The train wreck in Pakistan; Update: Rumors of Musharraf under house arrest denied; Update: Bush to speak around 1:15pm Eastern; Update: Elections to proceed; Update: Bush’s advice
Update 5:00pm 11/5 Eastern. Vid from BP and an observation:
When a US ally declares a state of emergency at least in part to deal with a real existential threat (and a judicial threat to his own power, to be sure), we all go ballistic and the Democrats seem to be out in front and the State Department gears up to bring a hammer down on him. But when a US enemy like Hugo Chavez who has allied himself with other US enemies like Iran gets his rubber-stamp legislature to grant him dictatorial powers, and he has been ramping up the anti-US rhetoric for years, just about the only place you’ll find much discussion of that is on the right. We may be sending the dangerous message that we’re tougher on our allies than on our enemies. That strikes me as unwise.
Update 3:15pm 11/5 Eastern. President Bush speaks…
President Bush on Monday exhorted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to hold elections and relinquish his army post “as soon as possible.” He said he instructed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to deliver that message in a telephone call with Musharraf.
Bush made his comments in the Oval Office of the White House after a meeting with Turkey’s visiting Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. It was Bush’s first public comment on the political crisis in Pakistan since Musharraf imposed a state of emergency over the weekend.
Bush would not discuss what action he might take—for example, how much U.S. aid to Pakistan would be cut—if Musharraf ignores his request.
“It’s a hypothetical,” he said. “I certainly hope he does take my advice.”
Update 11/5 3:00pm Eastern. Pakistan’s PM says elections will proceed:
Pakistan’s prime minister says national elections will be held as scheduled, despite President Pervez Musharraf’s declaration of emergency rule.
Elections are due by mid-January, but there were fears they might be abandoned because of the crisis.
Update 11/5 12:40pm Eastern. PJM correspondent Ghaila Aymen reports from inside Pakistan.
Update 11/5 11:15am Eastern. President Bush will address the Pakistan situation at around 1:15pm Eastern today at a press conference after meeting with Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
The White House comments…
President Bush’s top national security aides say U.S. financial backing for Pakistan’s counterterrorism efforts likely will go uninterrupted despite the administration’s unhappiness with President Pervev Musharraf’s declaration of a state of emergency. The White House said Bush would comment Monday on the crisis. “The best option is for Pakistan to get back on its path to democracy,” press secretary Dana Perino told reporters, echoing statements that administration officials had made throughout the weekend.
Update 11/5 8:40apm Eastern. Pakistan denies rumours Musharraf under house arrest.
Update 11/5 8:20am Eastern. Over 1,500 held.
***
It’s deja vu all over again (via Dawn):
Here’s the latest on the declaration of emergency in Pakistan. (The text of the declaration is here.) Dozens of leading activists and lawyers against military rule have now been detained:
Across Pakistan, police arrested political activists and lawyers at the forefront of a campaign against military rule.
Among those detained were Javed Hashmi, the acting president of the party of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif; Asma Jehangir, chairman of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan; and Hamid Gul, former chief of the country’s main intelligence agency and a staunch critic of Musharraf’s support of the U.S.-led war on terror.
“It’s a big blow to the country,” said Gul, as a dozen officers took him away in a police van near the parliament in the capital, Islamabad. Hashmi said the army general would not “not survive the people’s outrage.”
Up to 40 activists were hauled in when police raided the office of the Human Right Commission of Pakistan, including its director, I.A. Rahman, a harsh Musharraf critic, said Mohammed Yousaf, a guard at the office in the eastern city of Lahore.
The White House response:
The White House called emergency rule “very disappointing.”
“President Musharraf needs to stand by his pledges to have free and fair elections in January and step down as chief of army staff before retaking the presidential oath of office,” spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.
The United States however said there was no plan to suspend military aid to Pakistan.
China, one of Pakistan’s closest allies, expressed concern and said it hoped stability could be maintained. Pakistan’s neighbour and nuclear rival India expressed “regrets”.
More than $10 billion in US aid, mostly to Pakistan’s military, since 2001.
In a televised speech last night, Musharraf tried to liken himself to Abe Lincoln during the Civil War. Benazir Bhutto wasn’t having it:
“I request you all to bear with us,” he said. “Please don’t demand and expect your level of human rights and democracy you learnt over the centuries. Please give us time.”
In a reference which will anger his American allies, he compared himself to Abraham Lincoln, citing the latter’s suspension of habeas corpus and other fundamental rights during the American civil war to save his nation.
“Abraham Lincoln usurped rights to preserve the union, and Pakistan comes first. Whatever I do is for Pakistan, and whatever anyone else thinks is secondary,” he warned.
However, Bhutto insisted: “He says that he is acting for the good of Pakistan but he is acting for the good of General Musharraf.”
Jeffrey Imm at the Counterterrorism Blog has the best, link-filled rundown and analysis of the situation. I’ll leave you with his conclusion:
While the US State Department and US military have objected to Musharraf’s emergency declaration, the Taliban continue their efforts of enforcing Islamism throughout Pakistan unchecked. On Friday, a bomb blast destroyed 14 shops in Peshawar market selling selling CDs, TV sets and music albums. Bombing of non-Islamist businesses and threatening the lives of non-Muslims if they do not cover to Islam is becoming a relatively routine occurrence in Swat and other parts of the NWFP in Pakistan.
The failure of American leadership to have a policy on Islamism has prevented the ability to provide a pro-active coherent policy in Pakistan that addresses both the strategic issues of pro-Islamist Pakistani public sentiment along with support in areas of the government and public for the Taliban, as well as the tactical issues of fighting “extremists” in Afghanistan who have found safe haven in NWFP in Pakistan.
While U.S. Admiral William J. Fallon has told Pakistan President Musharraf that an emergency rule order would risk U.S. support to his military, the U.S. military support to Pakistan has limited long-term impact without addressing the Islamist public opinion and support in Pakistan for the Taliban and other Islamist organizations. The current situation in Pakistan illustrates the train wreck of pursuing tactical operations in fighting “extremists” without a strategy to clearly define the enemy and to define a U.S. policy on Jihad and Islamism.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Out of control
- Rhymes With Right
- Flopping Aces
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » UPDATED: The train wreck in Pakistan…..Musharraf declares emergency rule in Pakistan
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » UPDATED: The train wreck in Pakistan…..Musharraf declares emergency rule in Pakistan
- Pakistan’s emergency | BitsBlog
- Blue Star Chronicles
- PAXALLES
- Publius Pundit
- Webloggin - Blog Archive » The Problem With Pakistan
- Musharraf on Borrowed Time « Foehammer’s Anvil
- The Jawa Report
I personally can not get up in arms over this move….Musharaff is no Islamist and he is fighting the worst of the worst over there while sitting on nukes………so he can take over the entire country kill all the Taliban and AQ and we should support that move as a country.
