BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.

Subject: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Nov 07 - 11:55 PM

Why has the U.S. supported Musharaff for so long? Didn't they know that when push came to shove, he would declare military rule?

Musharaff not only formally apologized for selling the nuclear secrets (probably the worst kept secret in the non-proliferation community) to Libya, Iran, and North Korea but he would not let the Atomic Energy Commission come in and inspect their Plants.
He also confirmed that the Government of Pakistan would continue to develop and expand their nuclear arsenal.
                     -(paraphrased from posts by another Mudcatter).

All the time the U.S. was pre-occupied with Saddam and Iran, Musharaff continued to consolidate his power in the Muslim world and especially with those on the Afghan border. Now the U.S. is trying to restore democracy by bringing back Benazir Bhutto who has been in exhile in Dubai.

What is happening? Is Benazir Bhutto truly into democracy or is she just a Capitalistic, pretty girl?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,TIA
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:01 AM

A military dictator with weapons of mass destruction in a country that harbours al-Qaida followers. Why are the POTUS and Voldemort not chanting invasion of Pakistan?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:24 AM

"Why are the POTUS and Voldemort not chanting invasion of Pakistan?"

Because Pakistan has real big WMDs whereas Iran and Iraq do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: GUEST,Rog Peek
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:15 AM

At least with their WMD Pakistan are safe from American military aggression, as are North Korea. If I was leader of Iran, and didn't have a similar WMD, you can be sure I would be working very hard to make the Americam administration think I had one.

When will America realise that the rest of the world does not trust them to be the only possessor of such a weapon.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stu
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

"Is Benazir Bhutto truly into democracy or is she just a Capitalistic, pretty girl?"

Show me a politician that isn't either some sort of right-wing religious bigot, gun-toting military onanist or capitalist popinjay - although they're frequently all three in the developed world these days.

The US supports Musharaff because it suits them, not because their ethical foreign policy wants to help this far-sighted reformer. Like Saddam (the US's friend when killing Iranians), the Taliban (the US's friends when killing Russki's) and The House of Saud (the US's friends whoever they kill cos they've got the oil and buy lots of guns) these 'strategic alliances' are tools to protect the US's own self interests in the region regardless of the motivations or the actions of the rulers involved.

This disregard for any type of moral foreign policy (as demonstrated by the US and UK as well as others) is one of the reason's the world's as fucked up as it is, and also a good reason that should any of us be lucky enough to outlive the likes of Bush and Blair, it will be only right we go and turn their graves into the biggest urinals in the workd.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Wolfgang
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:58 AM

I wonder if the USA will learn, eventually, from past errors. Too often they support the wrong men for too long.

Look at Vietnam now: A growing capitalist market economy, a trusted partner for trade, young Vietnamese longing to learn English and to come to the USA for to learn...

If the USA would not have supported Diem for too long such a welcome development might have come at least ten years earlier, not to speak of a much smoother transition to the present state.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 07:25 AM

not about Gordon Brown then......

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 08:09 AM

Rog

"the only possessor of such a weapon" EXCEPT for France, England, China, Russia, North Korea, India, Israel and Pakistan... and anyone else with a few million dollars and the ability to hide their program from the UN "inspectors"

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:45 AM

It's pretty hard to assess Benazir Bhutto from here, Dianavan. She's the daughter of Ali Bhutto, a populist leader, democratically elected, who was overthrown by the military. She may or may not have genuinely democratic instincts, but one thing for sure...she does not like the army generals very much! ;-) Once in power, who knows? I suspect that the USA is keeping her in their hand as a possibly useful playing card which they might play to their benefit at some point...rather like Violeta Chamorro was for them down in Nicaragua.

