Holy War in Pakistan

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

One of the problems with democracy in the Middle East is the increasing Islamist success.

and one of the problems with democracy in the US is the success of religious conservatives here.

I wonder how much of a difference this election will make in the country's policies.

Always an interesting point, in elections.

[GrayMouser]

For Turkey, I think not much, other than pushing the military further out of politics, and relaxing rules on headscarves. The AKP are strong supporters of getting Turkey into the EU, though of course some Europeans will be happy to jump on "Islamist" fears to use as a block to that.

The rise of the National Movement Party is more ominous, as it will put pressure on the government to take stronger measures against the Kurdish guerrillas using Iraqi Kurdistan as a base. Add in the referendum on Kirkuk scheduled before the end of the year and it could mean interesting times for the Kurds.

[Lief Erikson]

I'm glad to finally see some statistics about perceptions of Bin Laden, suicide bombing and other from the Muslim world. Here are some:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6914959.stm

[Snowdog]

Look at Pakistan now.... *shakes head*

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd say that the inflamation of extremism is a direct result of our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Violence breeds violence.

No kidding.

[Insidious Rex]

We sure walked right into this one didnt we. Serves Bush right for sighting 9/11 constantly for his political benefit. Now the leader we are in bed with is calling our bluff and doing the same thing and Bush/Cheny/Rice et al can do nothing but pretend to be concerned.

[Lief Erikson]

We needed Musharraff, and as long as he's in power, we still need him.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

We needed Musharraff, and as long as he's in power, we still need him.

I think that that is IRs point. We needed Saddam in the 80s as well.

[Lief Erikson]

Right. I agree. So what's your point, exactly? That we shouldn't support any undemocratic regimes, in spite of any political needs and interests?

[hectorberlioz]

Difference between Musharraf's power grab and Saddam's dictatorship: Musharraf is a decent guy. He pushes for the rights of women.

I don't really care if it's a democracy if it means that whackos are going to be elected, which seems possible.

We do need Musharraf, democracy or not. It was a false democracy to begin with, and he was in no position to really help us, as he tried to fend off extremist political rivals...not to mention the attempts on his life.

I don't think Pakistan has been a very good ally--temperamentally, but we can't just pull our support willy nilly. Foreign relations stuff has to be taken case by case. There is no parallel with Saddam, or needing Saddam.

I don't think I'll fret too much about human rights under Musharraf. I don't think he is a person mentally unstable like Saddam or Ahmadinejad. Under a democratically-elected Nero, there probably would be none anyways. Ataturk did what Musharraf did, and Turkey came out pretty good.

I do hope Pakistan can return to Democracy, but perhaps some things need to be cleaned up first.

And just for the record: however "western-minded" she might be, Benazir Bhutto is too much trouble. Besides, the charges that she was corrupt are probably true.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Right. I agree. So what's your point, exactly? That we shouldn't support any undemocratic regimes, in spite of any political needs and interests?

That we shouldn't have taken action in Iraq the way we did. It completely destabilized the region.

There's no arguing that Saddam was an evil man, but from a US self-interest point of view, we were a lot better off with him in power, especially after being effective isolated and declawed after the Kuwait war.

He kept the factions under control within his own country, was more or less secular, wasn't particularly supportive of terrorist groups, and provided a balance to Iran's regional power.

[Insidious Rex]

The real comparison isn’t Sadam but the Shah of Iran. Which is terrifying because we certainly don’t need Pakistan becoming a second Iran any time soon… But here we are again supporting someone who shuns democracy for the sake of his political gain while angry citizens find a common link to the extremists because of it and another reason to hate us.

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

I don't really care if it's a democracy if it means that whackos are going to be elected, which seems possible.

So the grand hypocrisy foreign policy then eh? We do all this in the name of freedom and democracy as long as you think like we do!

It was a false democracy to begin with, and he was in no position to really help us, as he tried to fend off extremist political rivals...not to mention the attempts on his life.