Not everyone in the world is going to have democracy as we have it here and any expectation that it will be that way is naive.
I have a lot of sympathy for Musharraf. He has tried to help us out and we haven’t done much of anything, as far as we know, to help him stay alive.
To arrest the head if Intelligence, which most people believe is in bed with the Taliban, and the head of the “Human Rights” commission probably means that they were about to launch a coup.
It’s easy for us to say that Musharraf shouldn’t do this, smug in the knowledge that our country wouldn’t but be honest, wouldn’t we like to see someone at Code Pink or other radical organization arrested every now and then just to teach them a lesson?
Gee, I wonder why we have no set definition of Jihadists and islamism. Could it be because we have such a large population of people who refuse to believe or acknowledge that we even HAVE a problem with Islamists or Jihadists, and only feel that the real issue is Bush? After all, it is Bush who has angered them, Bush who gives them recruitment, Bush who has destabilised the region, so how in the world can this country come up with a policy that deals with the Jihadi lifestyle and mindset that has been boiling and popping up since the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood?
This poor guy has had to be on the frontlines of fighting the same people we are, only he is doing so in the very heart of it. He is surrounded by a population of people that actually supports and encourages these backwatds 14th Century thinking murderers and thugs. They believe in Shari’ah law and believe that the totalitarian and violent world of the Taliban is actually a good thing, and support the annihilation of any non-believers. He is trying to stop this while maintaining a relationship with our country, in direct opposition of every other Muslim country in the world and paying a heavy price for it.
The people he is locking up are not your average everyday 9-5ers. These are the people who would throw him out into the public square, cut off his head and instill a theocracy lead by the mullahs and ayatollahs. The Taliban would rule there in a way that would make Afghanistan of Sept. 10 appear to be Disneyland, shutting off any and all aid in fighting AQ and the taliban that we have.
Let him fix his troubles. In the end, it really can only benefit us alot more than if he doesn’t do anything.
The islamofacists are trying to kill this guy every day and take over a country that has nukes. Whether this is a personal power move or an attempt to keep his country from falling into the abyss, I really don’t care. I just want someone in charge who will crush the islamofacists. Musharraf said to do nothing at this time amounts to suicide and I think he’s right (although I do think that his self-comparison to Lincoln is over the top). Without survival of the state, there won’t be any need to discuss the niceties of “democracy.” While Bhutto may be the west’s darling of the moment (guess they have a short memory of the corruption that was endemic in his first attempt to lead that country), the islamofacits tried to kill her on day one (and came pretty darn close). When (and hopefully if) he wins the war for survival of the state against those who will kill us, we can talk about how nice democracy is.
With Taliban militants taking over police stations, disarming para-military troops and police officers and making them promise not to fight and return to their villages in the SWAT valley, all I can say is that it is such a good thing that these Islamofascists, Jihadists and others “extremists” are such a “small minority” of the religion.
Then again, the Nazi Party was and actually remained a “small minority” in Germany and look what they did. Hell, look what the minority of Democrats in Congress did for 12 years.
I see a parallel between these events and what happened during 1979 in Iran. The Islamos moved to overthrow the Shah, who was also an American ally, and institute a Sharia state. The American President Jimmy Carter sided with the Islamos and pulled the rug from under the the Shah, thereby assisting in the Islamo revolution and giving us present-day Iran.
Now Musharraf is under seige by the neo-Taliban, which seeks to install Shari’a. He makes a last stand to avert the Islamo revoution and chaos-soon-to-follow by declaring martial law. The United States Department of State and the White House criticize his forceful move and urge him to return to “democracy.” Well, do we not know where “democracy” leads Muslims - directly to Shari’a - at least it did in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
So, why is our gov playing right into a repeat of history?
We need to pray for this man. He is up to his ears in alligators. For that fact so are we, but most of us don’t see them stirring in the swamp we created in our own back yard.
I lived in Colombia for 20 years and saw what the US State Dept did to that fledgling democracy. They had and still do, the FARC/narco guerrilla problem. As soon as they take a heavy hand and start to turn the situation around (for the sake of the majority to live in peace & prosperity) people like Albright, Pelosi, etc. lower the boom and threaten or impose sanctions. Of course most American’s didn’t know or don’t want to know, that the so called human rights people working for the FARC or similar ilk are in our legislative halls in Washington lobbying the leftwing or other sympathizers to impose sanctions. I’ll never forgive or forget what Chris Dodd and his crew did to the people of Nicaragua by touting the Sandinistas so called “revolution.” Many Miskito Indians died or were tortured thanks to Dodd, and yes NPR’s own Mora Laisson(sp?) who was touting the Sandanistas. When I see Mora on Fox news that’s all I can think of is her NPR discourses on the glories of the Sandinistas. NPR is as bad a CAIR as far as I”m concerned.
So back to Pakistan. We are in trouble if the Taliban gets the nukes so squash them. Make them look like the stuff coming out of the pumpkin’s mouth that Michelle displayed over the taxing of pumpkins!
I’m guessing you won’t find a whole lot of comdemnation of Perez M, Michelle. He’s got a full plate.
In line with Work 949’s thoughts above, I would also cast this in light of Iran of 1979.
But to paraphrase the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen, Musharraf is no Lincoln.
BTW, the story photo you screencapped at the top names him as “Pervez”.
Note: “Pervez” is an alternate spelling. It just provides a smile in what seems to be an otherwise gloomy outlook.
Don’t take much to amuse me, nope.
Al Quedas Last Stand
Musharaff LEADS the War on Terror against the Al Queda funded Pakistani Taliban
This judicial intervention started in November 2006 gave this region of Pakistan local warlord autonomy. It was a bad idea then and the result of that is coming to fruition now.
Musharaffs recent military actions against Al Queda strongholds have caused these current reactions.
Although suspending the Pakistani government appears undemocratic Musharraf clearly has taken the LEAD in the War on Terror.
Al Queda is Defeated in Irag The US Miltiary surge success combined with Sunni repulsion of Al Queda fanaticism tactics on Iraqi citizens taking firm hold evidenced by much lower terrorist and insurgent attacks.
The USA needs to drop 20,000 Marines into Islamabad as soon as possible.
Shades of Saddam Hussein? Could be, but this time with a nuclear twist.
On a lighter note[?], perhaps this would be a good time to finally knock off Osama?
