I got this piece from the LA Times earlier in the week from Our Girl Friday, Joanne Tucker. I think it rings true, in light of the fact that Pakistan's previous prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, and our previous president, Bill Clinton, actually had a plan to take out Al Qaeda.
Is Musharraf blocking the US on purpose? Why would he do that?
I guess I really don't have the answers...only speculation.
I do know this: with each passing day, Pakistan becomes more and more of a danger to homeland security and I really don't think, given the track record, that Bush Co. has much concern.
5 comments:
uh... just for the record :) i don't think nawaz sharif is the right leader for pakistan, he was weak corrupt and had autocratic tendencies, so pervez musharaf actually seemed like a breath of fresh air at the time. i remember hearing a long interview with musharaf on bbc radio in late 99 and thinking wow, this guy sounds like he's gonna clean the country up and be very fair logical and democratic... it sounded intelligent and genuine (musharaf is very well-informed) so the pressures of power must have taken their toll, as well as his strategic decision post 9/11 to be 'with us' rather than 'against us' becoming one of the US Administration's closest War on Terror allies -- more for the influx of billions and US political-military backing, less for the almost non-existent anti-terror measures.
Pakistan (the military and intelligence services) continue to be very close and sympathetic to the Taliban on multiple levels. Musharaf had it in him also as a military general taking over in a coup, to be an autocratic leader.
i agree with mark on so many things but i actually feel saudi arabia (NOT the country, NOT the people, NOT the religion, but its tunnel-visioned ideologues, who i would never call islamic extremists because they interpret everything in a weirdly unislamic way..) is more dangerous than pakistan, because saudi arabia's money funds other crazy ideologues worldwide -- all of whom are basically completely corupt and undemocratic.
Just for the record 2, i happen to think (the tiny minority but hugely influential) US ideological extremists (secular and political) are possibly THE most dangerous type on earth (the A-team of heightened alert) and greatest threat to homeland security, not to mention global, in perpetuating policies that actively search out or create new enemies and fault lines of confrontation ('creative chaos') in parts of the world that have already been ravaged by our foreign policies and other extremists, when the key to security at home & beyond is dialogue, powerful pro-active diplomacy and genuine democracy protection or promotion. None of which have been pursued on the international scene or encouraged, beyond hypocritical rhetoric and utterly opposing actions.
I completely agree with your last paragraph, jt. It is so insane that some people in this country think that they are actually protecting people.
Also, I wasn't trying to say that Sharif was any good...just that he had a plan and Musharraf does not.
You guys are barking up the right tree. How is it the general public can recognize the threat in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan while the current administration is planning to bomb Iran? After 6 years I'm actually starting to worry; We need a change in foreign policy.
I'm afraid that it is only going to change when the administration changes.
Remember when Bush said he looked into Putin's eyes and saw a trustworthy man?
Remember how Bush wanted Ahmed Chalabi to be the next prime minister of Iraq?
Remember how Bush claimed Musharraf was our best ally in the war on terror?
Well, Putin is about to appoint himself president for life by hook or by crook. Chalabi was found to be an Iranian spy. And Musharraf just declared martial law.
Like everything else in this administration, he was either lying or he's the worst judge of character ever to sit in the oval office.
Post a Comment