it seems to me that calling for an objective panel on Bhutto's murder would at least signal that the U.S. means what it says about democracy and human rights.
Musharraf has been an imperfect, to understate it, ally to us, just as Bhutto was an imperfect beacon for bringing democracy back to Pakistan. It seems to me that continuing support for Musharraf is simply kicking the can down the road. Islamist influence in Pakistan has been growing, not shrinking, under his rule.
All that aside, though, it doesn't seem obvious to me that an independent panel showing the extent of damage caused by jihadist militants to Pakistan's government, economy, and people would result in the militants acquiring more power.
Zach
First I don't see how an independent panel could work. How would it get access to a byzantine intelligence and military structure that seems to be working at cross purposes? Second even if it did manage to compile results showing that al-Qaeda and jihadists were behind the attack, aided and abetted by members of the Pakistani military and intelligence. Would the results be respected - or viewed as merely mouthpieces for the West, the US in particular?
Finally, I don't see how the militants in Pakistan are NOT going to take power. I pretty much agree that Washington needs to wipe its hands of Musharraf since his regime has a hand in our policy failure. However the country isn't exactly brimming with anti-terror pro-western leaders at the moment.
The best outcome I can see at this point is an American guarantee that we will not get involved in PK's internal affairs as long as the air routes remain open to Afghanistan. This will most likely result in the jihadists "pulling a Hamas" and being elected to power.
Given the absolute failure they have at governing (the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas in Gaza) I'm pretty confident that in the long run the Pakistanis would realize that jihadis are great at causing chaos, but are terrible at bringing order.
But what does a jihadist run Pakistan due to the GWOT in Afghanistan? What does it mean to India?
Usually I don't buy the "great man" theory of History; however in the case of Pakistan, more died yesterday than an courageous and intelligent woman.
Sadly, too often in the Arab/Muslim the choice is between the Crazy and the Crazier.
Bhutto, Sadat -- those were the great ones, who sadly got shot (by the Crazy and Crazier).
The Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, Musharaff -- those are the Crazy with whom we make Devil-like deals, because we think the Crazier will be much worse. Sometimes these arrangements are sustainable for years (Saudis), sometimes not (Shah, Saddam)
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ayatollahs of Iran -- those are the Crazier.
So, given this context, Musharaff may simply be the best of a bad lot.
All I know is that folks who call for the removal of Musharrif would do well to remember what happened the last time we were involved in a similar brouha. Anyone else care to revist the Shah and what happened in Iran after we forced him to leave power?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Now is not the time to be calling for him to step down. There is also no way on earth that any international panel would ever gain access to the intel it would need to incestigate this situation. The United Nations is the most compromised, corrupt and least practical organ to engage in any sort of investigation. Please, no one tell me they would seriously consider calling on the UN for help?
What Pakistan needs, imho, is a full-scale pogram against extremists of any stripe. Find them, kill them, imprison their families and anyone who supports them. Make the thought of any sort of terrorist act anywhere in Pakistan be so frightening that generations will go by before anyone dares to consider such an act again.
The best way to bring about the least desired outcome is to believe that talking with the opposition will be of any value. Find them, kill them, put their heads on pikes for all the world to see. Destroy their homes and plow salt into their fields so nothing will ever grow there again.
Tim has the correct in this one - if anything, we should support Musharraf all the more. He may be a bastard, yes, but he's our bastard currently.
Pakistan seems to have been a three-sided Mexican standoff and one side just got offed. In true standoff fashion, the remaining two sides are going to go at it with the 3rd flailing around. This is no time to make the worst of the 3 stronger.
I'm with Tim on this one. But I'm sure there's folks around here who think diplomacy will solve the problem, or that killing our enemies is wrong, etc etc.