Musharraf makes more sense than liberals here do. He said he couldn’t let his country commit suicide. We have liberals in congress that think the Constitution is a suicide note and everyone in the world that hates us should have rights guaranteed to Americans. Islamo-fascists consider Pakistan’s nukes Islamo-nukes and are waiting for the removal of Musharraf to get their hands on them. This would put India in a very serious position and they also have nuclear weapons. I am all for free elections in Pakistan if that can be guaranteed. The last thing the region needs is a few mullahs running the country like in Iran.
The key here for Mushy is a confluence of events… which left Pakistan in an unstable position.
The Islamists are on the rise in parts of his country, while the “human rights” and Democracy proponents are so against HIM personaly, that they would tear down the government at a really bad time…
It would be like the people here with BDS impeaching him during a time of war!!!… oh… wait… they are trying…
Yeah, but than again, who doesn’t?
Actually in looking at the quote from the Counterterrorism Blog, it sounds like a snippet from a Dem presidential candidate’s stump speech:
“The current situation in Pakistan illustrates the train wreck of pursuing tactical operations in fighting “extremists” without a strategy to clearly define the enemy and to define a U.S. policy on Jihad and Islamism.”
Except the Dems would stop before the mention of Jihad and Islamism, of course. They’d use those mock quotes around “extremists”, though.
Okay, declaring an emergency and arresting some opposition leaders is a bad thing, but doing nothing and getting overthrown by the pro-Taliban Islamacists is a really, really bad thing. Does anybody really think that the latter would lead to any sort of democratic process, ever? That it would lead to peace and prosperity in the region, ever? Does anybody remember Iran?
Give the man a break.
We have to be realistic here. There aren’t a lot of options in this part of the world, two actually, and for now a military dictatorship under Musharrah is the best choice. Can it hold? Not against the dynamics of Muslim demographics (which is why Turkey will be gone in a generation at most).
Unlike the supporters of democracy (whatever the word means anymore), the Islamites are 24/7. They smell blood and victory, and they aren’t about to stop now. Besides, it’s rather difficult to absorb the principles of Jeffersonian democracy when your jumping up and down in your nightgown, screaming for the death of anyone who disagrees with you in the slightest.
Everyone, left or right, knows that if we withdrew from Iraq, even after military victory, however defined, in a few years it would be under the religion of submission.
This fact is depressing in itself, but what makes it even more so is that it applies to this country as well. Recall Thomas Sowell’s comment, in one of his Random Thoughts columns a while back, that he finds himself thinking on occasion the only hope for this country is a military dictatorship. I am certain he said that in a moment of despair, but I am also certain that almost everyone who is concerned about the future of America has thought the same.
Two choices:
1) Do we want a pro-American dictatorship that upholds the rights of religion (i.e. for Christians)and other basic rights–while curtailing the “rights” of Islamofascists/Leftists and their sympathizers to overthrow ALL freedoms?
2) Or do we want an anti-American fascist/Leftist Taliban regime in Pakistan that will cause all sorts of problems down the line?
We should be giving Musharaff our full support.
And the White House calls emergency rule “very disappointing.” Hello?
I guess Bush and Rice have learned nothing from Venezuela or Palestine–that mob “democracy” that puts into power anti-American fascists and communists is not a good thing and should not be encouraged.
The Administration, while saying one thing publicly, is saying something else through the back channels. This is common in the diplomacy of the region. We cannot allow the hard work and effort in Afghanistan and Iraq to come to naught.
The counterterrorism blog is correct. For years, Bush has tapdanced around defining the enemy we face lest he anger his family’s business partners, the Saudis, who push a notably noxious brand of Islam. Throughout his tenure, Bush has embraced Calvin Coolidge’s credo that the business of America is business. Does anyone think we will ever get a president who upholds the national interest over the interests of his financiers?
I agree with just about everyone else on this issue. There is absolutely nothing scarier than an Islamist state with nuclear weapons. The one good thing about the Military in Pakistan is there are secularist just like the Military in Turkey. It would really be nice if he would allow us to start operating in the tribal areas as a joint operation. I have a really good feeling he was tipped off that the Judicial Branch of his Government was about to void the results of his re-election by the Legislative Branch. When you are up to your rump in gators it really is time to drain the swamp. Like Marshall Davout once stated, “when making an omlette sometimes you have to break some eggs.”
I hope the liberals are paying attention to this very closely. They have been whining for the last couple of years about the Constitution being usurped on a daily basis as part of their BDS issues. This should be a good example of what it really looks like to live in a police state.
There better be a whole lot of people supporting Musharraf. I’m not just talking about the Bush administration. If Pakistan is taken over by the terrorists, they will nuke India immediately. Unless, India, gets them first. China, S.E. Asia, and Japan, will get the worst of the fallout from that. Not to mention what it would do to the world economy.
You think Iran wants nukes to go after the U.S. and Israel? Sure they do. However, they are also looking to offset the Sunni, non-Persian, Arab Taliban, and Aryan Pakistanis.
No matter what your religion, you better be praying to your God of choice that Musharraf stays in power by any means possible!
Regrettably We”ve Small Choices
We have to be grimly pragmatic over philosophical idealistic here. To turn our back on Musharraf, who is trying to cork a powder keg of every stripe, is to invite a civil coup that will shortly see the farming out of nuclear warheads to the very worst of parties (and truly justify India or China invading them) — a true nightmare scenario. This isn’t a Red or Blue issue here. His survival determines extremely grave direct consequences for us cozy here in the U.S. I only hope Bhutto can be phased in soon enough to assauge some wide gov’t and military support.
James Greenidge
Queens New York
Heres some history on Pakistan Nukes.
pak nukes
If Hill/Bill is elected we will have socialism which will kill business. G. Soros’ interest are not in the national interest. The freer the markets and exchange of ideas the freer the people. The problem with the Saudis goes back much farther than Bush.
I believe that democracy in Islamic territory equals Islamic rule. The Taliban and Al Qaeda need to be squashed and the best way to do that is to let Musharraf have all the time he needs to accomplish that.
I just saw some goofball ex CIA clown on FOX claiming that the US needs to put pressure on General M. to return to deomocracy. Looney Tunes. That will do nothing but ensure that the AQ gets the nuclear bombs they have always sought and it will pretty much guarantee our demise.
This could be just the opportunity we need to defeat the terrorists right where they live. Don’t blow it Mr. President.
Well….
#1 Jaded:
“…Musharaff…can take over the entire country kill all the Taliban and AQ and we should support that move as a country.”
Correct.
#7 almeehan:
“We need to pray for this man. He is up to his ears in alligators. For that fact so are we, but most of us don’t see them stirring in the swamp we created in our own back yard.”
Agreed.
