Once again, America demonstrates its Hipocrisy-its complete lack of moral fibre while it makes new enemies.

I'd say that Americans are showing plenty of moral fibre, Morgane. Our troops are the ones doing the fighting and the hard work of trying to build a peaceful nation out of the debris of a vicious dictatorship.

And your contribution to the world has been, what exactly?

Posted by: treehugger at November 4, 2007 1:24 AM

So, basically what you're saying, Greg, is that Islam and Democracy are incompatible? Many Muslims, of course, have been able to live in democratic societies without becoming entirely obnoxious, but it's hard to calculate what they would be like if they became the majority - except that we have plenty of precedent to judge from, and it ain't pretty.

I agree that Musharraf had little choice. He's between a rock and a hard place. With Islamic fanaticism there is little but HARDNESS.

Kali Politeis
The Truth About Islam

Posted by: Suziq at November 4, 2007 1:44 AM

Mushy has no other choice. He must crack down on the 'extremists' (read as mainline Islamists) running around Pakistan. It's a desperate act, to institute marshal law, but he really has no choice. He's dealing with primitives in the northern provinces, who hate democracy and civil order, and they want to destroy the country to start sharia law. What else can he do? The infection is spreading from within. (Read that as situation normal for Islam.) We shouldn't waste any more money one supporting Islamic states. Let Islam choke in its own blood of hate.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at November 4, 2007 1:55 AM

"BETTER THE 'Devil' YOU KNOW,eh!
As for Condi's silly rant about DEMOCRACY-is this
woman on the same planet?? Or is she proposing the sort of 'Democracy' as in Iraq where the only
safe place in Bagdad is the Green Zone...
As to U.S 'bombing & taking out PKK Kurds'is dear
Calamity Condi aware that this organization is the
only one which GIVES WOMEN EQUAL RIGHTS IN THE REGION. And why didn't the U.S complain about those 30,000 Kurds butchered during the 90's by their beloved ally,Turkey?? Nah,'Hear no Evil,See no Evil,Speak no Evil' to powerful NATO countries
...
Once again, America demonstrates its Hipocrisy-its
complete lack of moral fibre while it makes new
enemies & will soon be engaged on a new battle front as a few thousand PKK fighters WHO BELIEVE IN WHAT THEY ARE FIGHTING FOR take on 100,000
Turks and already demoralised U.S & U.K troops.

Posted by: Morgane at November 4, 2007 1:56 AM

From a Crisis Group report, "The Mullahs and the Military":

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=1628&l=1

"By assisting the military's electoral manoeuvres, including formation of suitable governments in the centre and the provinces, the MMA has obtained major concessions, such as the release from jail of party workers and the dropping of several prosecutions. In the NWFP and Baluchistan, Islamisation is now official policy. Initial steps, such as a ban on music in public, attacks on cable television operators, and police action against video shops are signs of what lies ahead as the MMA implements its program."

This was written in 2003, long after Musharraf had supposedly become our new terror hawk in South Asia. Even back then, the Pakistani military and the radical parties have had overlapping interests. They still do today. Musharraf allows the extremist parties to prosper, and destabilizes his own state, just so he can say military rule is the only way and there can be no elections. In less than a decade, it will be crystal clear that Benazir Bhutto was the Pakistani Mossadegh. We need to withdraw funding from the Pakistani military now, otherwise we are handing the country to Al-Queda on a silver platter.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 4, 2007 1:58 AM

Democracy was possible in Germany and Japan only after the fascist regimes and mindsets were firmly trounced and uprooted whole. So too it is here. If Bush wants to set up a democracy the first step has to be the eradication (or at least the marginalization) of the fascism of Islam. The idea that Afghanistan and Iraq have "democratic" constitutions that enshire Sharia is a joke and a fundamental contradiction. Good luck Robert explaining that to Little Boy Bush and his coterie.

Posted by: BunrattyBill at November 4, 2007 2:05 AM

Maududi read Islamic dogma in a way that reduced democracy to a seizure of sovereignty from "allah." Muslims don't call their wretched selves "slaves of allah" for nothing.

http://bostonreview.net/BR28.2/khan.html

Posted by: supercargo at November 4, 2007 2:18 AM

Musharraf in Pakistan today = Shah of Iran 1979.

Either keep him in power by any and all means necessary or let him be overthrown and replaced by another Islamic radical regime - with nuclear weapons this time. Thankfully Jimmy Carter is not the president but at best we are probably just delaying the inevitable.