Here is Violeta Chamorro's quite interesting story:

Violeta Chamorro

She was a strong ally of the Sandinista revolution against the dictator Anastasio Somoza. She gradually fell out with the Sandinistas during the next 10 years of their rule in Nicaragua, and ended up running against them in national elections in 1990, with much covert assistance from the USA, and defeated Daniel Ortega. She served one term as president, seems to have done rather well at it, then left politics. Ortega ran for president on the Sandinista ticket unsuccessfully in 1996 and 2001. He then, however, won the national election for the Sandinistas in 2006 and is the current president of Nicaragua.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 09:49 AM

I don't get the impression, by the way, that Musharraf is turning on the USA. I get the impression he's turning on his own people in an effort to perpetuate his position of power in Pakistan. He will not be one bit happy about the arrival of Benazir Bhutto, because her family and Pakistan's military are not good friends.

Whether that ends up making him next on the USA's list of official "enemies" remains to be seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:01 AM

It won't happen. The US needs a proxy to balance power in that region and who else is there?

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:07 AM

The enemy of our enemy isn't necessarily our friend.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:14 AM

BB-
The 'UN "inspectors"' you so summarily dismiss were, as I recall, the ones who got it right in Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:16 AM

I agree that he is not turning on the US, and I smell paranoia in the title of this thread. Musharaf is actually pro US as far as I can see, and it hasn't done him any good. He's not unique in that respect, as being pro American has led to the downfall of other leaders of men, and countries.
He is a buffer between Afghanistan and other parts of the world, and the US has backed him, in it's need to keep Afghanistan isolated. The fact that he cannot control the activities in his own country in that province which borders Afghanistan is unfortunate for both him AND the US.
I did mention the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons before, and that they gave away the secrets of how to make them to other countries. That is a fact and it is to be regretted that he did not face more sanctions from other countries for doing so. The reason why Pakistan wanted the bomb in the first place was because their bitter enemy India has nuclear weapons. I don't notice too much condemnation of that country, perhaps they don't have enough Moslems or Communists, and no oil wells!
Giok

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:18 AM

Where they said the did not find anything, but did not have access to what they wanted to see, the people they wanted to talk to, and they DID keep finding prohibited items ( rocket engines, research material ) right up to the point they left- Well after the deadline set by the UN resolution for the complete report that the INSPECTORS said was not adaquate.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:19 AM

And the UN had inspectors in North Korea, too... So I guess they don't really have nuclear weapons...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:24 AM

Giok,

" The reason why Pakistan wanted the bomb in the first place was because their bitter enemy India has nuclear weapons."


Pakistan is balanced by India, the US is balanced by Russia and China ( lopsidedly), and England is balanced by France!

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:25 AM

Watch any of the Scott Ritter videos on Youtube for the U.N. inspectors' viewpoint on the matter, BB. He doesn't agree with your view on it, and he was there.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:31 AM

Regarding Musharraf, he's been incapable of managing the divided situation in his country and the tensions that are arising there. As such, his position may soon become untenable. If so, the USA will look around for someone else to work with them there, probably Benazir Bhutto, and Musharraf will be out of luck. He may become desperate...actually I think he already has become rather desperate...and resort to extreme measures. He will then be roundly condemned and demonized in the western press (and not without some justification!), but it will simply be Realpolitik playing itself out as usual...and masquerading as concern over various moral and ethical principles.

Pakistan is in an unfortunate position these days, and has been for quite some time.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:31 AM

Sorry, I just read the written reports as presented by the UN to the world. THEY indicate that the inspectors could NOT account for various materials known to have been obtained by Saddam.

I wonder what the Syrians used to build that reactor nobody is talking about that the Israelis bombed, and they did not yell about???


Oh, I guess it is not politically correct to speculate on what happened between the "deadline" in November and the actual invasion in what, March? Or where all those trucks seen visiting military storage sites in Iraq ended up ( thought I did point out the article about the UN finding prohibited (by UN Res.) rocket engines from Iraq in European "scrap" yards)

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:38 AM

That's the truth of it, Peace. The US has no lessons to learn here. It always has and always will favour right-wing totalitarians against democracy. Pinochet, Mobutu, Tudjman, Izetbegovic, Musharraf, successive Saudi royals, Saddam himself, some of these people were/are truly disgusting, but however bereft they may be of moral scruple they all attracted American patronage.