Musharraf isn't perfect. Neither was Stalin during WWII. And I don't mean to imply that the 2 should be compared, but rather we must be realistic about the situation. Pakistan can not fall to extremists, or to corrupt leaders who will pacify the extremists.
the idea that supporting musharraf will bring about the total war you envision is simply not what the evidence suggests.
wholly apart from that, it seems a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that the u.s. calling for or backing an independent panel to investigate bhutto's assassination signifies a withdrawal of support for musharraf. i think it more clearly signifies an acknowledgment that musharraf is not an honest broker. it should be noted, as ali does, that an independent panel clearing musharraf of blame will enhance his fortunes, not diminish them. whereas a musharraf-run investigation which clears himself will likely only spur on more malcontents to extremism.
mark,
certainly i agree with your analogy, the 3-way standoff is a good way of putting it. but it doesn't seem obvious to me that ali's suggestion helps the (really) bad dudes.
In any case, our interest in Pakistan ought to be limited to two matters:
1) Making sure their hopefully small number of nuclear weapons neither are used to start a war against India, or fall into the hands of terrorists who would try to use them against the USA or Israel.
2) Denying safe havens on Pakistani territory to terrorist gangs such as al-Qaide.
If general-president Musharraf can do that, then back him.
All I know is that folks who call for the removal of Musharrif would do well to remember what happened the last time we were involved in a similar brouha. Anyone else care to revist the Shah and what happened in Iran after we forced him to leave power?
The US did not exactly force the Shah to leave Iran. It was his own unpopularity in Iran that forced him to leave.
After WW II Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. The elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq convinced parliament to nationalize the British oil companies in Iran in 1951. The Shah, who was pro-British attempted to stop this nationalization. The Shah removed Mosaddeq, but then was forced to re-appoint him and was forced to feel Iran. The British intelligence and the CIA help organize a military coup that restored the Shah to power and imprisoned Mosaddeq. The British and other foreign oil companies were allowed to continue to lease the Iranian oil fields. After the coup the Shah transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy into a police state. He suppressed all political opposition. His rule became increasing unpopular and he lost Iranian public support. The only remaining opposition was religious, because the Shah was still afraid to suppress religious leaders the way he had other opposition leaders.
Eventually the Shah became so unpopular that he lost support even from his own security services and he was forced to flee Iran in 1979. The only organized opposition were the religious leaders, who seized power. The US was hated in Iran because the CIA had help to organize the coup that overthrew the elected parliament and installed the Shah as a dictator.
I do not think the US is blamed in Pakistan for helping to bring Musharrif to power, but the US has certainly supported him. The US has encouraged him to restore democracy in Pakistan at least in public, but we have continued to support him when he did not or when he removed the Pakistan Supreme Court because it was going to rule it illegal for him to be president.
We are almost in a no win situation in Pakistan. If we continue to support Musharrif, he may well be overthrown anyway. This might well bring to power a much more anti-US government in Pakistan. On the other hand, if we drop support for Musharrif and force him to give way to an elected government, that elected government will almost certainly be less supportive of the US interests in the WOT or in Afghanistan.
The US was hated in Iran because the CIA had help to organize the coup that overthrew the elected parliament and installed the Shah as a dictator.
I wonder if Mikeca is aware that the Iranians broke an agreement when they decided to nationalize their oil fields. Thus the overthrow was justified.
Sign an agreement and stick with it, or suffer the consequences. Otherwise don't sign it.
The Iranians lacked the money and technology to install an oil infrastructure. So they decided to shake with one hand while crossing their fingers with the other. Once the infrastructure was put in place, they decided to effectively steal it.
I wouldn't be surpised if Mikeca is a fan of Jimmy Carter.
If the Iranians hate us because we didn't just sit by and let them screw us over, well, that's their problem.
but the US has certainly supported him. [Musharraf]
So what? He is an ally in a war against a mutual enemy. There are plenty of Pakistanis who support him too. I'm sure during WWII there were some Russians who hated America because we supported Stalin during the fight against the Nazis. Do you think we should of cared what those particular Russians thought?
