The price for backing dictators' may be to box America in

C

Cypress

Well-known member
But, of course we can't talk about the root causes of terrorism - because that would make us liberal al qaeda-sympathizers.

Note to the posters who were scratching their heads, trying to figure out how to "fix" Pakistan. We're not going to "fix" it. No amount of pleading to the UN for help, or empty rhetoric about or respect for democracy is going to do a damn thing. Musharaff is Bush's guy. Nothing has changed, with respect to the realpolitick of neocon foreign policy. All that's happened is that Musharaff removed the faux trappings of constitutional "democracy". Which is irrelevant to NeoCon interests anyway. That was for show only. Bush praised Musharaff in 1999, when he overthrew a democratically elected pakistani president. This has always been our goal: a semi-secular strongman in Pakistan. The fact that the faux constitutional system that was in place has been torn away, just means the emperor doesn't have any clothes.


'The price for backing dictators' may be to box America in

David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Published: Wednesday November 7, 2007

Since Pakistan's President Musharraf suspended constitutional government over the weekend, the United States has been urging him to restore the rule of law but has stopped short of applying any real pressure that might force him to do so.

Pakistan's chief justice, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who was ousted and then placed under house arrest after the Pakistani Supreme Court refused to ratify Musharraf's actions, spoke by phone to CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Tuesday, telling him that "of course" Musharraf is a dictator and that greater pressure by the United States might force him to reverse his actions.

"Musharraf isn't the first hardline leader to put Washington in a rather awkward position," Blitzer noted, turning to CNN correspondent Brian Todd for background.

"They're in a real bind here," Todd agreed. "Preaching democracy, rarely a clean proposition for American presidents."

George W. Bush promised in his second inaugural address that "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors." However, while Bush did describe the crackdown by the Burmese dictatorship in September as "inexcusable," he has been far more restrained in his criticism of Musharraf's actions, tempering his concerns about democracy with praise for Musharraf as "a strong fighter against extremists and radicals."

Todd pointed out that America has often supported dictators in the past, especially during the Cold War. "Donald Rumsfeld once shook hands with Saddam Hussein on behalf of Ronald Reagan. ... Americans embraced the like of Manual Noriega, the Shah of Iran, Ferdinand Marcos ... none of whom ever considered free and fair elections."

"Partnerships with strong men, some say just as necessary now as then," Todd concluded. "But some analysts say so-called realpolitik, while it serves America's immediate interests, also boxes it in."

Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation told CNN, "It's terribly hypocritical to go into this world and talk democracy as boldly and robustly as this administration did and then cozy up to a dictator now like Musharraf. President Bush can no longer go out and give a pro-democracy speech."
Click to expand...

cnn.com
 
Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation told CNN, "It's terribly hypocritical to go into this world and talk democracy as boldly and robustly as this administration did and then cozy up to a dictator now like Musharraf. President Bush can no longer go out and give a pro-democracy speech."
//

yep
 
You support dictators, you help breed terrorists. Its really pretty much as simple as that.

Crying to the UN to fix Pakistan, or blathering empty rhetoric about promoting democracy isn't a solution to "fix" pakistan. Or anywhere else in the middle east.

We have to fundamentally transform our foreign policy, and ween ourselves off the blood-money/oil of authoritarian dictators. That's the only "solution"
 
I actually think this is working out pretty much with how the neocons and bush want it too.

Musharaff is their guy. They want him in there. From the neocon realpolitik perspective, musharaff is the best secular strongman we could hope for there. The pakistani supreme court was going to rule that Musharaff couldn't hold another term as president. That's pretty much why musharaff ripped down the facade of democratic institutions. Note that outside of some empty rhetoric, bush will do nothing.
 
That sounds entirely plausible. The problem for Bush will occur when Mushareff is assassinated by Muslim extremists. I wonder if they've run that one through the old scenario cruncher yet. Probably not. Bunch of incompetent fools couldn't find their arseholes with a map and compass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top