Posted by: Dhimminite at November 4, 2007 2:41 AM

In the past few days here on JW someone had mentioned that at the time of Partition there were ( if I remember correctly ) 137 madrassas in Pakistan, whereas today there are 20,000. Combine that with the demographics ( population explosion ) of the Muslim world and it seems that this crisis has been several decades in the making and the current trends have tremendous historical INERTIA. It appears that there is no way to stop the inevitable coming "train wreck" of Pakistan.
When the Islamo-nutters take over, they will gain control of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
When they gain control of nuclear weapons, they WILL use them.

Posted by: One_of_the_last_few_Patriots_left at November 4, 2007 3:08 AM

How does the Bush Administration, in its terminal incoherence, now explain that while its policy in Iraq is to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads," its main Muslim ally, or so the Administration persists in calling it, is Pakistan, the recipient of nearly $30 billion in aid (direct and indirect, including cancellation of debt) from the United States since late 2001 alone, has just become a country under a military dictator. He may be a better dictator than Zia ul-Haq -- he could hardly be worse; his seizure of power may indeed be necessary to prevent worse, from the Pakistani point of view, in Pakistan. But it is not "democracy" and, if the Administration were to begin to comprehend Islam, and also to study the history of modern attempts not to "reform" Islam -- that's impossible -- but rather to constrain it, those regimes that have done the constraining have been run by enlightened despots: Ataturk in Turkey, Shah Reza Pahlevi in Iran, Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia and, to a much lesser extent, Mohammed V of Morocco. Not one was a democrat. Not one thought that through the expression of the Muslim people's will that Islam could be properly constrained.

Can the Administration begin to understand all the different ways it has failed to grasp Islam, or what is possible (constraining not reforming, Islam), or who is most likely to attain what is possible, and by what means.

At this point, more than six years after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and the squandering of a trillion dollars in Iraq (and Afghanistan), is that too much to ask of the Administration? Is it too much to ask of the Administration's critics, who seem no more inclined to study either Islam or the history of Islamic conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims, out of laziness, or the idols of the age, or fear of what they might find out and have to then start figuring out how to deal with an unpleasant and unavoidable change in policies, including those concerning Muslim immigration.

Too much to ask? Just as for the past 37 years it has been too much to ask the Israelis to understand that the war waged against them cannot be lessened through further concessions, but only through remaining steadfast and unyielding, so as not to whet Arab and Muslim appetites through making Israel still more, and more obviously, vulnerable to attack, from without, and to pressures from within.

Too much to ask, as it has been for the past one-third of a century impossible to construct an energy policy that would, in the first place, include a stiff, and ever-increasing, permanent tax on gasoline, and other taxes on oil, to recapture oligopolistic rents and thereby to deprive OPEC of some of its revenues?

Too much, for politicians of both parties? And still too much, today?

Posted by: Hugh at November 4, 2007 3:44 AM

"Despotism is a legitmlate mode of government in dealing with barbarians, provided the end be their improvement, and the means justified by actually effecting that end. Liberty, as a principle, has no apphcation to any state of things anterior to the time when mankind have become capable of being improved by free and equal discussion. Until then, there is nothing for them but implicit obedience to an Akbar or a Charlemagne, if they are so fortunate as to find one."

John Stuart Mill "On Liberty"

Posted by: AlexD at November 4, 2007 6:14 AM

Islam is the problem....not President Bush trying to bring freedom to people...I disagree Robert Spencer....why do you as an American...deserve freedom....but the Muslim world does not?....until the world deals a blow to Islam...we are in danger of no freedom for anyone.

Posted by: storagemanager at November 4, 2007 7:00 AM

As I have previously mentioned, I attended the William E. Simon Lecture hosted by Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) this past January. Senator Rick Santorum gave the introduction as he is currently a visiting fellow at EPPC. Mr. George Weigel again gave the lecture.

EPPC is a conservative think-tank with ties to the Republican Party and both Bush administrations. The late great Ambassador Jean Kirkpatrick was a fellow there. The topic of the lecture was Islam and Mr. Weigel delivered an excellent scholarly and factual account. He was not politically correct.

Both before and after the lecture I interviewed and/or spoke to a number of individuals amongst the collected academicians, theologians, think-tankers, and politicians. With the exception of Mr. Weigel and Senator Santorum who get it but are in the minority, all of those I spoke with were very sadly misinformed about Islam and I found myself making corrections throughout the evening.