The Vatican excepted, no state has greater contempt for other peoples' democracies. Or for other peoples, period.

Chomsky's Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy is an interesting read.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: pdq
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 11:02 AM

Peter K (Fionn):

Glad to see you have a favorite author to feed your rabid hatred for America. I'm quit sure you are also regular reader of John Pilger.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 11:19 AM

No, BB, I'll tell you what is not politically correct. It is not "politically correct" in the USA to point out that the USA's attack on Iraq in 2003 was a completely illegal act of unprovoked aggression, without the support of the U.N., a war of convenience planned by the USA, launched upon completely false premises, and that the USA fully intended to attack Iraq all along whether or not the Iraqis had any WMDs, and that the inspections didn't matter, because WMDs were never the real issue. The issue was that the USA wanted to cause regime change in Iraq and occupy that country, and establish military bases there, and control the oil there through a client government that the USA would help set up there...and furthermore to use Iraq as a future strategic base for further military operations in the region, when and if those military operations went forward...as may yet happen.

That's what is politically incorrect to say...in Washington. The supposed WMDs in Iraq did not matter in the least to the Bush administration, because Iraq, since the end of the Gulf War in '91, was rendered quite incapable of presenting any real threat to either the USA or Israel...and, in fact, had NEVER been capable of presenting a real threat to the USA at any time. The talk about WMDs was mere concocted propaganda intended to justify unprovoked aggression by the USA.

Although it's not politically correct to say those things in Washington, however, Dennis Kucinich has had the guts to say all that, so not all American politicians are complicit in supporting that aggression in 2003...just most of them.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:07 PM

"France balances England??? Are you guys still at it??? "


Sarcasm....

---

Bruce's answer is to a deleted anonymous message.
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 01:26 PM

LH, you say that the issue was that the USA wanted to cause regime change in Iraq and occupy that country, and establish military bases there, and control the oil there through a client government that the USA would help set up there...and furthermore to use Iraq as a future strategic base for further military operations in the region. Do you really think that Bush and his merry men (and I am not at all a believer in the Bush-as-a-Cheney-puppet theory) managed to think that all through? IMHO, this entire debacle is because Bush Jr. thought that Bush Sr. was dissed by Saddam.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 02:30 PM

Pakistan a dictatorship??? Its a democracy. Dee Mock Rah See!
Haven't you been listening to Dumbya and the BuShites??? They're pretty plain about it.

... to feed your rabid hatred for America.
More like a rabid love of factual information.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: catspaw49
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:24 PM

Yet again, just another Dictator


Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 03:51 PM

Well, Art, if I thought George Bush was really the guy in charge of US foreign policy plans, I might see it that way... ;-) I don't think so. I think he's a puppet of some much more organized people with plans that were a long time in the making. You will never get to vote either for or against most of those people.

Henry Kissinger is one of the key insiders I am referring to, but that's just scratching the surface. Cheney is another. Richard Perle is another...and that's still just scratching the surface.

Bush may be under the impression he's in charge. I wouldn't be surprised if he was under that impression, and encouraged in it by his handlers.

Here's an article about Richard Perle's career:

Richard Perle

All these people essentially serve corporate policy on the grand level. Corporate policy is very much concerned with maintaining control of oil and other strategic resources and maintaining a high level of military spending, which requires either continual war or the continual threat of war.

They have what they want right now...a war without any forseeable end, because its stated objectives are impossible to achieve, and its so-called "enemy" can be found absolutely anywhere. That's perfect.

It's very interesting to read what Richard Perle's expectations were in regards to the war in Iraq. He was quite optimistic.

