RSS 2.0 FeedThe Implications Of Pakistan For The Bush Doctrine
by Doug MataconisThoughts from Radley Balko
This is why “spreading democracy” is such a foolish foreign policy objective. There are lots of place in the world where we don’t particularly want a democracy. What do we do, now that our ally in Pakistan is suppressing dissent, punishing political opponents, suspending the country’s constitution, and declaring martial law?
When a country attacks us without provocation, or shelters the people who do, we should fight back. We should destroy that regime, in our own defense. But we should call it what it is: national defense. We aren’t doing it because we particularly care about the people in that country. Because we don’t. At least not when the choice is our safety and security versus theirs.
By pushing this “bringing democracy to the Middle East” nonsense, we’re now in the precarious position of explaining why we’re going to sit idly by while one of our allies wholly dispenses with democracy, and cements an absolutist grip on power.
Well, the reason is because they need to do it in order to prevent the country from descending in to chaos and civil war. And if that’s what it takes to prevent a nation of 100 million people armed with nuclear weapons from being turned over to fanatics then, well, that’s what it takes and we should just like Musharaaf do what needs to be done. It’s really none of our business.
Except for the fact that it does, as Balko points out, show up the hypocrisy of the whole “bringing democracy to the region” nonsense that we’ve heard from the Bush Administration since before the Iraq War. Even if it was possible to bring “democracy” (however you define that) to the region, it’s no more our job to do that than it was to bring “democracy” to the world in 1917 — and we all know how well that ended.
You might be interested in the Wounded Warriors Project. It’s a nonprofit organization dedicated to raising awareness for U.S. troops severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. It really puts a face on the cost of this conflict. Here’s a link:
http://www.woundedwarriorproject.org/aarwebshow
Thanks,
Comment by Jeff — November 4, 2007 @ 2:51 pmJeff
I agree completely with you Doug, an autocratic state in that region is better than a failed state, because that will surely become a haven for terrorism. This is becoming a larger and larger trend in the 21st century, yet poses us with the problem of nation-building.
Comment by David Wilson — November 4, 2007 @ 5:52 pmDoug,
So you’re finally realizing why the non-interventionist approach to foreign policy is so important? Now if only you’ll retract your position on Iraq and advocate immediate withdrawal, you’ll finally have put this foolish flirtation with neo-conservatism behind you.
Does this also mean that you’re conceding that Ron Paul’s foreign policy platform is the correct one?
Comment by UCrawford — November 5, 2007 @ 6:52 amDoug,
Ultimately he’ll fail. All Musharraf will do is push the more secular and democratic opposition into the arms of the Islamists. However, what Musharraf has going for him is that he’s far more ruthless than the Shah was in 1979 when he took on Khomeini.
There is a civil war in northern part of Pakistan along the Afghan border between Musharraf and the Islamists. The Islamists are winning big. The Pakistani Army is broken.
The United States and India need to be preparing a contingency plan for “securing” the nukes in case of the probably likely Islamist takeover.
Comment by Kevin — November 5, 2007 @ 6:59 amKevin,
You’re right…there does need to be a contingency plan for Pakistan’s nukes in the extreme likelihood that the country falls into utter anarchy and al-Qaeda extremists make a play for the nukes. Pakistan survived martial law under Zia ul-Haq, but he had much more popular support than Musharraf did. On the plus side, however, it’s unlikely that there will be a Taliban-style government placed in Pakistan that would be interested in launching nuclear weapons at anyone without provocation and it’s unlikely that al-Qaeda would be allowed access to the nuclear materials under any circumstances. Pakistan’s got more stability than Afghanistan did, they have substantial urbanized populations who would be opposed to Sharia and the al-Qaeda philosophy, a divided ethnic population that would make a support base problematic and while the tribes have given shelter to al-Qaeda they don’t necessarily agree with their strategic objectives. As long as we stay out of trying to control the outcome there they’ll probably be able to impose a level of stability on the country on their own without putting crazy people in charge…we only need a contingency in the extreme case that it all goes to shit. Most of their insurgencies and unrest have more to do with Musharraf’s and Islamabad’s heavy hand in the tribal areas (Baluchistan, NW Frontier) than anything else, not necessarily a desire by the tribes to seize power over the rest of the country.
Comment by UCrawford — November 5, 2007 @ 7:24 am[...] Beck makes a point that I made yesterday: Doug Mataconis links and quotes Radley Balko on the latest rumblings among the savages: “This is why [...]
Pingback by The long road. | BitsBlog — November 5, 2007 @ 7:42 amIf the country collapses what do you think US policy should be concerning Al Qaeda in Pakistan? According to this poll most Pakistanis (80%) are against foreign troops going after Al Qaeda in Pakistan:
Comment by uhm — November 5, 2007 @ 7:49 amhttp://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/oct07/PakAlQaeda_Oct07_quaire.pdf
I don’t think we should go in except under the most extreme of circumstances (an Islamist government claiming that they will pre-emptively attack the United States with nuclear weapons seizes power). Fortunately that scenario is very unlikely. Under any realistic situation we should cut off all foreign aid (since most of the “counter-terrorism” funding that Bush is continuing will likely end up used against the anti-Musharraf crowd, thereby making us accomplices in the public’s eye) and wait to see how things shake out. If we go in now, we will definitely polarize public opinion against us and we’ll never get bin Laden. If we back off and pull support for Musharraf, the Islamists may very well be open to turning him over to us down the road. It’s not like we were getting any real help from Musharraf anyway.
Comment by UCrawford — November 5, 2007 @ 8:42 amKevin,
I’m guessing that plan has existed for awhile now on the U.S. side at least.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 5, 2007 @ 8:46 amFor me, it’s never been a debate about interventionism v. non-interventionism — it’s been a debate about where American national interests lie. The underlying assumption of many non-interventionists seems to be that there would be almost no justification for American military action against nation that didn’t pose a direct (possibly imminent) threat to the United States’ mainland. My definition of national interests is somewhat broader and allows, under some circumstances, for continuing some of those alliances that non-interventionists have complained about.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — November 5, 2007 @ 8:48 amDoug,
“For me, it’s never been a debate about interventionism v. non-interventionism — it’s been a debate about where American national interests lie.”
And that’s where the neoconservatism takes over and you abandon the pro-freedom agenda. Once you start advocating engaging in violent activities to further our “interests” as opposed to just our self-defense you’re effectively ceding control to the government to quash individual freedom whenever it suits them under the dubious claim that it’s in our interests. In actuality the only people whose interests are served by aggressive wars are those who hold power, and in most cases it ends up being counterproductive to the interests of everybody else, mainly because we get dragged into these crappy conflicts like Pakistan, Iraq, Iran where there are no clear good guys or bad guys and we end up getting hostility from both ends for interfering (blowback) down the road. This is why our Founding Fathers opposed entangling alliances and why Ron Paul opposes them now.
The difference between non-interventionism and what you’ve suggested is the difference between being a force for freedom/free trade or being a thug. Intervening in Iraq has put us pretty clearly on the thug side of the equation and interfering in Pakistan for anything short of the self-defense scenario I mentioned earlier would do the same.
Comment by UCrawford — November 5, 2007 @ 9:02 amConsider this, too http://www.samsonblinded.org/news/muslim-world/pakistan
Comment by Nikol — November 6, 2007 @ 3:45 pm