We are almost in a no win situation in Pakistan.
We were almost in a no win situation with Pakistan when 9/11 occurred too. At least Bush addressed the issue, 'motivated' Pakistan, and did something about it. I wonder if you were president if you'd of thought to yourself: 'Well, in X amount of years we might be in a no win situation. We might anger some Pakistanis by supporting their current leader. Therefore we should do nothing because our options are limited. I don't see any way to achieve complete and total victory without any downsides'
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. For that reason alone the jihadis can not be allowed to take over pakistan.
I wonder if Mikeca is aware that the Iranians broke an agreement when they decided to nationalize their oil fields. Thus the overthrow was justified.
The original agreement was signed in 1901 by a non-democratic Iranian government. This agreement was renegotiated by Shah Reza Pahlavi in the 1930s. Shah Reza Pahlavi had come to power in a military coup organized by the British in 1921. The Shah’s cabinet thought the terms were still too generous, and it was generally recognized as being unfair to Iran. The Angolo-Iranian oil company (now BP) also had a history of accounting practices that shifted profits to other subsidiaries in order to reduce even the small royalty to Iran. The Angolo-Iranian oil company refused to allow the Iranian government to audit its books to investigate whether they were paying proper royalties.
Sign an agreement and stick with it, or suffer the consequences. Otherwise don't sign it.
So what you are saying is if a country breaks an agreement, you have the right to overthrow their government? Does Iran have the right to overthrow the US government because the US government froze Iranian assets in American financial institutions?
This is a childish attitude which the rest of the world considers an example of imperialism.
We were almost in a no win situation with Pakistan when 9/11 occurred too. At least Bush addressed the issue, 'motivated' Pakistan, and did something about it. I wonder if you were president if you'd of thought to yourself: 'Well, in X amount of years we might be in a no win situation. We might anger some Pakistanis by supporting their current leader. Therefore we should do nothing because our options are limited. I don't see any way to achieve complete and total victory without any downsides'
I agree that the situation in Pakistan was already serious on 9/11, but the US has made the situation far worse by our post 9/11 policy. The Iraq war put people that help support the US in the WOT like Musharraf in very poor position. The Iraq war has made Musharraf’s support of the US very controversial in Pakistan, and that is part of what is destabilizing Pakistan.
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. For that reason alone the jihadis can not be allowed to take over pakistan.
This is absolutely true, but the Iraq war has reduced our options for dealing with this problem.
A former Cabinet minister (the husband) who spent eight years in prison on corruption accusations, he is known as "Mr. 10 Percent" for allegedly taking kickbacks and is viewed with suspicion by many Pakistanis.
The eldest of Bhutto's three children, Bilawal Zardari, accepted the party's leadership, but said he would remain at Oxford University.
He said his father, who was officially designated co-chairman, would be the effective party leader.
The original agreement was signed in 1901 by a non-democratic Iranian government.
So what? Saudi Arabia's government is non-democratic, does that mean they get to screw us over if they wish too?
This agreement was renegotiated by Shah Reza Pahlavi in the 1930s
That's fine, better than nationalizing it.
The Shah’s cabinet thought the terms were still too generous, and it was generally recognized as being unfair to Iran.
Oh, I'm sure they THOUGHT it was too generous, I wouldn't be surprised if those bastards thought they though they were entitled to 99% of the revenue. As for the last part of your sentence, it was 'generally recognized' I'd like to see some proof before I take that seriously. The Iranians were provided 13% of the revenue, and the lease was for 60 years. Considering how much capital and risk they invested (none), that sounds decent to me.
The real problem they had was when the British decided to turn off the oil spigots, which was their right. They had an exclusive lease for 60 years. Iran should of acted like China did with Hong Kong, wait out the lease then legally take possession.
The Angolo-Iranian oil company (now BP) also had a history of accounting practices that shifted profits to other subsidiaries in order to reduce even the small royalty to Iran.