Now, George Bush has these people talking in his ear and encouraging him to get in deeper, and he believes them. That's all that is required. When Bush is gone, they will work with whoever takes his place, in my opinion, and it will probably be Hillary Clinton. She wouldn't be as easy to fool, but I believe she would be quite inclined to work with them in a general sense...while striking a somewhat different superficial style, mind you, in both domestic and foreign affairs.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peace
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:26 PM

"Hillary Clinton"

She be but a Republican dressed in drag.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 04:39 PM

But she gets away with walking around dressed like that, which proves her PR skills are excellent.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 05:57 PM

Yes, Hillary is a highly intelligent woman with a very efficient organization around her, seems to me.


Here's a rather illuminating article about Musharraf in today's Toronto Star:

Musharraf plays his hand craftily....

It's written by Haroon Siddiqui, the Star's Middle East and Central Asian correspondent, and he knows the region well.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Rog Peek
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:33 PM

Beardedbruce.
I did not say they were the only possessor. They would like to be, pesumably to facilitate their role as the world's police force. What I said was that they cannot seem to understand that, were they the only possessor, the rest of the world would not trust them.

Rog

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 06:53 PM

You can't depend on anybody in a country where so many people are addicted to superstition.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Nov 07 - 10:33 PM

And American Idol...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Slag
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:26 AM

Gee Joe, sorry I forgot that my cookie was off. I didn't mean to post as "Guest" but it is at least nice to know that you are consistant about censorship. Known or unknown you silence the voice of the minority opinion on this sight. I sure thought better of you guys at one time. Keep up the good work. Good reply BB.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Slag
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 02:27 AM

"site" that is...

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: goatfell
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 04:27 AM

I thought America like Britain has a dictator anyway, because like Brown the leader of our country well Britian anyway Bush just does what he wants to do anyway, kill as many American soldiers as he can by sending them over to Iraq the same way that Brown does over here

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 05:48 AM

"I did not say they were the only possessor. "

OK

"They would like to be, pesumably to facilitate their role as the world's police force."

Oh yes, I have noticed how they have taken the nukes from China, Russia, et al...- Your comment as to motives has no backing in fact.

" What I said was that they cannot seem to understand that, were they the only possessor, the rest of the world would not trust them."

A true staement: The world would not trust ANY country that was the only possessor of nuclear weapons. Thus my comments about balance of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 06:11 AM

Washington Post:

In Pakistan, Echoes of Iran

By David Ignatius
Wednesday, November 7, 2007; Page A21

JERUSALEM -- As we struggle to make sense of the current political crisis in Pakistan, it's useful to think back nearly 30 years to the wave of protests that toppled the shah of Iran and culminated in the Islamic Republic -- a revolutionary earthquake whose tremors are still shaking the Middle East.

The shah was America's friend, just like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. He was our staunch ally against the bogeyman of that time, the Soviet Union, just as Musharraf has been America's partner in fighting al-Qaeda. The shah ignored America's admonitions to clean up his undemocratic regime, just as Musharraf has. And as the shah's troubles deepened, the United States hoped that moderate opposition leaders would keep the country safe from Muslim zealots, just as we are now hoping in Pakistan.

And yet the Iranian explosion came -- a firestorm of rage that immolated any attempt at moderation or compromise. A similar process of upheaval has begun in Pakistan -- with one terrifying difference: Pakistan has nuclear weapons.

The Iran analogy was made forcefully two weeks ago by Gary Sick, a Columbia professor who helped oversee Iran policy for the Carter administration during the time of the revolution. "There was no Plan B," Sick wrote in an online posting. He sees the same dynamic at work in Pakistan. "We have bet the farm on one man -- in this case Pervez Musharraf -- and we have no fall-back position, no alternative strategy in the event that does not work."

So ask yourself: What Iran policy would have made sense, in hindsight, given the ruinous consequences of the Iranian revolution? Should the United States have encouraged the shah to crack down harder against protesters and ride out the storm, as some hard-liners urged at the time? Or should it have moved more quickly to encourage a change of regime, after it became obvious the shah couldn't or wouldn't reform?

