Ok, I give up. How can Bush adm. call Musharraf an indispensable ally?

Question

when he is also an evil dictator who declares martial law, curbs free speech, muzzles the press, and arreests lawyers engaging in peaceful protests?

I am totally confused now. I thought we were for democracy (the people will)? and against evil dictators.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_go_co/us_pakistan

Answer 1

You raise a fair question. Although in this environment you risk being called names or being a traitor for daring to do so. They may even say you are blinded by hatred for Bush for daring to ask such a question (and not following the leader blindly).

As to the answer you seek. This is the best answer you will get, and I can only do it in one word. You see the reason the contradiction you notice is there is simply


HYPOCRISY !!!

Answer 2

sometimes diplomacy is the better part of valor.

Unless you forese a lawless country like Iraq, where bin laden is known to be hiding, which also happens to have a large military with modern equipment and nuclear weapons to boot.

Might be better to take a quick punch to the nose in order to find a workable solution in the end.

because he does control the army for now - do you really want an all out civil war there?

Edit: @ crabby_blindguy

I am no neocon, but I think your message is shortsighted in its time frame.

One result here may be a strengthening of democracy in at least the part of the country that is not "lawless". People will have to fight dfor it, and they might end up with a separation of the political leadership from the source of control of power over the Army. that is always what has been lacking in Pakistan, and if that can finally be over come, it can be leveraged.

If the main part of the country is thus strong and united for the first time, really, then the lawless areas will be surrounded - by the US to the west, and the government to the east.

That all could be the situation that cause an invitation to work together to bring that lawless area under control. It is already winter, but accomplishing this situation by spring seems feasible.

And you know we are going to need some kind of threat to leverage on the home front as our own election really ramps up :)

Answer 3

the Bush family and the Bin Laden family have been good friends for decades. Musharraf is protecting George's childhood bff, Osama, so he looks at Musharraf as an ally.

Answer 4

This the kind of thing where the noconservatives generally shoot themselves in the foot. Here's why: opinions pro or con aside, the Bush adminitration (and the neocon political midset generally) is badsed on rhetoric and ideology--not on real workld outcomes.

In this case this mindset has -- ad is -- being used against them by Musharaf. He has, and continues to, maintain a rhetorical anti-terrorist stance. For Bush that is what seems vital: Musharaf is "with us"--so despite any faults, he's thus one of the "good guys."

In point of fact, Musharaf has done virtually nothing to deal with the al-Qaida organization which has set up shop in Pakistan. Last year, he even granted what amount to sanctuary in exchange for al-Qaida agreeing to limit its disruptive activities within Pakistan itself. But he's kept up the RHETORICAL opposition to terrorism--and on the strength of that, Bush continues to support him and send him billions in military aid.

What the Bush administration does not grasp is that the RESULTS don't match the rhetoric--that is, quite literally, their blind spot. In this situation it DOES NOT MATTER what Musharaf says--what matters is what he does.

Musharaf has blamed the ccurrent troubles in Pakistan on the terrorists--a rhetoric that is reassuring to Bush, etc. The facts-that he is cracking down not on the terrorists, but on pro-democracy activists, the free press, etc.--doesn't seem to register.

This is a pattern with the neocons--both in how they deal with others and how they behave themselves. They are entirely focused on the rhetorical presentation/perception of events--and ignore or fail to recognize the actual nature of events and outcomes.

Answer 5

Bush likes to back losers. But of course, we must remember , we have funded many dictators before just for our own good... then later spend millions to get rid of them...

Who knows who is the ally?

Answer 6

So you want the nukes that Musharraf now controls to be in the hands of Islamic Jihadist? I suppose that would be fair... after all they are such nice peaceful and loving people that would treat any that they had control over with decency and respect. And I'm sure that they would take responsible and reasonable control over those nukes... we would have absolutely nothing to worry about and Israel could relax it's vigil......

Answer 7

Because our government fears that if Musharraf loses control of Pakistan, the country will erupt into anarchy and nobody will be in control.

Answer 8

thats diplomacy speak, hes a dictator maybe a nice one but still a despot. We may have another Saddam on our hands with him in years to come. we should disavow him now and let the chips fall where they may.

Answer 9

For being cooperative Musharraf gets leeway for his transgressions.

Geopolitics can be discussed ideologically, but in practice it is always pragmatic.

You know: black, white, and grays.

Answer 10

Because you have been mislead into thinking that Bush is an evil dictator.

The United Nations is responsible for Pakistan.