Article

2005-01-31 Afghanistan/South Asia

Musharraf not a long-term ally of America: think tank

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2005-01-31 00:00:00|| || Front Page|| [6 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Musharraf is smarter than the average bear. The USA gives him great leverage against India.

Posted by Long Hair Republican 2005-01-31 12:23:20 AM|| 2005-01-31 12:23:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 cato was a lawyer and a roman sophist orator for sale--a libertarian is not a liberal--who do they want in charge--hamid gul--these people better live in the real world--mushareff went to christian high school and college--his brother is a doctor who lives in chicago--his son went to mit and does high tech in boston--both his parents became american citizens--wtf do they want john galt as president of pakistan--mushareff will do

Posted by SON OF TOLUI 2005-01-31 3:41:20 AM|| 2005-01-31 3:41:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Cato shares the Indian Hawk analysis of Pakistan, that entire system in Pakistan (like Saudi Arabia) is hopeless, and it is better to have as little to do with the nation as possible, while strengthening the alliance between India and the US.

Posted by Paul Moloney 2005-01-31 4:18:39 AM|| 2005-01-31 4:18:39 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 No? Really?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-01-31 8:44:22 AM|| 2005-01-31 8:44:22 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 And is India going to occupy the entire nation of Pakistan for us? Dont think so. And India's going to pursue its own agenda, not do what we want. And what does all out alliance with India and against Pakistan do for us in the rest of the muslim world. Basically Cato is interested in complete US withdrawl from the region including KSA, Iraq and Israel.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-31 9:23:20 AM|| 2005-01-31 9:23:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 I am all for getting out of the KSA. Let that pile of shit cave in on it's self.

Posted by Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-01-31 9:46:08 AM|| [http://www.slhess.com] 2005-01-31 9:46:08 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Sounds like some highly paid for bear poop and academic double-speak:

1. Musharraf cannot be trusted, but
2. Need to prevent Pak from desending into chaos

Precisely, what is presently stopping the country from going into chaos? Hint: Musharraf.

See, that debunking was for free.

Posted by Duke Nukem 2005-01-31 10:35:46 AM|| 2005-01-31 10:35:46 AM|| Front Page Top

#8 Basically Cato is interested in complete US withdrawl from the region including KSA, Iraq and Israel.

Cato is interested in complete US withdrawal, period. Barring that, they might settle for special forces on two-week tourist visas.

Posted by Pappy 2005-01-31 1:09:31 PM|| 2005-01-31 1:09:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 CATO? LIBERAL?! Not only are there a bunch of members of CATO in the Bush administration, there are CATO followers all over the place. The most high-profile was Michael Powell, head of the FCC.
They are convinced that there is no such thing as a naturally occuring monopoly in business, and oligopolies are fine. They are rigid in their orthodoxy and bizarre interpretation of free markets. You don't talk with them. They are either talking or arguing at you. And having had a similar experience with one of them, this quote really summarizes them at work and play:
"Theyâre ideologues, like Trotskyites. All questions must be seen and solved within the true faith of libertarianism, the idea of minimal government. And like Trotskyites, the guys from Cato can talk you to death." --Nat Hentoff

Posted by Anonymoose 2005-01-31 1:11:23 PM|| 2005-01-31 1:11:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 I think the Cato liberal thing came from the Pakistani paper's misunderstanding of the difference between liberal and libertarian. Stupid error, but it doesn't really change the guts of the article.

Fact is Bush just said dictatorship bad, and Mushariff is running a dicatorship which could make things kind of funky between them. Besides that Mushariff has been questionable on the cleaning up Taliban across the border position.

I think the world would be better off if Pakistan split into three as long as the nukes were secured before hand.

Posted by rjschwarz 2005-01-31 4:05:13 PM|| [http://rjschwarz.com] 2005-01-31 4:05:13 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 In the rest of the world, liberal still means whatit did 100 years ago, Classical Liberalism. Instead of having socialists and communists, we evolved the term liberal into what the Democrats believe today. Our bad.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-31 4:18:04 PM|| 2005-01-31 4:18:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 Indeed. In the rest of the world "liberal" tends to mean fiscally right-wing.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-31 4:23:04 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-31 4:23:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 I'm not sure if "right-wing" is the appropriate term here.