But these latest moves aren’t about extremists or terrorists. They are all simply for the sake of ensuring he stays in power. Its completely political. Hes going after lawyers and judges and arresting his political rivals and their supporters. Not going after terrorists.

I don't think Pakistan has been a very good ally--temperamentally, but we can't just pull our support willy nilly.

No we cant unfortunately. But now we run the risk of much much worse things happening because of this on a long term scale. See Iran…

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

The real comparison isn’t Sadam but the Shah of Iran. Which is terrifying because we certainly don’t need Pakistan becoming a second Iran any time soon… But here we are again supporting someone who shuns democracy for the sake of his political gain while angry citizens find a common link to the extremists because of it and another reason to hate us.

Ok, good point.

So the grand hypocrisy foreign policy then eh? We do all this in the name of freedom and democracy as long as you think like we do!

I'm so glad that a sense of hypocrisy is just a feeling--generally, and doesn't dictate foreign policy.

But these latest moves aren’t about extremists or terrorists.

They are about extremists, perhaps not terrorists. Those courts in Pakistan have a lot of power (as they should, in a decent world), as the ayatollahs do in Iran over Ahmadinejad. It is self-serving politically to arrest them, of course. But better him, than someone worse. Don't forget that Pakistan has nukes.

(by the way, a funny political cartoon earlier this month depicted bin Laden and a henchman saying something like "time to run for President of Pakistan" )

They are all simply for the sake of ensuring he stays in power.

And good thing he will, too. Like I said above, maybe Musharraf can be an Ataturk.

Its completely political.

As most things are in Pakistan right now...including Bhutto's miraculous return.

Hes going after lawyers and judges and arresting his political rivals and their supporters. Not going after terrorists.

He can't go after terrorists if the lawyers and judges who oppose him are straddling his efforts. That's the whole point of his declaration of emergency powers...(not the first time under him, btw...and Condi has talked him out of it before...)

Just a reminder, he WAS re-elected in a parliamentary election a few months ago. But the judges were trying to reverse his win, by forcing him to give up his status of military leader.

No we cant unfortunately. But now we run the risk of much much worse things happening because of this on a long term scale. See Iran…

Agreed. The worse thing about this is the message it sends to Iran...

I can see this situation getting bad, but we're sorta stuck, as you say Rex.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That we shouldn't have taken action in Iraq the way we did. It completely destabilized the region.

There's no arguing that Saddam was an evil man, but from a US self-interest point of view, we were a lot better off with him in power, especially after being effective isolated and declawed after the Kuwait war.

He kept the factions under control within his own country, was more or less secular, wasn't particularly supportive of terrorist groups, and provided a balance to Iran's regional power.

Well . . . In the interests of avoiding turning this thread into a debate about Iraq, I guess I'd best not riposte .

[Mari]

War in Pakistan... I think there are many intellectuals mobilizing who want to change the current situation.
Yesterday on the news, there was an item on lawyers organizing demonstrations in cooperation with student organizations.
What concerned me more are the reports on the radicalisation of Iraq where woman are dragged out of their houses and murdered for not dressing correctly or whatever. Women who used to be able to teach at universities are now afraid to leave home and to go to their jobs.

[GrayMouser]

Uh-oh

Not that I had any great regard for Bhutto, but she seemed like the least worst option at this time.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Assassination is always bad news.

[Lief Erikson]

This is a political disaster for Pakistan.

[hectorberlioz]

I'm of the opinion that Benazir Bhutto was...of very bad use in Pakistan. I don't know what to make of the chaos over there right now, but my feeling is that the roots of sorrow don't go all that far.

[Lief Erikson]

She stood up to Musharraff and many of the people hate him, so she rode on a wave of popular feeling. Her death made both a martyr and a hero out of her. And who knows? There may be validity to this claim that she's a hero. She did risk her life to return, and she stuck around to continue campaigning after the first assassination attempt on her life. I don't know enough about her to make any call on her character myself, though.