Even now, almost 30 years later, it's hard to know what we should have done. And perhaps that's the point.

Many Americans instinctively feel that the United States should have pushed sooner for reform -- and helped engineer a transition to a democratic Iran. We should have gotten ahead of the storm, the argument goes, before the Iranian movement for change was captured by followers of Ayatollah Khomeini who, it turned out, wanted to destroy the modern, secular state that was struggling to be born during the shah's tumultuous rule.

Advocates of benign intervention would take a similar line now in Pakistan. Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule last weekend was a shah-like act of desperation. A change of regime is coming in Pakistan, the argument goes, and we should work with responsible opposition leaders such as former prime minister Benazir Bhutto to encourage a political transition. Unless Musharraf agrees to go ahead with parliamentary elections planned for January, America should squeeze him by reducing its aid package of $150 million a month.

Reformist regime-change advocates would argue, further, that we're in better shape in Pakistan than we were in Iran. The Bush administration began pressuring Musharraf months ago to widen his political base by allowing Bhutto to return home. And many of the protesters in the streets of Lahore, Islamabad and Karachi this week aren't reactionary Islamists but middle-class lawyers. Their leader isn't the fanatical Osama bin Laden but the deposed chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry.

Yet even as we watch the birth pains of a better Pakistan, we know that al-Qaeda operatives are plotting to take advantage of the chaos. And we recognize, too, that if Musharraf is toppled, there is a new threat from those Pakistani nukes -- and even more, from the fissile material that would allow others to build nuclear weapons or dirty bombs.

The abiding truth, about Iran then and Pakistan now, is that outsiders don't understand the forces at work in these societies well enough to try to manipulate events. The disaster of Iran happened partly because of American meddling -- in installing the shah in the first place and then enabling his autocratic rule. Pakistan, too, has suffered over the years from too much U.S. intervention.

Pakistanis are in the streets this week protesting Musharraf's gross assault on democracy. I hope they succeed in creating a Pakistan that is more free and democratic. I pray that the reformers can work with the Pakistani military to suppress al-Qaeda and Taliban movements that would destroy any semblance of democracy in that country.

But changing Pakistan is a job for Pakistanis, and history suggests that the more we meddle, the more likely we are to get things wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Jack Campin
Date: 07 Nov 07 - 08:46 PM

The US got about half what it wanted in Iran. With the Shah out of the pictuire, the alternative to Khomeini would have been some sort of coalition drawing on the Mojahedin, the Feda'i and the Communist Party. Probably the PMOI would have dominated it, and it would have led to something like a Cuba in the Middle East ten times the size of the original. Khomeini was far more closely aligned to US interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: beardedbruce
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:01 AM

Washington Post:

Marcos . . . Pinochet . . . Musharraf?

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, November 9, 2007; Page A21

Islamist barbarians are at the gates. The president declares de facto martial law. The country's democratic forces of the center and left, led by well-dressed lawyers and a former prime minister, take to the streets.

What is America to do about Pakistan? Opposition leader Benazir Bhutto knows just how to appeal to America. In a New York Times op-ed, she quoted President Bush back to himself: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Who's Blogging» Links to this article
Bhutto (Harvard '73) is a good student of American politics. She caught Bush's democratic messianism at its apogee, the same inaugural address in which he set "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Universal democratization is lovely, but it cannot be a description of day-to-day diplomacy. The blanket promise to always oppose dictatorship is inherently impossible to keep. It always requires considerations of local conditions and strategic necessity.

Lebanon, for example, has a long tradition of democratic norms going back to independence in 1943. America's current policy (backed strongly by France) of vigorous support for an independent Lebanese democracy is not utopian. Sudden democratization of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, however, is utopian -- an invitation to the kind of Islamist takeover that happened in Gaza and nearly occurred in Algeria.

