Betting on a Dead Horse, Again
Political chaos in Pakistan could bring nuclear headaches for the US, and what our government is doing to prop up a failing regime recalls efforts three decades ago on behalf of our old ally, the Shah of Iran.
The McClatchy Newspapers report: “The Bush administration is pressing the opposition leaders who defeated Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to allow the former general to retain his position, a move that Western diplomats and U.S. officials say could trigger the very turmoil the United States seeks to avoid.
“U.S. officials, from President Bush on down, said this week that they think Musharraf, a longtime U.S. ally, should continue to play a role, despite his party’s rout in parliamentary elections Monday and his unpopularity in the volatile, nuclear-armed nation.”
Pressuring the newly elected anti-Musharraf majority to retain our iffy friend may turn out to be the kind of mistake we made in the late 1970s on behalf of the Shah before and after he was deposed in Iran. Despite Jimmy Carter’s misgivings, he was persuaded by Henry Kissinger and his oil friends to let the old US ally come here, which resulted in occupation of the American Embassy in Tehran for 444 days and the ongoing hostility with Iran.
Read more.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “Betting on a Dead Horse, Again”
Though you may not like to hear it initially, you'll be relieved to know that the Shah analogy is incorrect. First, we are not ignorant about the problems that exist in Pakistan, any more than we're ignorant about the problems in Saudi Arabia (the most similar situation to Pakistan we have been facing for several years). Second, we don't have solid faith in Musharraf as an ally any more than we have confidence in his future (it's a myth that we're strong supporters and even more, fans of the guy). We're simply hoping that he can keep the country from exploding into chaos for a few years longer while we also hope that something in the future develops there that is better rather than nearly everything we have seen so far, which indicate things would be worse if he were removed. (The same is true with the Saudi royal family.)
If the Pakistanis keep Mushy on, does the next US President need to keep W as an adviser? The elections showed that Mushy isn't loved in his country. Maybe the Saudis can find a spot for him with Idi Amin.
DLS: agreed. To carry it a little further, it's another example of Bush taking the easy way out. Kicking the can down the road until he's out of office and doesn't have to deal with it. Given Bush's record, I mean that as a good thing.
I thought that the Pakistani opposition party would have to impeach Musharaf to get rid of him, as he extended his presidency for 5 years.
BTW, I do think the situation is a lot like it was in the '70's when the Shah was overthrown. We may get a little more stability in the short run, but will be hated for keeping a dictator in power in the long run.
“To carry it a little further, it's another example of Bush taking the easy way out.”
What other way is there? Also, this problem has existed long before Bush came to office. Same is true with our “friends” the Saudis.
In fact, we leave things pretty much alone, and if we did attempt to do more, the criticism of the USA would be predictable, particularly if there were a Republican in the White House.
Even other countries about which, sadly too few people think, are similar. We do next to nothing in Mexico. We permit illegal immigration from Mexico (largely at the bidding of the business community, which strongly controls the GOP in our nation's capital). But as I've said before, we are Mexico's safety valve, not merely a source of income to be sent back to that country. We're Mexico's safety valve. (I doubt any DC people who have decision-making ability see pro-immigration in that light.) The worst that is likely to happen in Mexico, again, likely, is that Mexico will succeed Calderon with a leftist like Chavez or Ortega or Mr. Expropriation in Bolivia. But it's not inconceivable that someday we could have a civil war in Mexico? What do we face then? Well, a torrent of refugees fleeing here that will dwarf the numbers we're currently seeing, for starters.
“We may get a little more stability in the short run, but will be hated for keeping a dictator in power in the long run.”
What else can we do? The history of the country (as with Saudi Arabia) features rejection of democratic progress (and other forms of progress). Someone else made a very naive statement on another thread, that if Musharraf were removed, Pakistan would be well along toward democracy. (That is preposterous! Look at history, look at the record, look at the facts, look at reality! The strongest force in modern Pakistan is organized terrorism, the perpetrators of which are at times supported by and even include elements of the Pakistani government, such as its intelligence service. Start a nuclear war with India? “Why not?” said someone in the military. Others wanted to give nuclear weapons to the Taliban for what they said was SAFE-KEEPING PURPOSES. This demonstrates progressivity?)
“Kicking the can down the road until he's out of office and doesn't have to deal with it.”
*** DEMOCRATS AND SOCIAL SECURITY ***
They did nothing but obstruct Bush. Bush's plan's flaws weren't the issue; where was the Democratic alternative? (Obama and Clinton, be ready.) The program is unsustainable. In only a few years, once the deficits begin, the federal government faces serious financial problems with Social Security (requires more taxes, more borrowing, or benefit reductions). Where was the Dem solution?
A Dem president after 2008 owes us one ASAP.
“What other way is there? Also, this problem has existed long before Bush came to office. Same is true with our “friends” the Saudis.”
There are times when the US should act to ensure our national security and I think Bush (and even some previous administrations) should be more proactive in containing the potential Pakistani nuke threat and the terrorists Musharaff supports in his own country.
There are other times when the US should leave well enough alone (should have stayed out of Iraq). Bush likes bully other countries to his will without appreciating the internal politics in these other places. We should only take action when there is a threat or a potential threat. The action we take depends on the circumstances.
As far as kicking the can down the road as it relates to Pakistan…. Bush should follow his own policy in encouraging Democracy and deal with the Pakistanis as they are. Bush shouldn't continue to create alternate realities as to what he thinks is best for the US. The more Bush interferes with the situation concerning Musharaff, the longer it will take for the Pakistanis to settle down. Bush should engage the “powers that be” now to address real issues that impact the US.
Social security- Bush wanted his way or the highway. When Bush proposed his SS plan the Republicans had control over both the Senate and House. It just wasn't Dems. who were against Bush's plans. We've seen how well Bush negotiates.
Talking about entitlement programs- what is Bush's prescription plan but one big entitlement? This type of entitlement plan is something the Reps rabidly accuse the Dems of supporting. Yet when the Reps. propose it, suddenly it's OK.
Speaking of deficits and Bush and SS….
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/02/the-bush-…