One of the gentlemen I spoke to represents a pro-democracy lobbying group that believes that it is possible to spread democracy throughout the world. His group is currently investing much of its efforts in the Middle East. When I told this gentleman that democratic elections in many Islamic countries would in the end simply hand power to the Islamists, much in the same way that democratic elections handed power to the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Partei, he beat a very hasty retreat from the table we were sitting at.

I cannot stress enough the influence that the assembled groups present at this event are having on the Bush administration. To a great extent, they are the ones driving this Wilsonian fantasy and they do not wish to consider counter-views. The President and his administration are being very badly advised by people who know little to nothing about Islam.

I hope and pray that either Mr. Spencer or another scholar with a similar background will one day be placed in a policy-making role.

Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 7:23 AM

"Someone needs to explain to Bush, Rice, et al. -- in patient, monosyllables no doubt -- that "democracy" is hardly the panacea they believe it to be".

This Wilsonian "we must make the world safe for democracy" policy has to be scuttled for a realistic policy of making democracy safe for non-Muslims.

Every culture-group has supremacist notions and "manifest destiny" beliefs that must be challenged and that is more likely to occur in non-Muslim cultures-particularly a secular "democracy". (When we speak of "democracy" what we really mean is a political culture where public opinion maters via the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions.)

The Muslim belief-system, via ritual, trance and dogma, make democracy practically impossible in Muslim culture. The best that can be done is to become energy independent of countries such as Saudi-A-Totolitarian-Gas-Station and contain their supremacism and "manifest destiny" beliefs. We must make the world safe for non-believers and seek allies for that purpose.

Posted by: Frank at November 4, 2007 7:32 AM

I don't see a better person out there....Yes President Bush panders to Islam...but the rest would just give in...at least he tries..and he is right...freedom is not the right of some and not all....if you claim to be a Christian...and think the Middle East has no right to freedom...look deep into your heart.

Posted by: storagemanager at November 4, 2007 7:35 AM

The points made by BunrattyBill and AlexD are important ones. As Commander in Chief they are points that president Bush must answer. The problem, the rot if you will, is much deeper. Forty years of radical multiculturalism has so debased America that we as a people no longer understand the fundamentals of Freedom. At a minimum a people must be willing to concede freedom of conscience to the other if representative government is to have any chance to thrive much less survive. Which is why the strangle hold the American hating Left has on all our institutions is such a threat to out God given Rights (see link below).

After four years of confronting American forces with suicidal fanaticism during WWII why did the people of Japan not launch one kamikaze attack on Americans during our occupation of Japan? Imperial Japan did not so much as have a state religion as the state was their religion. We reformed Japan because we crushed the Japanese so completely that we overthrew their state and hence their religion. We de-deified their Emperor.

Can there be freedom of conscience were Islam is supreme? Islam will remain a threat to our God given Rights unless and until the overwhelming masses of Muslims are prepared to concede freedom of conscience to unbelievers. We must be prepared visit such death and devastation on militant Islamic polities until they are no longer willing or able to threaten us. That is the bargain we made with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. And there was not a dog’s chance in hell of those evil regimes nuking us. Offering the realm of Islam anything less today means an American city reduced to radioactive rubble for the greater glory of the god of their prophet Mohammad.

What city do you think good Muslims will nuke first?

The New Campus Fascism By David Horowitz
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=2AF843A2-41FB-4378-90A0-0E8D1365A5C6

Posted by: Ralph127 at November 4, 2007 8:02 AM

We are suffering from the Evil of Jihad. Prolonging the misery by its intentional missrepresentation and the Free Will to believe and Preach that which is not so.

JIHAD seems to do little more than maintain a primitive life style, while seeking the return there of, of others. Misery is carried in its Baggage.

Western Thought has had only one way of dealing with Tribal thought. Adding Islam into the mix only makes it Bloodier

Posted by: flowerknife_us at November 4, 2007 8:07 AM

The two current Western supremacist notions (every culture has them) re the imposition of "democracy" and ideas of multicultural "tolerance" are not realistic. Muslim culture is incompatible with both (just look at Saudi-A-Totolitarian-Gas-Station).

All of history, to one degree or other, involves the conquest-submission and often the extermination of some lately "indigenous people". It is the pattern of history-everywhere from Arabs, to Aztecs, to Zulus. They are usually called empires.

Democratic societies have largely (because of self-criticism) faced this gruesome aspect of human nature and dropped the pose of purity and self-righteousness. However, Arab invented Islam has not been able to face their submission and mass murder machine and call it what it is (just look at what was done in India during the Muslim conquest). They continue (a la Armstrong types, etc.) to sanitize the Arab racist-Imperialistic nature of Islam.