Pakistan is not the first time we've faced hard choices about democratization. At the height of the Cold War, particularly in the immediate post-Vietnam era of American weakness, we supported dictators Augusto Pinochet in Chile and Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. The logic was simple: The available and likely alternative -- i.e., communists -- would be worse.

Critics of America considered this proof of our hypocrisy about defending freedom. Vindication of these deals with the devil had to wait until the 1980s, by which time two conditions had changed.



First, external conditions: The exigencies of the existential struggle of the Cold War were receding as the Soviet empire was rapidly weakening. Second, internal changes in Chile and the Philippines produced genuinely democratic opposition movements with broad popular support and legitimacy.

With a viable democratic alternative at hand, the Reagan administration turned about and decisively helped push the two dictators out of power. Under the assistant secretary of state for East Asia, Paul Wolfowitz, we supported Corazon Aquino's "people power" revolution in the Philippines and arranged a Hawaii exile for Marcos. Under the assistant secretary of state for Latin America, Elliott Abrams, we pushed Pinochet into a referendum that he lost, ushering in the transition to today's flourishing Chilean democracy.

The only thing we know for sure about Pakistan is that there will be no such happy ending. President Pervez Musharraf was a good bet in 2001 when, under extreme pressure from the Bush administration, he flipped and joined our war against the Taliban and al-Qaeda. But like Marcos and Pinochet, he has now become near-terminally unpopular, illegitimate and destructive to his own country. Is it time to revisit the 1980s and help push him over the edge?

That depends on whether we think Benazir Bhutto is Corazon Aquino and whether Bhutto and her allies can successfully take power, which means keeping both the army and the country intact. Heightening the risk of dumping Musharraf is that external conditions today are not like the relatively benign conditions of the 1980s. The Taliban and its allies are gaining in strength and waiting to pick up the pieces from the civil war developing between the two most westernized, most modernizing elements of Pakistani society -- the army, one of the few functioning institutions of the state, and the elite of civil society, including lawyers, jurists, journalists and students.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice attempted to engineer a marriage of these two factions by trying to orchestrate Bhutto's return to Pakistan under a power-sharing agreement that Musharraf has just blown to pieces.

Our influence should not be overestimated. But we need to make clear our choices. The best among the awful ones Musharraf has presented to us is to try to broker a truce between the two forces before the blood starts to flow, keep Musharraf to his promise of holding early parliamentary elections -- which Bhutto will win -- and then guarantee him a dignified and gradual exit that ensures his protection while Bhutto and her allies claim legitimate authority and try to reach an accommodation with Musharraf's successor as military chief.

It's a long downfield pass. But Musharraf never consulted us on the choice of plays.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 06:50 AM

"IMHO, this entire debacle is because Bush Jr. thought that Bush Sr. was dissed by Saddam." - Artbrooks

Nothing whatsoever to do with this:

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/17/transcripts/clinton.iraq/

Coupled with the fact that the same people evaluated the situation in 2001 as did in 1998, reached the same conclusion and briefed the President accordingly.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 07:29 AM

And Clinton invaded Iraq when, exactly? There is a difference between a measured response to a threat and jumping into a cauldron while holding your hands over your eyes. It was Douglas MacArthur, I think, who said "never get into a land war in Asia," having learned it the hard way.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 08:26 AM

What Clinton did in December 1998, presumably on advice, as opposed to a whim, was attack a sovereign state without recourse to either the United Nations, or more importantly from a US perspective, without recourse to Congress.

What George W Bush did in 2002 was take onboard what his security advisors had told him was "The greatest threat facing the United States of America" and he went to both the United Nations AND to Congress. Both houses backed him and the approach proposed by those advising him. The representatives of the United States of America made it perfectly plain to both the UN Security Council and to Iraq, that if they did not act America would resolve the issue.

