Is it Bush’s fault the deal with Bhutto fell through? No. Is it Bush’s fault he’s felt the need to tie American interests not to Pakistan but to the General personally? Yes. Is the failed attempt at reinstating a representative government in Pakistan a direct and obvious result of that support for the General? Yes.

American foreign policy toward him up to this point has been, in essence, give him billions of dollars and ask him nicely to not act like a military dictator. Are the “realists” on this site suprised that a man who siezed power in a coup decided he would rather hold onto it by force as opposed to voluntarily surrendering control of an entire country?

Every time he does something we don’t like, America sends him a “tsk, tsk” phone call. Up until now, he’s been able to play along, continuing to collect money from our Administration and maintain his grip on power. He has not yet had to choose between maintaining his financially rewarding relationship with the U.S. and maintaining his authority. Finally, push has come to shove. He faced the courts in Pakistan declaring his unanimous election a sham, and a direct move to “legally” remove him. He chose to remain in power, which should suprise nobody. If America doesn’t like it . . . so what? What’s the advantage to him of maintaining “good relationships” with the U.S. if he’s not a de facto king anymore?

For the Administration to be suprised by this outcome, they would have had to expect that he would voluntarily surrender ultimate power in his country. If they did, then they are naive beyond words. If they didn’t really expect him to walk away from the job of dictator, then why in the hell have we been supporting him? The only logical reason to back him was to “fight” Islamic extremists, something that (as usual) has backfired — Al Quidea and the Taliban are now, by all accounts, firmly planted in the northern region of Pakistan, regaining their strength.

So . . . either our Administration are blitheringly blind to reality, or they simply gambled that any fallout from propping him up would happen after the next election. Those are the only two possible choices I see . . . do you propose a third?

My post was directed to your comment I quoted, which seems to hold that since the Bush Administration was “backing” Bhutto, blaming them for the current situation was a fallacy of the Left. I was attempting to mock your idea — Bush may have been backing Bhutto’s return to power, but he has also been backing the General. The fact that Bush may have wanted Bhutto back in power (assuming that’s true, for the sake of this argument) doesn’t absolve him and the Administration of the responsibility for supporting the General. That backing has, to no small extent, led to the current crisis. Blaming the Administration for the failures of its foreign policy is not Leftie crazy-talk . . . it’s common sense.

You argue that despite the situation, America essentially has no choice but to continue to back the General. Let’s assume that’s true. The fact that he’s the best choice out of all the bad options does not mean that the Administration’s support of him all these years was a good idea, or that the current situation is one in which Bush has alabaster-pure hands. As you noted;

“Musharraf has demonstrated – and not for the first time – that he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word.”

So we’ve backed and supported a man who will lie to us and to his own people in order to stave off something worse — the specter of Islamo-terrorists seizing control of the country. I could argue that it’s possible our support of him has caused the threat of a religious fundamentalist takeover to grow, but let’s ignore that for now. Essentially, you’re arguing “stick with the devil you know.”

If that’s the pragmatic position we take, fine . . . but to scoff at any responsibility for the devilish actions of the devil we back is dishonest.
You note that cutting off ties with him may be morally correct, but practically disasterous, and I agree. However, you seem to use the fact that now we’re stuck with him as a reason why we shouldn’t feel any moral blame for what has happened. If cutting off ties with him is the “morally satisfying” thing to do, that means that continued dealings with him are morally “repugnant” (my word, not yours). As you noted, this isn’t something that came out of the blue. Therefore, our association with him all this time has been morally repugnant. We bear the blame for that. Bush and the Administration bear the blame for that repugnance.

Ignoring the criticism as simply “the Left blaming everything on W” is a convienent dodge that allows us to avoid shouldering our responsibility for backing a despot. Do we need the despot? Arguably yes. Does that mean we’re not responsible for their despotic acts? No — we are responsible, and we deserve at least some measure of the blame. Blame it on “hippie Bush hatred” if you like . . . but they are right this time.

Acceptable clarification of my position?

Does any thinking person really believe that the President of Pakistan
is able to make ANY political or military decision without the
approval, if not the actual direction of the US Government?

The answer is so damned obvious as to be childish: NO, HE CANNOT…
because US dollars protect Pervez Musharraf and keep him in power. The
700 MILLION dollars in economic and military assistance the US gave to
Musharraf this year alone are most definitely not an altruistic gift
that comes without strings. The 800 million dollars scheduled to reach
the Pakistani government in 2008 will guarantee that Musharraf
continues to do exactly what the Bush administration wants. It is not
an exaggeration to suggest that President/General Musharraf would not
last a day in office without US aid and protection. Not a single day…

…Could the events in Pakistan be a testing ground for what Bushco
might be planning in the US to avoid the consequences of fair and
democratic elections here in 2008?
FULL ARTICLE: http://tvnewslies.org/blog/?p=668

UNITED FOR PEACE & JUSTICE | 212-868-5545

This email list is designed for posting news articles or event announcements of interest to UFPJ member groups. It is not a discussion list.

To engage in online discussion of UFPJ matters, join our discussion list here: https://lists.mayfirst.org/mailman/listinfo/ufpj-disc
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ufpj-news/

What the hell are you talking about. Coherence please.

You seem to be saying its Bush’s fault that the deal with Bhutto fell through? Evidence please not just your half assed opinion which gets even muddier in your last sentence.

And how did it grow “more and more likely” that Musharraf would take this step? In fact, it grew less and less likely according to anyone who knows anything about it.

Bill:

The Judiciary is mostly secular, democratic, and moderate. However, the lawyers are a different story. Many of the leading attorneys in the country are Islamist sympathizers. No time to look for a link but go to Asia Times on line and you should be able to find some articles from last summer about the lawyers agitating for re-opening the radical red mosque.

Well then, lets be proud of another bang-up job of diplomacy for the Administration. Yes sir, that’s quite a deal they brokered.

You laugh at the Left for “blaming” GWB for this, even though as this exact scenario has grown more and more likely the Admin hasn’t taken steps to stop it aside from . . . what? Asking Mush to pretty-please not go all dictator? Of course, if the “new democracy” had actually worked, I’m sure you’d all think GWB deserves the credit.
Man, I want a job where all problems can be blamed on someone else, and all successes I get 100% credit for. Must be nice.

Musharraf has some in the US breathing a sigh of relief that the only man standing between nuke-armed al Qaeda in Pakistan is still standing, but they have to know he won’t last much longer. The question for US leadership is, what will happen when al Qaeda finally succeeds in getting their fingers on those red buttons?

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has declared a state of emergency in Pakistan, state television repo…