No Nukes for Islamic Militants
President Musharraf, for all his faults, may still be the worst person to rule his country except for any other who might replace him.-
Robert D. Kaplan
Robert D. Kaplan
Police in Multan, Pakistan, clash with lawyers protesting the emergency rules imposed by President Pervez Musharraf.
Khalid Tanveer - AP
Khalid Tanveer - AP
"The president is a strong defender of freedom and the people of Pakistan," Bush said that day, side by side with Musharraf.
Over the weekend, that advocate of freedom emerged with a different world image: a military dictator willing to crush the rights of his own people.
In an op-ed for the NYTimes last year, Robert Kaplan writes:
It isn’t that President Musharraf is doing nothing. He has deployed troops along the border that have somewhat cut down on the activities of Mr. Haqqani. Moreover, many of his troops are busy quelling a separatist rebellion in the border province of Baluchistan.
But he feels himself atop a volcano of fundamentalism. He is among the last of the Westernized, British-style officers in the national army; after him come the men with the beards. The military and Pakistani society are filled with those who do not see the Taliban as a threat: it is an American problem,
Plainclothes police arrest a lawyer in Lahore, Pakistan, during a protest against President Purvez Musharraf's declaration of emergency rule. Thousands of lawyers protested across the country, and the U.S. pressured Musharraf not to postpone parliamentary elections scheduled for January, 2008.
Arif Ali - AFP/Getty Images
Arif Ali - AFP/Getty Images
Hugh Hewitt:
When you read headlines like this one, you have to wonder if the careerist-dominated Department of State is pushing for a replay of Iran, 1978 or South Vietnam, 1963.Nukes in the hands of Islamic militants? No thanks. The world can't afford that bit of consequence.
Standing behind the lawyer pictured below --whether that lawyer and his allies know it or not, and whether they care or not-- are jihadist takfiris on the one side and Khomeiniest meddlers on the other. The U.S. under Presidents Carter and Kennedy wished for a better alternative than what they had, and ended up with far, far worse. This time the troubling ally has nukes.
Blogging:
American Power
Bill Roggio
Counterterrrorism Blog
Flopping Aces
Hugh Hewitt
Labels: al-Qaeda, Islamists, Pakistan, Shah of Iran, Taliban
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 11/05/2007 09:20:00 AM
6 Comments:
One thing for sure, we cannot let Pakistan get run over the top of and it become a haven for al-qaeda complete with monkey bars and the whole thing.
Seriously we cant let this get out of control, they have nukes!!
He may not be the greatest choice as a leader BUT he does stand with us concerning Al Qaeda and terrorism. Somewhat like the situation with Stalin in WWII, though Musharif is not as bad as Uncle Joe.
Sometimes necessity makes strange bed partners and this is one case as proof. Bhutto would not be a strong arm like Musharif but she had a very politically corrupt government yet backs US interests in the region. Agains strange bed fellows!
And it really wouldn't take all that much for Musharaf's government to topple.
BZ
Politics as usual; say one thing, do another.
I think Americans tend to "look down on" the Pakistani people for various reasons.
Honestly I don't see that much difference between the American political system and that of the Pakistani system.
Give the Dems' another defeat and I'll bet you'll see the KosKidz mobilizing with weaponry...
I'm not really bothered overly by Musharraf's move. We've been encourging him to take stronger measures for years and these are the stronger measures he choose.
Now, we're complaining?
The Iran analogy is a good one.
And the best line from the article:
"[Musharraf] is among the last of the Westernized, British-style officers in the national army; after him come the men with the beards."
Frankly, I've had enough from the men with the beards.
At least they are not dressed in pink and look like dogs.
Post a Comment
<< Home