In any case, the West must let go of its current supremacist notions re democracy and multiculturalism or else democracy in democratic societies will cease to exist. A hard arms-length (re immigration, "foreign aid", energy, etc) must be adopted toward this belief-system. In many ways, Islam is as great a threat to democracy as was Nazism. Islam must not be allowed to gain a foot-hold in democratic societies, just as Nazism should not have been allowed to gain a foot-hold in Germany. Both are a threat to democracy.

Posted by: Frank at November 4, 2007 8:08 AM

Muslims pretend that Zionism is in this mould. They claim that "the Jews stole our land". They fail to mention that great Arab landowners sold the land to Jewish people prior to 1948. And then the Arabs were shocked when the Jews took crap land and made it look like Florida orange groves. Tel-Aviv was nothing but sand dunes.

Zionism is essentially a defensive ideology, whereas Islam is offensive in nature. Muslims cannot face the truth on that either because their culture will not allow self-criticism. Only Arabs are "victims"-right?

Posted by: Frank at November 4, 2007 8:29 AM

"The Jews stole our land" is about as truthful as Bin-Larden's "the West steals our oil". That's like going to a gas station and the owner claiming "you are stealing my gas" as he takes your money.

Posted by: Frank at November 4, 2007 8:36 AM

To storemanager who wrote,

“I don't see a better person out there....Yes President Bush panders to Islam...but the rest would just give in...at least he tries..and he is right...freedom is not the right of some and not all....if you claim to be a Christian...and think the Middle East has no right to freedom...look deep into your heart.”

Speaking only for myself, I have never said, nor ever will say that the Middle East has no right to freedom of democracy. I would very much welcome western style democracy coming to this region of the world. Unfortunately, there is no prospect for this in the near future. This is do both to religious and cultural factors. Until enough people in this part of the world change their attitudes democracy, as it is understood in the West, will never blossom. In fact, the exact opposite is happening right now. Fundamentalist Islam is growing in acceptance. They have to want democracy.

Also, I do not see how the American military can possibly impose democracy on them. This is not post-war Japan or Germany.

Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 8:45 AM

Also, I do not see how the American military can possibly impose democracy on them. This is not post-war Japan or Germany.
Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 8:45 AM

You bet. Both Nazism and the Japanese "Hakko ichiu" were utterly destroyed. Both belief-systems had a great similarity to Islam. "This is not post-war Japan or Germany".

Posted by: Frank at November 4, 2007 9:03 AM

You bet. Both Nazism and the Japanese "Hakko ichiu" were utterly destroyed. Both belief-systems had a great similarity to Islam. "This is not post-war Japan or Germany". ......If that blow is not taken...learn Arabic.

Posted by: storagemanager at November 4, 2007 9:13 AM

'I hope and pray that either Mr. Spencer or another scholar with a similar background will one day be placed in a policy-making role.'
Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 7:23 AM

You can add Hugh Fitzgerald to the list of people who need to be in a policy decision-making role. For my money, Hugh's position on the war, energy policy, Islam reformation etc couldn't be more on the money. Keep up the good work Hugh; I always enjoy reading your comments.

Posted by: Triumphant_Paladin at November 4, 2007 9:27 AM

...Mushy is a prisoner of his own people...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 4, 2007 10:05 AM

This is sad. Your fear of Islam might be your undoing.

Any government in Pakistan will have an Islamic character, because most of the country is Moslem. Musharraf's secular autocracy is reviled by his people. The radical Islamist coalition Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal hates Musharraf for being secular, and the moderate parties led by Sharif and especially Bhutto hate Musharraf for being an autocrat.

But everyone hates him. It's pretty clear that he will be out of power within the decade. The only question is whether the new government will be moderate and fight terror, or whether it will be a massive terrorist state with nukes.

Bhutto is NOT Khomeini. For one thing, she's a woman. For another thing, the main plank in her platform is support for moderate groups and opposition to extremism. Oh, and one more thing: unlike Mr. Musharraf, Bhutto does not have ties to the army, which has ties to Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal.

Unfortunately, none of that matters to you guys because you're so afraid of Islam. Because you fear a Moslem state of any kind, you'll suport Musharraf in his brutal crackdown, and send a clear message that democracy is not allowed in Pakistan. You will send a signal that if Pakistanis want to end Musharraf's rule, they will have to use force. At that point, after Bhutto is discredited, Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal and the Taliban will be the only game in town.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 4, 2007 10:24 AM

That has always been my worry, that Pakistan's new leaders will enforce sharia and have their hands on nukes as well.