Glad to see someone else use the “…up to your *$$ in alligators… to drain the swamp.” metaphor!
#20 Boomer:
“I agree with just about everyone else on this issue.”
Ditto.
#6 WORK49:
“I see a parallel between these events and what happened during 1979 in Iran.”
Yep.
Thank God Jimmy Carter is not president.
George Bush better get this one right.
I am so glad to hear that almot all people posting comments on this story are rational, lucid and logical. Gives me hope fr our country. I support Pervez completely in this move. I just hope he does not succumb to pressure from the PC white house and instead kick some you know what. This is the perfect pportunity to take control of Pakistan and clean out the terrorists. Some people cannot handle democracy, especially whne their religion at its core is opposed to democracy. Democracy IS NOT just elections. Democracy is giving rights, equal to islamists, to other religions, races, people, etc. Democracy is incompatible with islam. I wish more people had the guts to say that, especially more people in government. I believe most Americans understand that the “religion of peace” is infact the complete opposite, and I am not talking about the so called extremists. I just wish the politicians start waking up and calling this political system, disguised as a religion, what it is, and stop risking our lives at the alter of political correctness. I wish more people knew history and what the “religion of peace” has done to the world ever since it was made up by the oportunist and child molestor (Aisha was only 6 when he married her and 9 when he “consumated” the marriage, while he was in his 60s), what is his name, oh yeah, mohammed. My country was under the religion of peace for 500 years and I will fight to the death to never see them in power here, ever. Go Pervez, go!!!!! I just hope that the PC desease has not infected him in any way.
#27 RealImmigrantChick:
Agreed.
My grandparents came from a country, various parts of which had been under the “‘Religion’” of ‘Peace’” for 370-450 years.
RealImmigrantChick, you’re dead-on correct.
Gee, maybe he should do what Clinton and the Dems did and want to do. Maybe he should just treat the Taliban and AQ and the other Terror-Nazi groups there like criminals and let the cops handle the problem. That seems to work so much better than just eradicating the problem. Probably make the Left much happier, even as they are chopping off Musharraff’s head with a dull knife.
I am wondering if we should send comments to the white house encouraging them not to act like jimmy carter? I do hope that behind the scenes they really are just giving a wink to Musharraff. I voted for Pres Bush but he can be so wrong sometimes, like on immigration, his thinking that all people want democracy, getting rid of dictators who actually give more rights to Christians and other religions than the freely elected islamists. As a Christian, you would think that he would know that people are naturally bad and fallen, not good and freedom loving, and that is why we need our Savior. This belief in the natural goodness of people is such a lib idea, and sometimes Pres. Bush strikes me as a bit of a lib.
Democracy led to the election of Hamas.
I think I understand why Musharraf is doing this.. there is too much of an al’queda and Taliban presence in the country. The fundamentalists hold alot of power with the common man.
Musharraf wants a secular government. There is a growing movement for a return to Shia Law.
While I don’t necessarily agree with his tactics I certainly can’t disagree with his wish to keep the terrorists out of power politically.
Imm came close when he said:
Musharaf’s problem is more closely Islamic Jihad and the Taliban Sharia rule over democracy. He also has to contest the actions of the Bush/Condo train wreck. To Bush, a war on terrorism is allow, terrorism is the action of terrorist and this is politically correct. But to identify who are the terrorist, the Islamic Jihad, is not allowed is not politically correct. Musharaf has identified the enemy, the Islamic Jihad, and that is his political correctness. Bush had better put a short leash on his Bunny Rabbit of State.
Did Nancy Polosi write this line: “He says that he is acting for the good of Pakistan but he is acting for the good of General Musharraf”.
RealImmigrantChick:
I hear your passion but, I want to make a small correction if I may. Our democracy doesn’t give rights such as by fiat or fatwah but, in our Constitution our founding fathers recognized these came from God and in our democracy our Constitution guarantees them. I totally agree with you on everything else.
Yes, RealimmigrantChick!
You are right on target!
I lived in the middle east (Saudi Arabia) for several years. I saw this coming years ago, and watched as the consequences of every single, bungling action, and inaction of the U.S., and the rest of the world, encouraged islamic terrorism.
All of this is due to the general lack of understanding of islam , compounded by deliberate white washing, and misinformation put out by the islamic propaganda machine, which includes the State Dept., the liberal media (foreign and domestic), and leftwing universities.
We have to support the annihilation of islamic terror. By any means!!
Sanddog,
If you were educated in the writings of the Founding Fathers, you would know they would be in complete agreement with RealImmigrantChick’s views on mob democracy and man’s fallen nature. Ever heard of “checks and balances” and the electoral college?
So many Americans don’t understand that “multiculturalism” and “dissent” did not make us a great nation; Western Christian values, including capitalism, did. Can you imagine some Muslim country out of the blue becoming an enlightened democracy?
Given the choice of Mushy or the Taliban, I think we’ll side with Mushy.
Has that flaming idiot Joe Biden or the featherweight Obama or any of the others leftist commented yet? I shutter to think what BS they will be flinging around today on this topic…
Don’t know why my reply has just appeared above Sanddog’s, but see above.
RIC, that is true. We have become so politically correct we can’t admit that ISLAM is the problem–not lack of democracy or colonialism or anything else. Until we can admit this–and President Bush’s administration won’t–we will continue to lose OUR freedoms.
#30: no disagreement at all; our Constituion was created by brilliant men, most of which were Christian. That is why I think it will be almost imposible for true islamic nations to be democracies, unless they “reinterpret” their koran the way liberal supreme court justices have reinterpreted our Constitution. Completely re-write it. The koran is one book where I am not a strict constructionist. Again, to me, the koran and islam, are political entities, disguised as religion. I wish more people in government will stand up to CAIR and other brain washing, white washing groups like that. Then just watch most Americans cheer.
As a Christian, you would think that he would know that people are naturally bad and fallen, not good and freedom loving
Speak for yourself, chick.
I read this thread but don’t really believe the comments on them. How Musharraf has dealt with the Taliban and AQ is equivalent to how our government has dealt with illegal aliens. Musharraf is only out for Musharraf. He isn’t ‘fighting terrorists’ for us.
He gave the terrorists the NW province and they have support throughout the country. The only reason he shows the appearance of ‘fighting terrorists’ is so that he can get 10 BILLION dollars and F-16’s from the United States.
If we cut off the money, you would see where he really stands with regard to the Taliban and AQ. Pakistan is not now, nor have they ever been our friend. They (Musharraf) want our money and our military hardware. . . so they’ll (Musharraf) say whatever they need to to get that. I guess you people actually believe his rhetoric.
