but still rightly tells the story about how we are blamed for every US mess up.
I agree that the portraying our self as the victims and America as the bad guys here is a mistake. It may work for a short term with our public but at least on the administrative level we must realize that this is not the case. Both US and Pakistan are in this together. Blaming each out for there mistakes wont help anyone. The truth is that we are both in this together and are both to be blamed for any mess up.

Nicely put. I will summarize it all AGAIN as this;
We, both US and Pak have made mistakes but the problem with both of us is that rather then addressing our own short comings we love to blame each other. Our public will cry out about any thing that goes wrong "jo krwa raa ha amreka krwaa raha ha" attitude. They, with all there military might will blame us for there failures in Afghanistan. BOTH need each other in the long run and both will need to correct there actions, we because we have more to gain from all this and US because there blunders have been the bigger ones and they will have to live up to there reputation of Golbal super power. Specially in wake of the rapidly changing geo-political alliances.

There are no good guys or bad guys here, no innocents here. We, both Pak and US have gained a lot from this relation and have suffered as well. Both have made mistakes on there part and now we think we can get out of all this by blaming the other party. We talk as if we are the victims, we sacrificed this lot ONLY for the US and there was nothing in it for us. This is all rubbish. We have had our days, we ave gained a lot as well. Sacrifices we made, while not comparable to the what we have gained were still not ONLY for the US. There sure was our won interest somewhere in all this.

Same for US. If they think that we were with them only under some pressure and that we just stabbed them in the back, they are stupid to think so. Pakistan have been a keep ally to US in the region and this goes back even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Lot have changed since then but a lot remains the same as well. Playing into the hands of some foreign elements, making operation against TTP difficult but taking out forces from there key hideouts in Afghanistan just when that was required the most, public bashing of Pakistan. Portraying us in the bad light conveniently ignoring all we have contributed to achieving that COMMON goal is foolish on there part. If they think that the general perception of US will be positive after all then then it is there own mistake. It is attitude like this that have given birth to articles like this. The lack or trust that lead to extremist views toward US, have to a large part, this attitude of US to blame.

In short, we, both US and PAK share the burden of the common failure to bring stability in this region and to progress together. Unfortunately, we, both US and PAK are not doing anything to address that issue. Pak continues to be blamed for the US screw ups while we keep playing innocents and victims to gain some short term benefits from our own public. US keep blaming us for there failed policy and miss adventure into Afghanistan.

https://defence.pk/threads/america’s-whipping-boy.430828/page-3#post-8314766

 

[Indus Pakistan]

not claiming WE ARE THE innocents

Incorrect. It is shouting "innocent". The title of the piece is "America's whipping boy". The definition of whipping boy is

1. A scapegoat.
2. A boy formerly raised with a prince or other young nobleman and whipped for the latter's misdeeds.

Link > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whipping+boy

Therefore "whipping boy" is a synonym for "scapegoat" or the person who recieves punishment that somebody else deserved. That is (Pakistan) is the innocent victim. Thus the title reads "America's scapegoat" or "America's innocent victim".

The whole article is just a ruse to hang the failure of diplomacy on bad guy America and paint Pakistan as the innocent virgin.

 

[Arsalan]

Incorrect. It is shouting "innocent". The title of the piece is "America's whipping boy". The definition of whipping boy is

1. A scapegoat.
2. A boy formerly raised with a prince or other young nobleman and whipped for the latter's misdeeds.

Link > http://www.thefreedictionary.com/whipping+boy

Therefore "whipping boy" is a synonym for "scapegoat" or the person who recieves punishment that somebody else deserved. That is (Pakistan) is the innocent victim. Thus the title reads "America's scapegoat" or "America's innocent victim".

The whole article is just a ruse to hang the failure of diplomacy on bad guy America and paint Pakistan as the innocent virgin.

Well i wont pay too much attention to that and do feel that this can be looked on from different angles. Like "US who takes us as whipping boy", the reality then being discussed latter.

Don't bother about that sir, leave the title. The main point is that as discussed, almost everyone agreed that this is NOT the case and the punch line can very well be that "no one is innocent here" Both US and Pakistan are in it and we have to deal with it.

 

[Solomon2]

It is far easier to paint USA as the bad guy than it is to teach and implement effective diplomacy. It is not just future diplomats that fall prey to this easy way out, but most levels of civil society. Just take a fair look at senior levels of management and title holders right here on PDF, who have a similar outlook of Pakistani victimhood caused by the big bad USA, just the same as in the article, an one example. This particular mental disease is widespread in the Pakistani mind, and indeed encouraged, but to its own detriment.