Hmm..... Osama bin Laden and his boys with nukes.

We realy need to pay-off Musharif with a few billion $$$ to step aside, but first, secretly have him remove all the nukes (hand them over to us). I think Mushy realizes his days are numbered so why not do the right thing, while making a few billion $$$.

The U.S.A. would get credit for pushing Mushy aside and the new order would not talk about the nukes being gone............that would make them look bad (as though they wanted to get their hand on nukes).

Pakistan is a greater threat than Iran today.

Posted by: thehappyinfidel at November 4, 2007 11:13 AM

Democracy in an Islamic state is a pipe dream. Bush & Rice and the like, who believe the people will grab at the chance, don't realize you can't teach phiranas dinner manners.

Posted by: sounder at November 4, 2007 11:23 AM

TO Shlomo Michael

You are quite right to point out that Bhutto is no Khomeini. If someone such as Bhutto were to replace Musharraf, do you think they she (or he) could either control the military or effectively counter the ever-more powerful religious extremists in Pakistan, or both? To a certain extent, and with mixed results, Musharraf has been able to do the former. However, he has failed at the latter. I for one would welcome another who would be more effective.

Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 11:59 AM

nabi ZK, hey that's me, says so what if pak goes radical. No problem. Just kill it! Kill it dead as a doornail. Not what we hope for. Not the optimal solution, but a viable one.

Do you not think we could destroy pak in a flash if we really wanted to? Let them choose MMA and the Taliban, if that is their last dieing wish.

nabi ZK

...look for further developments on this important story...

Posted by: zonie kafir at November 4, 2007 1:50 PM

Godspeed to Perv as he has a difficult, dangerous and important task ahead of him. I do want him to prevail. The alternative is more than ugly, even if it does kind of cut to the chase in the GWOT (so called).

nabi ZK

...believe it or die...

Posted by: zonie kafir at November 4, 2007 1:56 PM

This is not a good situation that the world is facing.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at November 4, 2007 3:24 PM

It is sad to say that such extreme measures are the only way that Islamists can be dealt with properly. After all, Islamists only understand force.

Posted by: Christian at November 4, 2007 4:21 PM

"At this point, more than six years after the 9/11/2001 attacks, and the squandering of a trillion dollars in Iraq (and Afghanistan), is that too much to ask of the Administration?" Posted by Hugh.

It's a global trait, called "dumber than hammers"

Posted by: sounder at November 4, 2007 6:01 PM

Patagonian Plato,
Our primary goal should be to force the military into the barracks, and make them subservient to a civillian authority. This would in turn combat extremism by:
1) Ending the military's rigged elections in W Pakistan, which would involve drastically reduced powers for MMA there
2) Focus the military on cracking down on extremism instead of on peaceful protesters.
I'm confident that once civilian rule is established, it will be a blow to extremism. But I'm not sure whether or not people power can top military power and make this happen. That's the big question now, and to an extent the answer's in our hands. We need to make clear with action that what the army is doing is unacceptable.

Zonie Kafir,
Perhaps you are right. But from a realpolitik standpoint, it is infinitely better to keep MMA from gaining power in the first place. After all, what if THEY manage to push the red button before OUR nuke hits?

Christian and sounder,
"The Islamists" for democracy have been holding peaceful protests for the past ten months, only to get clobbered by Musharraf's goons (and occasionally bombed by MMA). Clearly, they have somehow learned a way besides force. This is something that we should be encouraging.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 4, 2007 7:34 PM

To Shlomo Michael

I thank-you for your very thoughtful and considered response. I have read and re-read it a number of times. You may be correct, but I am not certain. You wrote:

“I'm confident that once civilian rule is established, it will be a blow to extremism.”

As much as I want your assessment to be proven correct, it is difficult for me to share your optimism as to how civilian rule will affect extremism.

Thanks again.

Posted by: patagonianplato at November 4, 2007 8:26 PM

Mobilize the special forces to secure the Paki nukes on a minute's notice.

The rest will be up to Chance.

But apocalyptic weapons should not be.