Just because he is ‘famous’ and you ‘know his name’ does not mean he is a friend to us.
The US should have attacked the Taliban and AQ through an alliance with INDIA. We should never have considered Pakistan a friend. We need to restructure or alliances in the region to land staunchly behind India and share our anti-ballistic missile technology with India.
India should be a bigger ally to us than Great Britain.
The supreme court ruled against Musharraf and he arrested them and put people on the SC who would agree with him. . . AND YOU PEOPLE THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING?!
Musharraf and Pakistan were the ONLY country in the world who recognized the Taliban in Afghanistan. The ONLY reason he changed his mind is because of Bush’s ‘for us or against us’ speech and the 10 BILLION dollars that we gave them.
Just because he changed what he said about the Taliban and AQ does not mean he changed his mind about them.
Musharraf has done NOTHING good for the USA. He pardoned AQ Khan and hailed him as a hero.
We need to cut off aid now. We need to get very close to India and give them the ABM technology they need to defend themselves against an aggressive Pakistan. If it is MARSHALL LAW, that means there is no law but that of the military. Our military should take this as a green light to cross into the NW territories and CLEAN HOUSE! Marshall Law means NO LAW - so lets GET THEM NOW!
Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, suspended eight months ago by Musharraf and reinstated in July, was fired after refusing to take a fresh oath following the suspension of the constitution.
It seems to me Iftikhar Chaudhry would fit fine in the Ninth District Social Engineering Court. How the ACLU and the Politically Correct Architecture would love some Sharia flavoring.
ThackerAgency what do you mean YOU PEOPLE?
You have some valid points but, not the only points. There is some good discussion going on here. It is a complicated issue complicated by nuclear weapons, terrorism and relations with many of the countries in the area such as China and Russia. When you say YOU PEOPLE you sound like the liberals that try to stifle free speech.
#40 ThackerAgency:
It would be foolish to undermine Musharraf as long as Pakistani forces are hunting down and killing our enemies.
That we should be close allies with India should be accepted as a given.
If there was ever a situation that called for a cold, deliberate, careful assessment of what would be in America’s survival ineterests, this development in Pakistan might be it.
We are in an existential struggle with these radical Muslims, and we’d be stupid and foolish to weaken Musharraf right now - if, as I said, he is now hunting down and killing our enemies.
It is good to see that most people here are on the same page.
Musharraf may not be our best ally, but he has aided us in this war despite the problems it has cost him and his country. I would HATE to see a terrorist organization take over Pakistan. Pakistan being ruled by terrorists could too easily lead to WWIII (if it isn’t already). WWIII must be avoided at all costs. I, like most of you, support Musharraf.
Yup, sometimes you use even the bad guys to help take down an equally bad or even worse bad guy e.g. Stalin/Hitler.
Rummy probably wasn’t the greatest Sec Of Def but the truth in his observation “you go to war with the army you have—not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time.”, can be applied here in a way.
It’s not like Pakistan is/was an Idillyc Garden Of Eden Democracy where anyone could really be “shocked, shocked” over it’s constitutional issues. Musharraff knows his people and has done this before to achieve stability. All “democracies”, especially in that part of the world, are not equal.
Pakistan denied access to the international smuggler Khan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan , even today, while taking billions of US Tax-payers dollars, Pakistan neither hands over known international terrorists nor does it allow USA to apprehend international terrorists in it’s borders.
.. ironically, by defending Saudi Arabia, Bush himself denies a problem with ISlamists and Jihadists, if you see the relation.
Pakistan has been the home of International Terror, since 1995. While Bush bends over backwards for his friends “Pakistan and Saudi Arabia”, ironically. there two countries, along with UAE, recognized the Taleban barbaians. Thanks to this recognition, Taleban went on to shelter Bin Laden and set-up terror camps to spread internationl Jihad. For those who don’t know, Taleban helped Pakistani terrorists in the IC 814 hijacking: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Airlines_Flight_814 which led to the release of Omar Sheikh, who first financed 9/11 terrorists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh and later kidnapped Daniel Pearl http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Pearl
Finally, well known international terrorists come from Pakistan:
Khalid Shiekh Mohammed
Ramzi Yousuf
Mir Kanzi
.. to name a few.
Quite a resume of USA’s ally against terror. Isn’t it?
Wrong! For the Jazia and arms, USA should be demanding Pakistan’s full support.
There is no doubt that Pakistan could do more. So could Egypt, Afghanistan, Jordan, and many other countries that receive aid from us. Is there any doubt that if our Navy wasn’t in the Gulf that the flow of oil would be in jeopardy of constant attack? We have come late to the war on terror world wide. Before 9/11, we looked at it as law enforcement issue. We were awakened. Terrorists cannot be allowed to control governments and freely train and have bases from which to operate. We have a long way to go but, we have come a long way.
”police arrested political activists and lawyers”-maybe Bush should follow Musharraf’s lead.
Seriously,our politicians really should take a close look at what Musharraf is doing and give him all the support they can,as stated before ,he knows the enemy that our leaders refuse to recognise.
This discussion is indeed very interesting. For me it boils down to one thing. Who will best serve to purge the AQ and Taliban terrorists from the face of the earth.
I think the answer to that is Musharraf. Sure he’s fighting for his life and no he probably doesn’t care aboout us but the fact is he is the only person who can kill the bad guys.
I say let him do just that and let us keep a close eye on him. We should also prepare for the worst and make sure that our ally India, is ready for a pre-emptive strike if need be. Us too for that matter.
The last thing we need in Pakistan is a democracy because that won’t work. A friendly, controllable dictator is the best alternative.
Islam is the problem, not the solution.
If Musharaff steps out and the Taliban take hold, (due to fair democratic elections of course), it would be similar to what happened in Palestine; when their “democratic” elections voted for Hamas. The difference being the “Taliban clan” won’t have to wait to get their own “nukes”. Bhutto sounds a little naive. After-all, since she came back to an “explosive return”, and immediately took-off again to Dubai to visit family; one could get the impression she is very much an “idealist”, and no where seated in reality.
Jonathan, it is not just Bhutto who is an “idealist” out of touch with reality; our own Condoleezza Rice–one of the worst Secretary of States ever–still thinks Pakistan should have elections to put into power a Taliban style regime with nuclear weapons. She is about as clueless as Jimmy Carter. How many countries during his presidency became communist or anti-American? How about during Condoleezza’s tenure as National Security Adviser and Secretary of State: Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador, Palestine, Pakistan when it hold elections, etc.
From a Guardian article:
I was hoping that the State Department was saying one thing publicly while another privately, but it doesn’t seem to be the case. They seem intent in having a fundamentalist Islamic Iran style regime come to power in Pakistan by madrassah style “democracy.”
