Article

2007-11-06 India-Pakistan

White House says it can't support emergency

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 2007-11-06 00:00|| || Front Page|| [9 views ] Top
File under: Govt of Pakistan

#1 Locke wrote that there can be no freedom without law. Where civil authority is unable to contain a security threat, then civil rights must be suspended. Mushy didn't suspend civil liberty on his own accord; his hand was force by Air Force and Islamabad based Chiefs of Staff.

While Condi made the inevitable statements of regret, it is essential that the President link the string of bombings in Pakistan, to the MMA and their allies: Taliban/al-Qaeda.

Posted by McZoid 2007-11-06 04:21|| 2007-11-06 04:21|| Front Page Top

#2 it is essential that the President link the string of bombings in Pakistan, to the MMA and their allies: Taliban/al-Qaeda.

Don't hold your breath. Bush seems to have stripped his gears about how and when to spotlight responsible parties. He has bound America to Musharref at the wrist and ankles. Either we use our support to drive Pakistani leadership away from its perennial indulgence in terrorism or we confiscate their nuclear arsenal and walk away from their shitstorm. To do neither will damn us both in equal measure.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-06 08:35|| 2007-11-06 08:35|| Front Page Top

#3 Such actions ... damage the progress Pakistan has made on its path to democracy.

I gotta add: To bloody Hell with Pakistan's "path to democracy"! Who gives a rip about them having an opportunity to collectively install another terrorist government like the Palestinians did? Right now, as with Iraq and Afghanistan, a military dictatorship focused on eradicating terrorist groups would serve America's and the world's interests a whole lot better than paying lip service to democracy. You do not crush terrorism with democracy. You crush terrorism with an iron fist and worry about nurturing democracy later. Leave even a shred of terrorism in place and it can just as easily poison all hopes for democracy. Especially so with Islamic terrorism.

The White House had damn well better get behind Musharref in force to stabilize the shitheap we've helped to create. We should use Musharref's vulnerability to once and for all time separate the conjoined twins of Pakistan's military and terrorism. If not, we'd better make damn sure to grab their nukes and get the Hell out of Dodge.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster 2007-11-06 08:50|| 2007-11-06 08:50|| Front Page Top

#4 "a military dictatorship focused on eradicating terrorist groups would serve America's and the world's interests a whole lot better than paying lip service to democracy"

mebbe. Im thinking this one over.

I certainly dont think after the Hamas win especially, we need to be rigid about pushing democracy in the muslim world. I sympathize with your reaction.

OTOH, Im not sure that applies that well to Pakistan. First, I dont see the MMA as nearly as strong electorally as Hamas. Theyve never come close to winning a national election. So Im not sure the risk of an Islamist win is that big.

Second, Im not sure the military can make a coup stick. Pakistan, for all its backward pockets, has more advanced elements than Paleo society does. Those, plus the elements that are anti-Perv for other reasons, will make it very hard for Perv to keep the lid on.

Third, its a huge embarrasment to the US. Leaving aside the way someone like Putin or Hu Jintao will use any US "hypocrisy" on democracy, and leaving aside the hearts and minds struggle, theres the simple fact that Rice has already made it clear we DONT want a coup. At this point its an open act of defiance, and letting Perv get away with it confirms the perception of US weakness.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2007-11-06 09:52|| 2007-11-06 09:52|| Front Page Top

#5 The military, with Musharref at their head, have demonstrated they can neither govern nor rule Pakistan. The civilians, lead by Benazir Bhutto, have demonstrated they are incapable of governing. The jihadis/Islamists/Deobandis demonstrated when they took over Afghanistan that while they may rule, they foster Caliphatist terror groups in their midst as well as ruling only by imposing increasing terror on the population. The Pakistanis cannot rule or govern themselves, the Indians certainly don't want to take on the problem. And I strongly suspect that while Russian and China enjoy profitting from Pakistan, they would not want to take over direct rule, either.

Sadly, Pakistan is too big to enclose withing a wall like the Gaza Strip. I'm afraid I lack the imagination to suggest a solution, since Pakistan has neither a Ghandi nor a Moses waiting in the wings.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2007-11-06 10:59|| 2007-11-06 10:59|| Front Page Top

#6 within a wall. PIMF!

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2007-11-06 11:01|| 2007-11-06 11:01|| Front Page Top

#7 #5 -- you make it sound like a military dictatorship is Pakistan's only option at the moment. Wait a sec -- they've already got one. Never mind.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-11-06 12:59|| 2007-11-06 12:59|| Front Page Top

#8 "The civilians, lead by Benazir Bhutto, have demonstrated they are incapable of governing. "

Have they? They have shown themselves incapable of governing without a certain degree of corruption. My sense is that most Pakistanis ahve decided that what theyve gotten from the military these last 8 years is bad enough, they will tolerate a certain degree of corruption, and would prefer to begin to fight it using democratic tools rather than the quicker but ultimately costlier tools of military rule.

Posted by Liberalhawk 2007-11-06 14:12|| 2007-11-06 14:12|| Front Page Top

#9 Maybe it is time for Perv to go...IF there is a plan to secure the nukes. The fact of the matter is that, sooner or later, Perv will go. And what then? Maybe Bush in all his wisdom is trying to force the issue. Maybe he has a plan. We can only hope so. Maybe he has decided that Pakistan is now a more immediate threat than Iran.

But apart from the nukes there is that Taleban/al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan. It's like Vietnam all over again. The commies had a safe haven in North Vietnam just like the Taleban have in Pakistan. Why did we go to Afghanistan? To get Binny and Zawahiri. Where are they now? In Pakistan. We will never achieve our goals in Afghanistan while Perv is in power in Pakistan.

Didn't Bush himself say, if you're not for us, you're against us? Perv is not for us. Didn't Bush say, no safe haven for terrorists? Pakistan is a safe haven for terrorists.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2007-11-06 15:32|| 2007-11-06 15:32|| Front Page Top

#10 #5 -- you make it sound like a military dictatorship is Pakistan's only option at the moment. Wait a sec -- they've already got one. Never mind.

Anguper Hupomosing9418, I'm barely an amateur, let alone anything close to a professional, but I don't think the Pakistanis are capable of a proper military dictatorship. They're entirely too corrupt, and there are too many weapons -- a proper military dictatorship needs to maintain a monopoly on violence, I think.

Posted by trailing wife">trailing wife 2007-11-06 19:49|| 2007-11-06 19:49|| Front Page Top

23:42 JosephMendiola
23:38 swksvolFF
23:38 JosephMendiola
23:21 JosephMendiola
23:05 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:04 swksvolFF
23:02 Sock Puppet of Doom
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:59 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:57 Sock Puppet of Doom
22:56 JosephMendiola
22:54 Beavis
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:17 JosephMendiola
22:15 Alaska Paul
22:10 JosephMendiola
22:08 JosephMendiola
21:53 Darrell
21:43 trailing wife
21:42 Zenster
21:30 JosephMendiola
21:27 Darrell
21:26 JosephMendiola
21:18 Frank G