That might have been true 5 years ago, but it's become increasingly apparent that never nervous pervaez has reached the point where he is probably doing more harm than good for american interests in Pakistan, a view that a lot of folks in the US foreign policy establishment seem to share, or so I have read.
Afghanistan wouldn't have been in the shape it was in if we hadn't armed it in the first place. America's like the wealthy businessman who walks around in the wrong part of town at night. The he gets mugged and wants to come back with the police and clean up the place. Then he walks down the next street over and it happens again. http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst022607.htm [rquoter]Hypocrisy in the Middle East February 26, 2007 Hundreds of thousands of American troops already occupy Afghanistan and Iraq, a number that is rising as the military surge moves forward. The justification, given endlessly since September 11th, is that both support terrorism and thus pose a risk to the United States. Yet when we step back and examine the region as a whole, it’s obvious that these two impoverished countries, neither of which has any real military, pose very little threat to American national security when compared to other Middle Eastern nations. The decision to attack them, while treating some of region’s worst regimes as allies, shows the deadly hypocrisy of our foreign policy in the Middle East. Consider Saudi Arabia, the native home of most of the September 11th hijackers. The Saudis, unlike the Iraqis, have proven connections to al Qaeda. Saudi charities have funneled money to Islamic terrorist groups. Yet the administration insists on calling Saudi Arabia a “good partner in the war on terror.” Why? Because the U.S. has a longstanding relationship with the Saudi royal family, and a long history of commercial interests relating to Saudi oil. So successive administrations continue to treat the Saudis as something they are not: a reliable and honest friend in the Middle East. The same is true of Pakistan, where General Musharaf seized power by force in a 1999 coup. The Clinton administration quickly accepted his new leadership as legitimate, to the dismay of India and many Muslim Pakistanis. Since 9/11, we have showered Pakistan with millions in foreign aid, ostensibly in exchange for Musharaf’s allegiance against al Qaeda. Yet has our new ally rewarded our support? Hardly. The Pakistanis almost certainly have harbored bin Laden in their remote mountains, and show little interest in pursuing him or allowing anyone else to pursue him. Pakistan has signed peace agreements with Taliban leaders, and by some accounts bin Laden is a folk hero to many Pakistanis. Furthermore, more members of al Qaeda probably live within Pakistan than any other country today. North Korea developed its nuclear capability with technology sold to them by the Pakistanis. Yet somehow we remain friends with Pakistan, while Saddam Hussein, who had no connection to bin Laden and no friends in the Islamic fundamentalist world, was made a scapegoat. The tired assertion that America "supports democracy" in the Middle East is increasingly transparent. It was false 50 years ago, when we supported and funded the hated Shah of Iran to prevent nationalization of Iranian oil, and it’s false today when we back an unelected military dictator in Pakistan- just to name two examples. If honest democratic elections were held throughout the Middle East tomorrow, many countries would elect religious fundamentalist leaders hostile to the United States. Cliché or not, the Arab Street really doesn’t like America, so we should stop the charade about democracy and start pursuing a coherent foreign policy that serves America’s long-term interests. A coherent foreign policy is based on the understanding that America is best served by not interfering in the deadly conflicts that define the Middle East. Yes, we need Middle Eastern oil, but we can reduce our need by exploring domestic sources. We should rid ourselves of the notion that we are at the mercy of the oil-producing countries- as the world’s largest oil consumer, their wealth depends on our business. We should stop the endless game of playing faction against faction, and recognize that buying allies doesn’t work. We should curtail the heavy militarization of the area by ending our disastrous foreign aid payments. We should stop propping up dictators and putting band-aids on festering problems. We should understand that our political and military involvement in the region creates far more problems that it solves. All Americans will benefit, both in terms of their safety and their pocketbooks, if we pursue a coherent, neutral foreign policy of non-interventionism, free trade, and self-determination in the Middle East.[/rquoter] Complete non-intervention is the best possible solution. Bring our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan as soon as safely possible. Tell Germany, Japan, Taiwan and whoever else we are protecting that they have a timeline to build up their defense and bring those troops home, too. Protect the United States and its territories as best as is possible. Let American businesses know that we aren't going to clear out hostile regions or rescue them from those regions. They should consider those risks when doing business there.
Our President's campaign slogan when he was elected was "We are not the world's police force". God only knows what happened.
If pervez allows for the US to come in he might as well kiss his political career over. This would be just as bad as iraq if the us sent troops in there. The general stormed some mosque and there were a lot of pissed of people there.
I agree, that we have to use reason. But I have some faith that sharing the actionable intelligence that we can get those responsible for attacking our nation on 9/11 with allies and an administration that is competent at diplomacy will enable the U.S. to garner support to undertake such an action. If some aren't on board, then so be it. I don't really thing we will be that worse off with Pervez Musharraf overthrown by folks in Pakistan. He hasn't been the greatest ally, and is currently allowing the folks who planned 9/11 to operate terrorist training camps in his nation. I'm not convinced that would be the result, but even in the worst case scenario it did, we still come out ahead in the equation if we get Al-Qaeda's leaders.
I don't think the U.S. would be that adversely affected if Pervez did lose his position as dictator of Pakistan.
obama has already shifted the debate on the war on terror where it should be. notice that no one argues we need to stay in iraq.
Obama is done. This news is spreading across the world. It's the lead story on BBC.co and Pakistan is telling him to 'be responsible' and not be trying to 'score political points' at home with this type of reckless rhetoric. BBC is calling him naive. BYE BYE BARRY
Best possible solution for who? The only people this seems to benefit are dictators and the like. We basically have had non-intervention strategies in places like Zimbabwe, the Sudan, Rwanda, etc. It certainly doesn't benefit the US to be 100% non-interventionist. Our intervention in Germany and Japan, for example, has made hundreds of billions of dollars for the US economy. That means higher quality of living, increased safety, etc. It provided stability to two regions of the world that had been lacking in it for their entire existence. Without it, who knows how many people might have died in an inevitable WW3, filled with nuclear weapons? There are certainly times when intervention is not in our best interests, and there are other times when intervention doesn't work quite as intended, but it's not always as clear-cut as you suggest. Certainly, if we hadn't armed Afghanistan, we wouldn't be facing the current problems. But then, the USSR might not have collapsed as quickly and we might have continued our arms war another decade costing billions of dollars and who knows what else there. It's impossible to say because everything affects everything else, as much as we'd like to try to control it all.
Terrorism feeds on terror, and warmongers feed terrorism with terror. You don't fight crimes with war, stupid.
nah, we have to give him some credit. it's not easy being the neighbor of iran , afgahanistan, kashimir, india ... a lots of pressure. if he loses power, i would bet my money that pakistan will be like iraq now, maybe worse. that will make millions and millions people suffer. no more war, no more chaos. there are too many things going on right now.
I think Germany and japan almost took over the world. Pakistan can not even control its own people. We needed to intervene there because given enough time they might have come back with an army. The only thing Pakistan can do is train a few terrorist who can kill a few thousand people. Terrorism is overblown. More people die from driving every day then then worrying about terrorism.
Obama is done. Stick a fork in him. Suggesting we invade Pakistan when we have no stomach for war at the moment, particular the democrats, now effectively gives the nomination to Hillary. Not only that, he's unlikely to be considered for the ticket now as a VP. He really messed up.
Uhhh ... he didn't suggest invading Pakistan. No one is done in freaking August. The vast majority of the country hasn't even starting paying attention yet. The first poll that will matter will be in October or November at the very earliest.