Posted by: profitsbeard at November 4, 2007 10:15 PM

patagonianplato,

Any REASON why you do not share my optimism? Do you disagree that fair and transparent elections in W Pakistan would force MMA from provincial power (they're not so popular there)? Or do you disagree that creating a rival civilian power base would keep the military honest?

profitsbeard,

What happens ten minutes after, when hundreds of Pakistani troops rush to defend the nukes? Since Pakistani troops will act immediately to neutrallize the special forces, and will probably be successful, any possible gains from your plan would last less than an hour. After that hour, any doubts that the Pakistani government would nuke the U.S. will be firmly put to rest. Along with civilization.

Come on, people! I'm not sure you're giving this situation the scrutiny it deserves!

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 4, 2007 11:13 PM

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice demanded a “quick return to constitutional law.”

For a minute I thought she was talking to President Bush.

Dream on.

Posted by: lycaste at November 5, 2007 12:09 AM

Re: Pak's nukes, I remember reading in a newspaper a few years ago that the *missiles* that would carry them could not even reach the far side of India. This was during the crisis between those two countries.

Similarly, I've read accounts detailing the nature of small nuclear weapons (suitcase types) that said these items are very touchy and need constant nursing because they are inherently unstable. You don't just stash one next to the mower out in the shed.

Such fine points allow one to skip over a certain amount of alarmist rhetoric.

Posted by: lycaste at November 5, 2007 12:45 AM

lycaste,

How do you feel about removing some nuclear war-heads from the missles that can't reach India, and using it.

Sticking it in a shipping create ect...........

Posted by: thehappyinfidel at November 5, 2007 1:00 AM

lycaste,

How do you feel about removing some nuclear war-heads from the missles that can't reach India, and using it.

Sticking it in a shipping create ect...........

Posted by: thehappyinfidel at November 5, 2007 1:01 AM

From Hugh"How does the Bush Administration, in its terminal incoherence, now explain that while its policy in Iraq is to bring "freedom" and "democracy" to "ordinary moms and dads," its main Muslim ally, or so the Administration persists in calling it, is Pakistan, the recipient of nearly $30 billion in aid (direct and indirect, including cancellation of debt) from the United States since late 2001 alone, has just become a country under a military dictator."

Oh, that's right. Bush whilst in his genuis mode gave Pakistan the US's highest ally status, putting it alongside such countries as Norway and the UK.

Mindboggling even for Dubya.

And the US has given Pakistan in excess of 30 billions buckeroos over the last few years too? Sorry, that should read "the US taxpayer has given Pakistan......"

And in return, what has the poor long suffering US taxpayer got back?

Erm......erm......erm.....well, less than nothing.

It would have been better if a giant gold plated toilet had been built with those countless billions and the remaining money left over had been flushed down same said toilette.

Boy, Pakistan's descent into outright anarchy is going to be fun. Get the popcorn ready, it's going be a screech.

At least the US -at last- will have to realise that in that part of the world the only real ally is India. Even Rice, Dubya, et al can realise that surely.

Posted by: ewha1 at November 5, 2007 2:10 AM

Schlomo Michael

You may have forgotten that Pakistani support to the Taliban started under Benazir, and officially ended only after 9/11. Before that, Gen Zia's favorite there was Gulbuddin Heqmatyar, who was the main Pashtun warlord that the US backed during the Soviet occupation (not the Taliban).

Besides that, Benazir, who was expected to be a secular leader, was nothing of the sort. Reason was simple - there was already the perception in Pakistan that not only she, but her PPP, was secular, so she couldn't allow that perception to be translated to reality once she came to power. Therefore, not only did she support the Taliban (today's pretend support to the US notwithstanding) - Jihadi activity in Kashmir increased from the levels they were even under Gen Zia. Nawaz Sharief was no better, but under him, Musharraf ran that low level war in Kashmir before the US forced Pak to end that war.

No, there's nothing to choose between those: I'd much rather see the MMA come to power, so that the US can just level that country and destroy their nukes (maybe by nuking their nuke sites). There's nothing more dangerous than Pakistan having political leaders who know how to placate the West, while the population in general keeps rooting for al Qaeda, not just in Waziristan, but also in places like Lahore and Karachi.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at November 5, 2007 2:29 AM

I really think you're splitting hairs between the Taliban and Heqmatyar. Yes, they happened to have fired weapons at each other eighteen years ago--but then again, Musharraf fired at radical Islamists last week. Doesn't mean they're not collaborating. I'd prefer to look at overlapping interests, and judge people by actions rather than the platitutdes they spout. Both the Taliban and Mr. Heqmatyar have radicalized W Pakistan and tried to overthrow Karzai.