That wouldn't surprise me. The question is if Iran was provided a % of profits, or a % of crude oil.
The Angolo-Iranian oil company refused to allow the Iranian government to audit its books
That does sound bad. The question is if the lease provides Iran with the right to audit it. If not, tough shit, call for an UN investigation.
Does Iran have the right to overthrow the US government because the US government froze Iranian assets in American financial institutions?
IF the US actions were illegal, then yes, they do.
This is a childish attitude which the rest of the world considers an example of imperialism.
The same 'rest of the world' is doing nothing about Iran's nuclear program. The opinion of the 'rest of the world' doesn't really concern me.
12.31.2007 2:48pm
Commenting on Dean's World is a privilege, not a right. Dean is your host, you are his guest, and you should behave in that fashion. Dean is not your babysitter, nor is he your punching bag. Please remember this. In general, you are free to disagree with anyone on any subject you wish, but abusive behavior will not be tolerated.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.
it seems to me that calling for an objective panel on Bhutto's murder would at least signal that the U.S. means what it says about democracy and human rights.
Musharraf has been an imperfect, to understate it, ally to us, just as Bhutto was an imperfect beacon for bringing democracy back to Pakistan. It seems to me that continuing support for Musharraf is simply kicking the can down the road. Islamist influence in Pakistan has been growing, not shrinking, under his rule.
All that aside, though, it doesn't seem obvious to me that an independent panel showing the extent of damage caused by jihadist militants to Pakistan's government, economy, and people would result in the militants acquiring more power.
First I don't see how an independent panel could work. How would it get access to a byzantine intelligence and military structure that seems to be working at cross purposes? Second even if it did manage to compile results showing that al-Qaeda and jihadists were behind the attack, aided and abetted by members of the Pakistani military and intelligence. Would the results be respected - or viewed as merely mouthpieces for the West, the US in particular?
Finally, I don't see how the militants in Pakistan are NOT going to take power. I pretty much agree that Washington needs to wipe its hands of Musharraf since his regime has a hand in our policy failure. However the country isn't exactly brimming with anti-terror pro-western leaders at the moment.
The best outcome I can see at this point is an American guarantee that we will not get involved in PK's internal affairs as long as the air routes remain open to Afghanistan. This will most likely result in the jihadists "pulling a Hamas" and being elected to power.
Given the absolute failure they have at governing (the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hamas in Gaza) I'm pretty confident that in the long run the Pakistanis would realize that jihadis are great at causing chaos, but are terrible at bringing order.
But what does a jihadist run Pakistan due to the GWOT in Afghanistan? What does it mean to India?
Usually I don't buy the "great man" theory of History; however in the case of Pakistan, more died yesterday than an courageous and intelligent woman.
Bhutto, Sadat -- those were the great ones, who sadly got shot (by the Crazy and Crazier).
The Shah of Iran, Mubarak, Saddam, the Saudi Royal family, Musharaff -- those are the Crazy with whom we make Devil-like deals, because we think the Crazier will be much worse. Sometimes these arrangements are sustainable for years (Saudis), sometimes not (Shah, Saddam)
Hamas, Hezbollah, the Ayatollahs of Iran -- those are the Crazier.
So, given this context, Musharaff may simply be the best of a bad lot.
That is my inexpert opinion.
HankB
All I know is that folks who call for the removal of Musharrif would do well to remember what happened the last time we were involved in a similar brouha. Anyone else care to revist the Shah and what happened in Iran after we forced him to leave power?
Yeah, I didn't think so.
Now is not the time to be calling for him to step down. There is also no way on earth that any international panel would ever gain access to the intel it would need to incestigate this situation. The United Nations is the most compromised, corrupt and least practical organ to engage in any sort of investigation. Please, no one tell me they would seriously consider calling on the UN for help?