But one thing is for certain Artbrooks what happened had absolutely nothing to do with Bush Sr. being dissed by Saddam. That is utter crap and well you know it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: artbrooks
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 08:43 AM

As I said, IMHO. You are certainly entitled to yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 03:09 PM

"But one thing is for certain Artbrooks what happened had absolutely nothing to do with Bush Sr. being dissed by Saddam. That is utter crap and well you know it."

Not so fast. Remember that Bush dissed his father for saying that he didn't have the political capital that he needed. He also has a history of being competitive with his father claiming allegiance to a "higher father". He also is ambivalent about his relationship to his father. On one hand, he wants to outdo him and on the other hand he can rationalize that he is really defending his father. I agree with you that the last rationale is utter crap but it's the essence of crap Bush thinks about the whole situation. There is also the pressure from the Bush family to shore up their family image. Bush Sr. can't be dissed entirely so he must be defended. A peculiar dilemma for Bush, perhaps, but not to be discounted. What we are dealing with here is a kind of sociopathy that comes from family training.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 09 Nov 07 - 05:55 PM

Thanks for the link Teribus. an interesting glance back to the days when a US president talked about the UN, and its agencies like UNSCOM, with a measure of respect.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 05:39 AM

True Fionn, maybe back in those halcyon days the expectation was that the UN was actually going to do something. However, it marked the start of the slippery slope to the ultimate realisation and clear demonstration that the UN truly was a totally ineffectual talking shop fully intent on doing nothing for as long as it could get away with it.

It did not stop Clinton, ten months later advising the UNSCOM Inspection Teams to leave Iraq because he was going to unilaterally bomb it in an exercise known as "Desert Fox". At no time did he seek UN approval for this, at no time did he seek approval of either House of Representatives or the Senate, such was the Clinton Administration's measure of respect for those bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 09:24 AM

The U.N. doesn't do much mainly because it has become nothing more than a tattered figleaf that a few major powers (those on the Security Council) periodically use to cover their naked ambitions.

It pretends to be a non-aligned gathering place where all the nations of the world receive equal treatment. It is nothing of the sort. They can talk, yes, in the General Assembly, but that's it. They can only talk and pass some resolution that has no teeth and no way to enforce itself. They have no real power. The power rests in the Security Council. The U.N. is set up so that a select group of major powers can, as they have in the past, continue to run the world the way a group of Mafia Dons runs the crime in a large city.

The Godfather of that setup has always been the USA. Occasionally the Godfather is embarrassed, because he proposes something so totally outrageous to the general community that the rest of the Dons in the Council (or at least a majority of them) balk, and they refuse to rubberstamp or approve it...such as the 2003 attack on Iraq.

In that case the Godfather criticizes the U.N. for its "weakness" and incapacity, regards it with utter contempt, and goes ahead and does what he wants to anyway, regardless.

That's a case of the Godfather despising his own creation because it has not proven 100% controllable at all times.

The whole thing is laughable, really. The U.N. should be moved to a new home in some non-aligned nation such as Sweden or Switzerland, so it would not be quite so beholden to the USA. It would have a bit more credibility if such a change of location were made...though probably only a wee bit more.

Hitler would have wanted such an organization to be based somewhere in Germany had he thought of founding one...as he thought that Germany was the greatest nation in the world. Similarly, the Americans always assumed that it HAD to be located in the USA. Same basic psychology in either case, and the same basic contempt for anyone with a different viewpoint on the matter. It's the Superman attitude..."I am the BEST, I am the CENTER of EVERYTHING...the world is MINE to do with as I please, because I am THE LEADER."

The actual ground the U.N. sits on, of course, is regarded as international ground...but it's still in the USA and everyone knows it.

Subject: RE: BS: Another dictator to turn on the U.S.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Nov 07 - 12:35 PM

Teribus--

"unilaterally bomb" Iraq. Now can you tell us if you know the difference between bombing Iraq and invading it with the obvious goal of regime change? If so, go to the head of the class. But somehow, I think you'll be staying at the back of the classroom.