Bhutto did provide support for the Taliban, but she did it mainly as a realpolitik move, and it was confined to the diplomatic sphere. Al-Haq, on the other hand, actively sought to make his society more Islamist and fundamentalist. Al-Haq began the current Islamicization campaign that is exploding in our face today.

You may be confusing correlation and causation regarding Jihadi activity in Kashmir under Bhutto. To me, it's more likely that the military wanted to undermine Bhutto, so they facilitated attacks in Kashmir in some fashion. Besides, all the India-Pakistan wars took place under Pakistani military rule.

I'm waiting for a shred of evidence that the majority of Pakistanis support terrorism. All I've gotten so far is that they pass a rather crude litmus test: they're Moslem. But remember how the worst part of Jihadism may be Moslem-on-Moslem terror? A suicide bomber killed 150 people at a recent Benazir Bhutto rally. Yesterday, the same day that Musharraf jailed the chairman of Pakistani Human Rights Watch, he also freed dozens of Islamist militants.

In Pakistan today, it's not Islamists versus secularists. It's all the groups that use violence as their primary currency, allied against moderation, justice, and democracy.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 5, 2007 3:00 AM

Oh well said, Infidel Pride

Posted by: ewha1 at November 5, 2007 3:12 AM

Shlomo Michael

“Do you disagree that fair and transparent elections in W Pakistan would force MMA from provincial power (they're not so popular there)?”

Not sharing your optimism does not necessarily mean that I disagree with you. It is possible that “fair and transparent elections” could remove the MMA from power, but it is also possible that they will not. I simply do not know and I have no problem in admitting so. Accept for your assertion that they are “not so popular,” I have not been presented with enough evidence as to so confidently suggest that they would be dislodged.

“Or do you disagree that creating a rival civilian power base would keep the military honest?”

Again, I do not go so far as to disagree. But, I see nothing but extreme reluctance on the part of the military to ever behave properly and I am not certain that civilians will be able to force them to do so. Again, I need to see more evidence before I will share this optimistic assessment.

“Come on, people! I'm not sure you're giving this situation the scrutiny it deserves!”

This comment is unnecessary. Not sharing the same position does not indicate a lack of scrutiny. I believe that you have an important contribution to make here and that is why I ask your opinion. However, this comment contains a whiff of condescension and that turns me off.

Posted by: patagonianplato at November 5, 2007 6:25 AM

Well one thing that we don't have to worry wbout this Monday morning.
That the drive-by media will not have anyone to write their scripts as a result of the Hollywood writers strike. They seem to have plenty of Islamo apologists to do that this morning.
Their coverage of the situation in Pakistan would be funny as a cartoon show if it weren't so scary.
Oh, wait a minute, aren't Journalists supposed to write their own news?
Best miss-speak of the weekend analysis shows. While discussing the effects of whats going on in the ME on our economy an NBC analyst was talking about the results of Turkey invading Iran! I'm sure it was just a misplaced "Q".
LOL

Posted by: Aunt Bea at November 5, 2007 7:51 AM

patagonian plato,

The condescending comment was not directed at you. It was directed at profitsbeard, who is a bit too cavalier about using nuclear weapons. It was also directed at people who are too blinded by their bigotry to tell the difference between peaceful protesters and the suicide bombers that often attack them. My apologies for the offense.

Anyways, here is a report on the provincial election of 2003. Note that MMA did not even win in NWFP, or come close:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/library/documents/report_archive/A400925_20032003.pdf

"While the MMA came in a poor fourth in the popular
vote (3.19 million or 11 per cent), it initially won 53
National Assembly seats and gained an additional
fourteen of the 60 seats reserved for women and ten
reserved for minorities that were awarded roughly
according to the percentage of elected seats a party
captured.88 The military’s post-election manoeuvres
and defections from the PPP have helped the MMA
become the second largest party in the lower house,
where Qazi Hussain Ahmed of the JI is, for practical
purposes, the opposition leader....
""Even in the NWFP, where the MMA has formed the
government and won 82 per cent of the National
Assembly seats, its share of total votes was merely
13.7 per cent. In Baluchistan, where it formed a
coalition government with the PML-Q, the MMA has
only fourteen of 51 seats, all in Pashto-speaking
areas."

You could say that the MMA has grown since 2003, and might win provincial elections today. But MMA's overall popularity in Pakistan today is less than 5%. A more recent report from "Terror Free Tomorrow" (which I can't find at the moment) indicated that the radical Islamist coalition is nowhere near winning elections.