What Pakistan needs, imho, is a full-scale pogram against extremists of any stripe. Find them, kill them, imprison their families and anyone who supports them. Make the thought of any sort of terrorist act anywhere in Pakistan be so frightening that generations will go by before anyone dares to consider such an act again.
The best way to bring about the least desired outcome is to believe that talking with the opposition will be of any value. Find them, kill them, put their heads on pikes for all the world to see. Destroy their homes and plow salt into their fields so nothing will ever grow there again.
respects,
Pakistan seems to have been a three-sided Mexican standoff and one side just got offed. In true standoff fashion, the remaining two sides are going to go at it with the 3rd flailing around. This is no time to make the worst of the 3 stronger.
Musharraf isn't perfect. Neither was Stalin during WWII. And I don't mean to imply that the 2 should be compared, but rather we must be realistic about the situation. Pakistan can not fall to extremists, or to corrupt leaders who will pacify the extremists.
the idea that supporting musharraf will bring about the total war you envision is simply not what the evidence suggests.
wholly apart from that, it seems a misunderstanding of the situation to suggest that the u.s. calling for or backing an independent panel to investigate bhutto's assassination signifies a withdrawal of support for musharraf. i think it more clearly signifies an acknowledgment that musharraf is not an honest broker. it should be noted, as ali does, that an independent panel clearing musharraf of blame will enhance his fortunes, not diminish them. whereas a musharraf-run investigation which clears himself will likely only spur on more malcontents to extremism.
mark,
certainly i agree with your analogy, the 3-way standoff is a good way of putting it. but it doesn't seem obvious to me that ali's suggestion helps the (really) bad dudes.
In any case, our interest in Pakistan ought to be limited to two matters:
1) Making sure their hopefully small number of nuclear weapons neither are used to start a war against India, or fall into the hands of terrorists who would try to use them against the USA or Israel.
2) Denying safe havens on Pakistani territory to terrorist gangs such as al-Qaide.
If general-president Musharraf can do that, then back him.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
The US did not exactly force the Shah to leave Iran. It was his own unpopularity in Iran that forced him to leave.
After WW II Iran was a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. The elected Prime Minister Mosaddeq convinced parliament to nationalize the British oil companies in Iran in 1951. The Shah, who was pro-British attempted to stop this nationalization. The Shah removed Mosaddeq, but then was forced to re-appoint him and was forced to feel Iran. The British intelligence and the CIA help organize a military coup that restored the Shah to power and imprisoned Mosaddeq. The British and other foreign oil companies were allowed to continue to lease the Iranian oil fields. After the coup the Shah transformed Iran from a constitutional monarchy into a police state. He suppressed all political opposition. His rule became increasing unpopular and he lost Iranian public support. The only remaining opposition was religious, because the Shah was still afraid to suppress religious leaders the way he had other opposition leaders.
Eventually the Shah became so unpopular that he lost support even from his own security services and he was forced to flee Iran in 1979. The only organized opposition were the religious leaders, who seized power. The US was hated in Iran because the CIA had help to organize the coup that overthrew the elected parliament and installed the Shah as a dictator.
I do not think the US is blamed in Pakistan for helping to bring Musharrif to power, but the US has certainly supported him. The US has encouraged him to restore democracy in Pakistan at least in public, but we have continued to support him when he did not or when he removed the Pakistan Supreme Court because it was going to rule it illegal for him to be president.
We are almost in a no win situation in Pakistan. If we continue to support Musharrif, he may well be overthrown anyway. This might well bring to power a much more anti-US government in Pakistan. On the other hand, if we drop support for Musharrif and force him to give way to an elected government, that elected government will almost certainly be less supportive of the US interests in the WOT or in Afghanistan.
I wonder if Mikeca is aware that the Iranians broke an agreement when they decided to nationalize their oil fields. Thus the overthrow was justified.
Sign an agreement and stick with it, or suffer the consequences. Otherwise don't sign it.