I don’t think the Pakistan military is going to allow mullahs in turbans and robes to to take over control like in Iran. If not Musharaff it would most likely be another general.
Good points by Imm at the end there. Our government might want to consider trading in the Armstrong and Esposito for some books containing useful information and less untruthiness.
Glad someone is paying attention to Pakistan, home of the “Islamic Bomb.”
I hope this turns out okay. I just don’t trust Musharaff at this point. And if he looses control of the military, God only knows what will happen.
This could be a very good thing or a very, very bad thing.
The U.S. State Department just doesn’t get the fact Radical Islam is not going to talk nice.
If Musharaff is deposed the radicals WILL HAVE their cherished nuclear weapons.
The State Department seems to work for the U.N. or some other extra-terrestrial body, rather than the United States.
I wonder if the Bush war has more than a little to do with the increasing support for Islamic fundamentalism in Pakistan?
Alphonse, Your post blatantly illustrates the ignorance of so many who have never been there!!
Did the so-called “Bush war” have anything to do with Iranian fundamentalism, Saudi fundamentalism, or any of the acts of violent terror that have occurred over the past 40 years…. starting with the assassination of Bobby Kennedy?!?
If so, well then maybe the “Clinton war” (remember that one.? Where we bombed the crap out of Christians, to aid muslims?) is responsible for the rise of Christian fundamentalism.
Oh wait… Christian fundamentalism only threatens weak minded liberals…. NOT the entire planet!!
Long time listern, first time caller.
The way we handle this sitution will effect the way the world views us greatly, which is particularly important in our global endeavours. We CANNOT support a dictator. Period. We cannot support the suspension of civil liberties to the degree that’s being reported in Pakistan, especially given our actions toward Saddam in Iraq. We CANNOT support an regime despite the possible temporary benefits they might offer.
What exactly has Musharraf done for us? Are we any closer to crushing the Taliban or capturing Bin Ladin because of him? I would say that his false promises have set us back in that effort, even as we send him check after check.
Again, we cannot support a dictator. If after all these years of struggle and strife to combat the legacy of one dictator only to support another(no matter how America-leaning he may or may not be), what exactly have we accomplished?
People bring up Iran as a reason why we should support him. What about Afghanistan? What about Iraq? What about Cuba? What about the Phillipines? There are countless(or maybe countable. “Countless” sounds more daunting) examples of how temporary gains has lead to massive, long-term pain.
When we went into Afghanistan to kick the Taliban out, Pakistani advisers crept out the back door. Immediately, Pakistan turned as an ally of the US in the war on terror.
That was a master stroke of Pres. Bush’s conduct of the war. Having Pakistan as an ally is not a convenience, it’s an essential. I don’t care if Pakistan is a moon-based lemming-ocracy, as long as it is denied(essentially) from the Islamist enemy.
mpChops - #61.
Why not? Is there something intrinsically wrong with a dictator? We could compare it with a monarchy - is that better?
Democracy isn’t necessarily always a good thing.
Name any country you want… The big difference is that they do not have nuclear weapons and an a large percentage of the population willing to use them without regard of consequences!
Musharraf, has done nothing for the U.S., and the rest of the world… except… keep Pakistan’s nukes out of the wrong hands. That is a very big service!!
If you want to take down Musharref, go right ahead. He deserves it for many reasons… but… you better be carefull what you wish for…
Several problems:
1) Condoleeza Rice believes there is a talky-talk solution to everything, including negotiating with murderers and thieves such as AQ and the Taliban.
What does Dick Cheney think? We know what Condoleeza Rice thinks. And we know Bush is tending toward her mush politics. What does Dick Cheney think?
2) The ICI. Musharraf is doing what dictators do. He is asserting his will to preserve his rule. The secret police are a rogue element in the equation. The military however is under his firm control. He is one of them. The Pakisatani ICI is not. Nukes are under military control. Musharraf must turn the military loose on the Taliban and purge the ICI.
3)Benazir Bhutto. She isn’t what she parades herself as being. Her first administration was fraught with corruption. Some of the country is swooning over her return as some kind of sign that Musharraf is softening. But the timing is bad. Do we really want Parliamentary elections that bring the radical Islamists closer to control of the government? Not during war time.
Slaughter Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Tell Condoleeza Rice that now is a good time for her to retire while her stock is still sliding to the bottom. Shooting to kill is the only language the Islamists understand- they are forcing Musharraf’s hand. If he appears soft, hesitant or weak, his rule will be history.
The military will act with or without Musharraf. And they will depose him and assert somebody else to rule. The Bhutto move was a bad idea.
I think we can look back to the 1990 Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam to see how the “human rights” activists in Pakistan want this to turn out-
“Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah”
A far cry from human rights, by any stretch of the term.
conservativesRus,
Yes, there is something intrinsically wrong with a dictator.
If we believe that the most basic of a human right, regardless of sex, color, creed(which I never quite understood) or written document proporting it, is freedom, a dictatorship is intrinsically wrong as it realistically prohibits such right.
Life under a dictator can be theoretically free as the ability to pick a representative isn’t necessarily a characteristic of freedom. However, in practice, the life under a tyrant is not one of freedom. Even now, Musharraf is jailing political opponents and heavy handily silencing opposing views.
Life under a tryant is anything but free when looking through the eyes of the minority, whomever they may be. The lack of freedom will do more to create terrorists than most things. If we look at the terrorist organizations of the past, their actions were, for the most part, spurred by the real or imagined lack of freedom.
Democracy may not be the perfect form of government, but it’s by far the best.
Wild card: India.
China would be overstepping to invade Pakistan to help India. India is not willing to let China start tromping all over its growing relations with the US.
Also, the US won’t allow China to puppet India in order to carve out some ocean ports on the Indian Ocean, the jewel in the crown of today’s geopolitical misdirection show.
India can take care of the Taliban if it invades Pakistan. Of course, this assumes the Pakistani military caves completely into disarray- which is unlikely.
Keep an eye on Beijing. They know they are not going to get much out of their continued takeover of Myanmar. They want seaports on the Indian Ocean. Will they use the Pakistan crisis to make their move? Probably not- because India sees their rivalry with Pakistan as their fight, not meddling China.
If Musharraf has any strategic sense he would green light US incursions across the AF/PAK border to kill as many Taliban as possible. Weaken AQ from the rear. Slow them down.
We will see.
This is the stuff world wars are made of. Will our leaders strap on a pair and get busy or will they continue to cater to the metrosexual culture of Washington?
Backing dictators has been the staple of US foreign policy since the end of WW2.
Who cares if they are dictators as long as they are ours? That’s been the philosophy.