"But, I see nothing but extreme reluctance on the part of the military to ever behave properly and I am not certain that civilians will be able to force them to do so. Again, I need to see more evidence before I will share this optimistic assessment."

If you agree with my first point, I urge you to create the evidence, and ask the U.S. government to put some real pressure on Musharraf. A free and fair election would break the military's monopoly on the public sphere, and would indicate in itself a movement of power toward civilian rule. That is the best evidence, in my opinion.

Posted by: Shlomo_Michael at November 5, 2007 10:25 AM

Sorry to say this so late in the discussion, Greg, but I think on this issue you're wrong (assuming I understand your brief comments correctly). If you're arguing for more U.S. aid/military support to the Mush regime based on (i) the devil you know is better than the devil you don't, and (ii) anything is better than another totalitarian islamic regime ... then I believe you're mistaken, and I expect that events in the next few days will bear my contention out.

First, all of us here are keenly aware at how thin Mush's "commitment" to battling extremists is -- it's basically nonexistent insofar as eliminating the problem. He appears, indeed, to be quite content with them as long as they export their jihad to Afghanistan.

Repeatedly he pretends to be cracking down on them, but these "crackdowns" are followed by increased cross-border activity targetting NATO interests in Afghanistan. He's playing the taliban against the West. He cannot be regarded as an ally, and if he manages to consolodate power, he may be more dangerous than them. Remember that, (i) despite the thin veneer of democracy, Mush is a military despot, and (ii) he has nukes.

So, a non-islamic despot with nukes is still better for American Interests than an islamic one who gains controls of those nukes, right?

Okay, I'll grant this as a general principle, all other things being equal. But look at the news this morning: Mush and the Taliban are exchanging prisoners! Seems they are kissing and making up. What gives ... institute marshall law, only to make peace with the Islamists, while keeping the non-islamist opposition under lock and key?

I would have thought, Greg, that you would be the first to see the writing on the wall. Martial law has been opposed, not to crack down on the islamists, but to strengthen an alliance with them, keeping at bay any forces that might threaten to interfere with this alliance.

Look at the timing. Mush correctly inferred that a dangerous (to him) third force had reentered Pak politics when Bhutto came back. With such popular support, she was poised to topple his government, come an election. That alone was strong motivation to undermine the democratic process -- all he needed was an "official" excuse.

This was not Mush's only option. He basically had two options, seeing that he was unlikely to keep power without forming an alliance. In a 3-way power split between the reformers, the military government and the Islamic fundamentalists, Mush could survive and keep power by forming an alliance with one of the two others, in which he was the strong partner.

He could have formed an anti-Islamist partnership with Bhutto, and rallied to a democratic majority government, with the large anti-sharia populist movement at their backs. But they would face a long, and violent, fight against the entrenched islamists of the north, and the campaign would only be successful if he purged the fundamentalist sympathizers who are lodged through all levels of his porous military regime.

Or he could form an alliance with the fundamentalists and marginalize Bhutto, in much the same way as he has already done against her so effectively several years ago. It's much easier to put one political opponent under house arrest, shut off her voice to the people, and flood the media with propaganda against her, than it is to do the same with tens of thousands of Jihadists scattered all across the North, in regions over which he has little control (and who, in any case, are more adept at the propaganda game).

So he has made the predictable and very unfortunate choice.

Mush is no American ally, and the alliance he's setting up right now is more dangerous than anything we've seen in Pakistan for a while. The Islamists will compound their influence on his government in the months to come ... and, oh yes: he STILL has those nukes.

If Bush and Condi are ready to cut him off, they've come to the right conclusion despite their bumbling, blinkered approach.

Posted by: Archimedes2 at November 5, 2007 2:22 PM

Hi lycaste,

Nuclear warheads generally aren't all that large/heavy anymore. I'm not so worried about a Islamo-controlled Pakistan firing at us as I am the materials and technology being distributed to third-party hands. There has already been a problem with the Pakistani nuclear program and the covert transfer of technology and/or materials, and it can get a hell of a lot worse really fast if we're not careful. As was stated above, maybe their missiles can't reach us but what if a nuke was smuggled in via freighter or tanker? What if a government was overtly willing to give fissile material and other technology to terrorist groups or countries like Iran?

bigcatgirl...you are SO on the money. We've all known this sort of thing would eventually happen. The stakes are a little bit higher now. What happens next? What do we do? This situation is lose or lose as far as I can see. Things are bad and getting worse by the day...

Posted by: livefreeordie! at November 5, 2007 3:51 PM