The Iranians lacked the money and technology to install an oil infrastructure. So they decided to shake with one hand while crossing their fingers with the other. Once the infrastructure was put in place, they decided to effectively steal it.
I wouldn't be surpised if Mikeca is a fan of Jimmy Carter.
If the Iranians hate us because we didn't just sit by and let them screw us over, well, that's their problem.
So what? He is an ally in a war against a mutual enemy. There are plenty of Pakistanis who support him too. I'm sure during WWII there were some Russians who hated America because we supported Stalin during the fight against the Nazis. Do you think we should of cared what those particular Russians thought?
We were almost in a no win situation with Pakistan when 9/11 occurred too. At least Bush addressed the issue, 'motivated' Pakistan, and did something about it. I wonder if you were president if you'd of thought to yourself: 'Well, in X amount of years we might be in a no win situation. We might anger some Pakistanis by supporting their current leader. Therefore we should do nothing because our options are limited. I don't see any way to achieve complete and total victory without any downsides'
Pakistan has nuclear weapons. For that reason alone the jihadis can not be allowed to take over pakistan.
The original agreement was signed in 1901 by a non-democratic Iranian government. This agreement was renegotiated by Shah Reza Pahlavi in the 1930s. Shah Reza Pahlavi had come to power in a military coup organized by the British in 1921. The Shah’s cabinet thought the terms were still too generous, and it was generally recognized as being unfair to Iran. The Angolo-Iranian oil company (now BP) also had a history of accounting practices that shifted profits to other subsidiaries in order to reduce even the small royalty to Iran. The Angolo-Iranian oil company refused to allow the Iranian government to audit its books to investigate whether they were paying proper royalties.
So what you are saying is if a country breaks an agreement, you have the right to overthrow their government? Does Iran have the right to overthrow the US government because the US government froze Iranian assets in American financial institutions?
This is a childish attitude which the rest of the world considers an example of imperialism.
I agree that the situation in Pakistan was already serious on 9/11, but the US has made the situation far worse by our post 9/11 policy. The Iraq war put people that help support the US in the WOT like Musharraf in very poor position. The Iraq war has made Musharraf’s support of the US very controversial in Pakistan, and that is part of what is destabilizing Pakistan.
This is absolutely true, but the Iraq war has reduced our options for dealing with this problem.
Benazir Bhutto's 19-year-old son - a student with no political experience - was named symbolic leader of her party Sunday, while her husband took effective control, extending Pakistan's most enduring political dynasty.
A former Cabinet minister (the husband) who spent eight years in prison on corruption accusations, he is known as "Mr. 10 Percent" for allegedly taking kickbacks and is viewed with suspicion by many Pakistanis.
The eldest of Bhutto's three children, Bilawal Zardari, accepted the party's leadership, but said he would remain at Oxford University.
He said his father, who was officially designated co-chairman, would be the effective party leader.
So what? Saudi Arabia's government is non-democratic, does that mean they get to screw us over if they wish too?
That's fine, better than nationalizing it.
Oh, I'm sure they THOUGHT it was too generous, I wouldn't be surprised if those bastards thought they though they were entitled to 99% of the revenue. As for the last part of your sentence, it was 'generally recognized' I'd like to see some proof before I take that seriously. The Iranians were provided 13% of the revenue, and the lease was for 60 years. Considering how much capital and risk they invested (none), that sounds decent to me.
The real problem they had was when the British decided to turn off the oil spigots, which was their right. They had an exclusive lease for 60 years. Iran should of acted like China did with Hong Kong, wait out the lease then legally take possession.
That wouldn't surprise me. The question is if Iran was provided a % of profits, or a % of crude oil.
That does sound bad. The question is if the lease provides Iran with the right to audit it. If not, tough shit, call for an UN investigation.
IF the US actions were illegal, then yes, they do.
The same 'rest of the world' is doing nothing about Iran's nuclear program. The opinion of the 'rest of the world' doesn't really concern me.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.