It’s antiquated. To back Musharraf or not is a question of limited utility. We should be asking Musharraf for some concessions before aiding him in this fight. He wants to stay in power.
So do we get to come in to Pakistan and kill Taliban and AQ or not? It is obvious AQ has opened a new front since getting slammed in Iraq.
What is it worth to Musharraf to stay in power? We need to be asking that question and dealing.
It’s a time to kill. Mercy and ethics come later– after the fighting. It’s time to kill more bad guys.
blockquote> If we look at the terrorist organizations of the past, their actions were, for the most part, spurred by the real or imagined lack of freedom.
Lack of freedom to do what? In the case of the Muslim Brotherhood and wahabbist-inspired jihadis they’ve supposedly had the voice of their god whispering in their ear to kill the infidel.
Castro? It was his lack of political power to control the island’s resources.
Was Che Guevara dedicated to freedom? The political rhetoric might indicate a positive answer to that question. But what did these “terrorists” actually do with their victory? Not much.
The colonial terrorists of this country’s origins: what did they do? Something entirely different.
The moonbat spin is already starting from the likely quarters. Bush Gives Masharraf Tips on Eliminating Democracy
Bear1909,
Backing dictators has been a staple of American politics, but the results haven’t really been that good.
The stakes of this backing may be larger than some of the ridiculously superficial reasons we have backed other dictators, but the results may end up being the same; they take our money and end up screwing us.
Ultimately, we end up with a dishonest and covertly hostile dictator and a generation of the public that hates our guts.
No big deal. In its history, after gaining Independence, Pakistan has never lasted a full term of a democratically elected government. US never needed a democracy to fulfill its geopolitical objectives, not just the GWOT: Case in point, Saudi Arabia.
Come to think of it.
OK, Pakistan is our ally in WOT. Intel shows USB, aided directly by ISI and indirectly by Pakistan, is hiding in the tribal regions of Afghan-Pak border where Pakistan has virtually no control of its own territories. Add to the fact the the fact that the govt of Pakistan pleaded before the Supreme court that it has no control over its intelligence wing: the ISI, the sole perpetrator of state sponsored terrorism in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir.
So much for respecting the sovereignty of Pakistan.
What would it take to shift our focus from Iran to Pakistan and launch a full blown attack. If not today, one day US will have to, in order to protect its interests in not just the west, but the whole world from, the ISLAMIC BOMB.
#69 bear1909:
Correct.
We can’t undermine “our sons-of-bitches”, as the expression goes.
“Democracy” can’t just be imposed on a medieval society.
So many in our society just don’t seem to understand how it was a cultural evolution over centuries in Britain that got us to the republic we now have.
It was not a bright idea that some guy came up with all of sudden while shaving.
I, for one, thank God that we were settled by Britain, and not by Spain or France.
Besides, in Pakistan “Democracy” would mean, as another expression puts it, “One man, one vote, one time.”
But, back on topic…:
“It’s time to kill more bad guys.”
Absolutely.
This is an existential struggle, a war to preserve civilization - not some theoretical exercise or thought experiment.
“We cannot support a dictator.”
Hey, there’s a first time for everything.
There goes the Bush Administration again, with this crazy rhetoric that free elections in the Muslim world somehow free the people from the rule of Islamic law. Military control by Musharraf in Pakistan is the only thing that has stopped an ‘Islamic Bomb’ from becoming a reality. If Musharraf has to maintain power and control through force, then we had better support him 100%. The alternative is yet another madly unstable regime, this time under the rule of Muslim clergy and they WILL have nuclear weapons.
I think I gave Musharraf 3 1/2 years to survive in Pakistan the last time I mentioned it over at JW, and that was about 4 months ago. Should I now give him 3 1/2 hours or 3 1/2 months? I suppose it all depends on what news reports you’re reading this morning…
It’s nice to be signed up to comment here. I shall return.
Chops…you moved from dictator to tyrant there. Please try again with dictator.
All,
Seeing how Pakistan is Al Queda central right now, and we have been told our computers are going to be hacked next week by Al Queda. I am just wondering if anyone is going to do something about Al Queda- Headquarters? I mean can’t we make them more uncomfortable or miserable at least?
ConservaviveRus,
What’s the difference, in your opinion? More importantly, will the difference make my statements less true?
Yes there is a huge difference. There is such a thing as a benevolent dictator. And there are tyrants who are not dictators.
from Wikipedia:
In the system of Roman Republic, In ancient Rome, a dictator rei gerendae causa was a person temporarily granted superior power over the state during times of war. The office of the Roman dictator was held for only six months. The ideal model was Cincinnatus, who according to tradition was plowing his land when called to dictatorship, saved Rome from invasion and afterwards returned to his labour, renouncing every honour and power, after only three months.
I would say Pakistan is in a state of emergency, and dictatorial rule is a necessity…
‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend’, that is something the US should remember. That Pervez has risked himself to assist us in our fight against the Taliban and AQ. Far more than Saudi Arabia.
Lebanon was a christian democracy until islamic Syria oppression (Syria has invaded Lebanon for centuries) and look at its state now. And, ImmChick, you are dead on regarding Islam not being a religion. My thoughts were that it was closer to a cult, but you are probably right about it being a political philosophy or idea.
my grandparents came to this country from the Middle East in the latter part of the 19th Century or early 20th century because it was a Christian country and free.
we need to stop calling Islam a religion so that we can put a stop to the sharia creep into our own laws and government.
conservativeRus,
That’s not quiet describing the difference between the two.
Even more so, I disagree. Who was a benevolent dictator, and who was a tyrant that was not a dictator?
Even more so, I disagree. Who was a benevolent dictator, and who was a tyrant that was not a dictator?
1. Alexander the Great
2. Jeffrey Dahmer
News flash mchop: let’s try to be specific.
Let’s take a look at Iraq. The Sunni and Shiites hate each other more than they hate us. We backed a dictator there.
In the current situation in Pakistan, anti-American hatred is pretty far down on the list of “to dos” by the jihadis trying to bring down the government.
The trend of supporting dictators will stop when the trend has ended. So far, no evidence indicates any end in sight.
In theory, ya. Great idea. Don’t back dictators. In practice, pick the side that might win a few decades. That’s been the practice.
Do I agree with it? nope. There are other options in the Asian subcontinent right now. But there is Condi and Co. who are marching to the drum of the past.
And those dirty little popular resistance movements? Those are not the solution. Right now the only solutions are military ones.
But that is outside the prevailing fairy tale of the left and the right in this country.
Out.