I'm sure I'm biased because I grew up next to a family of them, but in the past the skills of Pakistani diplomats were the stuff of legend: billions in U.S. arms and economic aid with few strings, talking terrorists into surrender, finessing Pakistan's way through its nuclear weapons program, crafting economic development programs for third-world countries that became a model for states like South Korea and thus sucking the attraction out of Communist-based models.

So I have trouble believing Pakistani diplomats have grown stupider. Rather, these same diplomats always told me it wasn't their job to represent the reality of the world to the Pakistani people directly: that was the job of the politicians they reported to.

The late Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, who served as Pakistan's ambassador to the U.N., the U.S., and several other countries, noted that Pakistanis tended not to learn from their mistakes. I think Pakistanis look to numbers for validation of their opinions and thus exist in a continual state of Groupthink, with all its attendant dysfunctions, and amplified by those in power to cover their butts every time they make a mistake.

Humility seems to be in short supply in Pakistan. But its better to be humble and change one's mind than be humiliated and risk losing life, liberty, and property, isn't it?

 

[iPhone]

I will explain why I called this article "rubbish". The use of "whipping boy" conveys victimhood. That is to say USA is whipping Pakistan. Such language carries the message that America is the thug and Pakistan is the innocent victim.

Such ridiculous language might carry traction with ignorants but does not sit easy with a senior diplomat like Mr Akram. Pakistan is not a victim. If Pakistan was indeed a victim than we need to "whip" those in charge of our diplomacy. After all they are paid to do a job - make sure Pakistan get's the best deal. If the deal is so bad that Pakistan is getting "whipped" then we need to hold people like Mr Akram to account and ask if they are doing their job. If Pakistan came out the loser those in charge (including Mr Akram) deserve public thrashing.

It is like sending out a cricket team. If they lose badly to the opposing team and get "whipped" then whose fault is it? The opposing team who "whipped" you or your team for failing? How would you feel if one of the senior players then wrote articles about being "whipped" by the opposing team and crying on about it. Would you not ask that player instead of crying why they failed on the field?

In international relations it's very simple. It's like playing Chess game. If you lose terribly that means you chewed something too big. That points to poor decision making. You should not enter into something that entails you losing badly. If Pakistan indeed got "whipped" it points to flawed policy decisions on part of our governments.

The appropriate response for that is too look where mistakes were made and than respond by adapting to your strengths and covering any weakness you might have. That is learn and move on. Not as Mr Akram does. Write articles that use cheap emotive language and play victim (when it was policy failure by people in government like himself) by using words like "whipping boy" to feed on the ignorance of the average Pakistani. The language used conveniently shifts the blame from those who failed (like this diplomat) to the bogeyman that is America and the victim that is Pakistan.

It turns a complex failure of foreign policy to simple narrative of "bad guy, good guy" and exorcises any failure on part of governments in Pakistan. Instead the focus is "bad guy" America. This suits the simple Pakistani mindset where everything is black and white. The sad part is the failure of diplomacy is never looked at thus ensuring more mistakes will be made in the future. Mr Akram should have used that piece as place for some introspection. Not a way to evade blame.

excellent. there was a thread posted by a member on this very forum a day ago where he used cheap vulgar language to describe Pakistan's plight. talking about getting raped and what not. and other members egging him on by throwing in words like "auqat" etc.

I occasionally call members out on that that they must check their low self-esteem issue. I think mods and senior member should intervene also. Not in the sense that they issue bans or delete posts, but correct these young minds when they spread such cheap paranoia. Who knows maybe the PDF can bring about a positive in change in the Pakistani youth.

 

[VCheng]

I'm sure I'm biased because I grew up next to a family of them, but in the past the skills of Pakistani diplomats were the stuff of legend: billions in U.S. arms and economic aid with few strings, talking terrorists into surrender, finessing Pakistan's way through its nuclear weapons program, crafting economic development programs for third-world countries that became a model for states like South Korea and thus sucking the attraction out of Communist-based models.

So I have trouble believing Pakistani diplomats have grown stupider. Rather, these same diplomats always told me it wasn't their job to represent the reality of the world to the Pakistani people directly: that was the job of the politicians they reported to.

The late Sahabzada Yaqub Khan, who served as Pakistan's ambassador to the U.N., the U.S., and several other countries, noted that Pakistanis tended not to learn from their mistakes. I think Pakistanis look to numbers for validation of their opinions and thus exist in a continual state of Groupthink, with all its attendant dysfunctions, and amplified by those in power to cover their butts every time they make a mistake.

Humility seems to be in short supply in Pakistan. But its better to be humble and change one's mind than be humiliated and risk losing life, liberty, and property, isn't it?

This great article by Bennett-Jones describes it very correctly:

http://www.dawn.com/news/1262101/military-march