Posted by True German Ally 2005-01-31 4:39:19 PM|| 2005-01-31 4:39:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Hmm, "pro-free market", then? I thought that "fiscally right-wing" still tends to be globally understood in roughly the same manner.

Unless you mean that in this article they don't mean *only* that, they probably also mean in its more general 'freedom-supporting' sense, which means libertarian-leaning ideas across the spectrum of politics.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2005-01-31 5:01:47 PM|| [http://www.livejournal.com/~katsaris/] 2005-01-31 5:01:47 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 I suspect right wing is understood in the same manner golbally. It is just incomplete. It must be further modified, vast, far, extremist, fascist, conspiracy etc.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-01-31 5:04:39 PM|| 2005-01-31 5:04:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 May I defend the word liberal as its used in the US, Canada, and to a lesser degree the UK? In fact liberalism in the mid-19th century didnt always mean "liberal" as the euros use it - (IE free market classical liberalism - which BTW, is also not libertarianism - many "classical liberals" accepted state intervention in traditional moral realms and even some economic ones that Libertarians dont) Liberal was those who opposed the conservative establishment - IE those who supported constitutional reform efforts, the basis of politics on rights, rather than on traditional elites, and the end of established churches etc. While not always insistent on immediate universal suffrage, they tended in the direction of "democrats" They were NOT Marxists, who subordinated political rights to a theory of economic justice. However they were not ALL opponents of social welfare systems, and other state interventions in the economy. In Germany and Austria "Progressives" moved to the left of the more traditional business liberalism. In England this was led by Lloyd George, who maintained his membership in the Liberal party for some time, and still considered himself a liberal. In France the term radical was used by those favoring progressive taxes and a limited welfare state, and apparently over time in Germany the term liberal for these faded as well. When a movement paralellel to Lloyd George liberalism emerged in the US, it was first called Progressivism, but came to be called liberalism following the UK model. In the UK the business liberals ended up merging into the old Conservative party - theyd been heading there since the time of Joseph Chamberlain. The tories thus ended up a combination of old 'conservative' interests - established church and landed wealth - but absorbed "business liberalism" - the US never really had "conservative interests" in that sense, outside the south, so the business liberal GOP was called conservative (once its mugwump-progressive wing had departed, a gradual process)

AFAIK in europe most "liberal" parties accepted some degree of welfare statism - they continued to be called "liberal" in contrast to the social dems, who called for a more extensive welfare state, and extensive state ownership of industry. Today most soc dem parties have given up on state ownership of industry, and accept a more limited welfare state. Social democracy thus blurs with "progressivism" as it does in the US, where the left wing of the dem party, heir to a socdem-progressive alliance still calls itself liberal.

If we want to use 19thc usage, we would have to depart from BOTH current US usage, and current euro usage. In fact the entire US spectrum from Ronald Reagan to Ted Kennedy is "liberal" - you have to go beyond ted to get real socialists, and beyond Reagan, to the paleocons and theocons to get real "conservatives". Ditto in Europe, most thirdway leaning soc dem parties are liberal as well. As are most "conservative" and CD parties.

To revert to the 19th century usage, wed have to admit a far wider usage of

Posted by Liberalhawk 2005-01-31 5:07:32 PM|| 2005-01-31 5:07:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 So the picture is telling me that bears don't shit in the woods?

Posted by whitecollar redneck 2005-01-31 6:24:26 PM|| 2005-01-31 6:24:26 PM|| Front Page Top

23:47 True German Ally
23:44 .com
23:42 God Save The World
23:40 crazyhorse
23:40 .com
23:37 jules 2
23:18 Alaska Paul
23:14 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 trailing wife
23:04 Bomb-a-rama
22:59 Mike Kozlowski
22:49 Mike Kozlowski
22:45 Bomb-a-rama
22:38 CrazyFool
22:34 .com
22:33 Mike Kozlowski
22:31 .com
22:30 CrazyFool
22:28 Mike Kozlowski
22:28 Tom Dooley
22:28 Barbara Skolaut
22:26 trailing wife
22:25 trailing wife
22:22 Sobiesky