# 54 Gabe…Boy, you’re right about that! Condeleezza plainly can’t see “the forest for the trees”, (is she just doing what she’s told?). Sitting back and watching one foolish move after the next, showing-off the true lack of talent running our country; Throughout our government! If we can’t choose decent folks with the skills, knowledge, honor, and foresight to run our country, we’re in big trouble. Because right now, WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE!
#85 bear1909:
Correct.
Would anyone say that the U.S. and U.K. should have fought both Hitler AND Stalin in WW2?
Yes, it was revolting to have such an ally;
and the postwar world was a bad place because the Soviet Union emerged from the war victorious and powerful.
However, does anyone for a moment believe that the world would have been better off if Germany and the Nazis had emerged vitorious? They had much better organization and efficiency; and, I would think it would be doubtful that a victorious postwar Nazi Germany would have toppled in a significant part due to its own incompetence, the way the Soviet Union did.
A victorious Nazi Germany:
would more likely have made things of quality that worked;
would more likely have had an adequate supply of toilet paper;
would more likely have avoided the explosion of a nuclear reactor;
would more likely have been better at feeding its population;
would more likely have had a functioning economy;
would more likely have been an even more formidable enemy than was the Soviet Union.
Unfortunately, it is not a safe, wise course just to hope that both sides in a struggle will lose.
As you said, Bear, “In practice, pick the side that might win a few decades.”
Yep.
(BTW, “preview” ain’t “previewing”.)
Max,
1) Alexander’s legacy is one of perspective. I have to admit that I’m no ancient history buff, so the most I’ve read about Alexander is his military conquests. I would have to say that calling him benevolent would be a stretch, given the cost of such military campaigns and his absolute quest for power. However, I could be wrong.
2) Jeffery Dahmer? You’re going to have to flesh that one out a little for me.
Granite,
The Allies did not support the Soviets during WWII. We simply had the same goals. That’s a subtle but important difference.
That is to say, the Allies would not have helped the Soviets defend a Nazi attack. The Soviets would not have helped the Allies defend a Nazi attack. The Nazis strategically dooming decision was to attack both at the same time.
The problem is that we don’t pick the side that might win in a few decades. We pick the side that satisfies the need right now and ignore or grossly miscalculate the effects of that decision for the decades in the future.
We sure as hell did support Stalin against Hitler. Ever hear of the phrase “Lend-lease?”
More importantly, the question now arises, do we have a plan, either acting alone or with allies, to secure Pakistan’s nukes in case of a civil war?
#89:
“The Allies did not support the Soviets during WWII.”
Really?
Gee, I Googled “world war 2 allied support soviet union murmansk” and on the first page came up with a few hits of the Allies’ supporting of the Soviet Union, which confirmed what I had read 30 YEARS AGO.
I guess those historians (including Churchill) got it all wrong.
Until we understand that this is really Islam versus the West there will be confusion, questionable alliances, ill advised collaboration with enemy elements and so forth. All of this is obvious to most of us or at least to those of us who understand that Islam’s only goal (by any and all means) is to dominate the entire world.
I did write more than that one sentence.
People use the phrase “taken out of context” all the time, but I think I fits here. Particularly the second paragraph.
I should have been more clear with my wording. Fine.
What????
Great news! This is the kind of stability we all look for in nuclear powers.
The bottom line: it’s just a matter of time before those nukes go ‘lost’.
Basically, I’m not saying we should fight Musharref, as your post #87 says. You were creating a false dichotomy; either we support whatever he chooses to do or we invade Pakistan.
Benevolent dictator - Lee Kwan Yew - Singapore. Maybe he didn’t call himself a dictator - but for all practical intents and purposes, that is what he was.
On Alexander, his contribution was the unifying of a large, central part of the world under Hellenistic culture.
I don’t consider right or wrong as we now understand it about ATG’s conquest. Just that the results were exceedingly prosperous for Western civilization. Of course, the current culture rejects that war ever has any results whatsoever. Hello. History calling.
On Pakistan’s news, I like the way the left says at one point that you can’t and shouldn’t try to democratize the Muslim world, and now complains that Pakistan isn’t succeeding as planned in democracy.
Let’s win the war on Islamist terror first, and clean up the mess when that’s done.
The Soviet/Nazi example works well in several perspectives- for the sake of my position in this discussion, it fits as a good choice (Soviets over Nazis) because 1) Soviets were willing to go house to house throughout Europe killing the enemy (not negotiating or brokering prisoner rights deals); and, 2)the Cold War bought the US time to defeat the Soviets economically, which has led to the disintegration of their military threat.
Pakistan is a wholly different kettle of fish. Rice’s diplomacy package is a boondoggle based on her academic myopia. The woman should have been fired after 9/11 along with the tools at Langley. She actually believes the extremists should be negotiated with- instead of putting her efforts into African states where Muslim majorities actually like Americans.
As for those who would say that the people of these dicatorship countries “hate our guts”- I say look at the emigration rates from these nations to the United States.
Compare them to Europes stats. Then compare what is happening in Europe and what is happening in America.
At least, as one major recent author has pointed out more eloquently than I could ever deign to, when they emigrate to America they do so with the belief they can become Americans. Are they every going to be anything in Europe besides immigrants?
That speaks volumes about how much we are not hated in the world. And it slso explains to some extent why we back dictators in lands where Europe’s random border creations have separated people who belong together and clumped together people who should not be (e.g. Kurds, etc.)
Hate has a history. But when push comes to shove, people would more gladly slaughter their neighbors than Americans. Iraq is a case in point.
What will happen when the gloves come off in Pakistan? Who would we rather back in that fight?
And are we really of the belief that “free elections” is going to do anything but give radical Islamists lambs for their slaughter?
KCK: Bravo! Nicely done. The biggest intellectual problem in Washington is that so many people in leadership believe history ended when the Vietnam war stopped.
Once again, nicely done.
ConservativeRus,
Having breifly read about Lee, and from Wikipedia of all sources, I agree that he was in fact effective. Benevolent though? Not even from his own persective(having been confirmed saying that he’d “rather be feared than loved”). Also, the whole Operation Coldstore was heavy handed and oppressive. Dictators, by definiton, have to oppress the opposition. That’s what makes the dictators for the most part.
Again, dictators always seem benevolent to those that gain from their actions.
#96
“false dichotomy”????
So, what do we do?
Watch?
Talk?
We have an expression in medicine,
“Don’t just do something…stand there.”, when action for action’s sake might make the situation worse.
But, this does not appear to be a situation where we should just stand there.
How much worse could it get than sitting around watching al Quaeda and the Taliban possibly get their hands on nukes?
Again, I ask, whattaya gonna do?
Watch?
Talk?
Negotiate?