Hillary--Too Much Mouth?

Hillary said it out loud. What she said about Pakistan was absolutely true. They have backed off from taking strong action against the tribal and Taliban strongholds on the Afghanistan frontier. The only question is: when is it better not to tell the truth?
The Pakistani no doubt had good reasons. They are not a politically stable nation. Military coups and even assassinations play too big a part in their political life. No Pakistani government has felt strong enough to show the utter ruthlessness Abraham Lincoln showed to his political enemies (in the North) during our own Civil War.
Lincoln, as we recall, suspended Habeas Corpus (and as much of the rest of the Constitution as he felt the need to) and slapped anybody in prison who was even suspected of whispering, “Go Rebels.” Pakistan hasn’t had the nerve to treat its radical Muslim radicals the same way.
Since those same radicals are making a fetish out of killing American soldiers in Afghanistan and jumping back across the border to safety, understandably an American Secretary of State would feel the way Hillary spoke. Was she constructive?
Unstable itself, Pakistan may well have had at least four good reasons not to mix it up too fiercely in the past. 1) Better the radicals fight and get shot by Americans than by Pakistani troops—after all these are people who can drag out a blood feud for generations.
2) The mountains around there—as Americans who fight in similar terrain across the border can tell you-- are just about impassable. The inhabitants of those hills have given bloody and good account of themselves against everybody from Alexander to Genghis Khan to the British Empire and the Soviets. It’s not a fight you willingly pick.
3) These guys may well be more dangerous fighters than the troops in Pakistan’s army. In other words, take them on and run the real risk of losing. Lose and then how long does your government last? Had I been a Pakistani leader recently, I might not have taken the risk either.
4) These Muslim radicals are handy proxy forces to turn loose on India over Kashmir every so often. Then the Pakistani government can honestly say, “Who, us?” and watch India get shaken up as bombs blow up in the streets and all that sort of fun.
But, recently, (perhaps for internal reasons we know little about) the Pakistani army HAS taken on some of these radicals—with decent success for the moment. We still depend on them as a supply line into land-locked Afghanistan. And every militant shooting at a Pakistani soldier isn’t shooting at us. That’s a nice relief, if only for the moment.
So why did Hillary pick this time, right now when Pakistan is actually shooting, to remind them—quite insultingly—of their shortcomings? What she said, a lot of American officials have wanted to say for the better part of a decade, no doubt. But, why NOW, when they’re actually doing at least a bit of what we’ve always hoped they would do?
I’ve thought about this for a week or so, and I’ve finally come to a possible conclusion. For all of her smarts (and she has them in spades AND no trump), Hillary may be a bit of a loose cannon. Useful at times as a cabinet officer, but no one you’d want in full charge.
I’ve had that sense for years. Look at the baggage she brought in to the White House back in 1993—the investments she had made, a mysterious suicide, some of her contacts and allies. There is always a hint of bad judgment to her.
I’m not an O’bama fan, but we may be a lot better off having him hold the actual reins of power than having his rival, Hillary, in the Oval Office. He at least, perhaps to a fault, tends to reflect before he speaks. (One way to look statesmanlike is to pick subordinates to have the loose lips.)
Again, just a thought.