WP: A Problem of Passivity

[headexplode]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001493.html

A Problem of Passivity

Once again the United States stands by while al-Qaeda operates in a safe haven.

Wednesday, February 21, 2007; Page A14

AFTER THE attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there was a painful and sometimes bitter debate in this country about how two administrations could have failed to take decisive action against an obvious threat -- al-Qaeda's camps in Afghanistan. The Sept. 11 commission concluded that it was partly a "problem of imagination": Few U.S. officials considered the possibility that al-Qaeda was capable of reaching out from its remote base to stage devastating strikes on New York and Washington.

While I agree with the general idea of this editorial and am appalled (but not surprised) by this administration's apparent lack of concern for al-Qaeda (who actually attacked this country) and dangerously naive support of Pakistan and the repressive regime there, I can't help but remember the Post's highly aggressive support for the Iraq war, which has become as many warned at the time a costly distraction in lives and money from the war we should be fighting, that is, the war against Islamic fundamentalist groups that use terrorism and mass murder to further their cause. They weren't in Iraq to begin with, and while they may be now to some extent, the greater threat lies outside of Iraq's borders and always has and our leaders and the newspapers that support them have yet to figure that out.

[@DCGoldPants]

That can't be right. The V.P. said they were in their last throes. Or however you spell that!

[SkinsHokieFan]

While I agree with the general idea of this editorial and am appalled (but not surprised) by this administration's apparent lack of concern for al-Qaeda (who actually attacked this country) and dangerously naive support of Pakistan and the repressive regime there, .

Sorry dude, you are dead wrong there in characterizing Pakistan that way.

If General Musharaf falls, there are many elements within Pakistan, who really do not like the United States at all, that would assume control of the nation

This would be a very very bad thing to do. Pakistan has captured and killed more Al Qaeda then any other nation in the GWOT, and taken more losses then any country in the GWOT, both militarily and in civilian losses (Al Qaeda bombings occur frequently in Karachi, and flare ups occur quite often in the NWFP)

Unfourtantley Musharaf is between a rock and a hard place. And he has been fairly agressive since those elements in Pakistan tried to kill him, 5 times in a matter of weeks in 2002 and 2003, as well as the Prime Minister Shakut Aziz

If we don't support Pakistan and Pakistan falls into the hands of terrorists, I gurandamnteeit that there would be a nuclear incident on Western soil

[Riggo-toni]

So true, SHF!! Seems like some writer can't quite get past the 60s mentality of "how can the US support a dictator..." As Michael Corleone would say "who's being naive now, Kay?"

[SkinsHokieFan]

So true, SHF!! Seems like some writer can't quite get past the 60s mentality of "how can the US support a dictator..." As Michael Corleone would say "who's being naive now, Kay?"

Riggo-Toni, the voice of reason as always

[headexplode]

Sorry dude, you are dead wrong there in characterizing Pakistan that way.

If General Musharaf falls, there are many elements within Pakistan, who really do not like the United States at all, that would assume control of the nation

This would be a very very bad thing to do. Pakistan has captured and killed more Al Qaeda then any other nation in the GWOT, and taken more losses then any country in the GWOT, both militarily and in civilian losses (Al Qaeda bombings occur frequently in Karachi, and flare ups occur quite often in the NWFP)

Unfourtantley Musharaf is between a rock and a hard place. And he has been fairly agressive since those elements in Pakistan tried to kill him, 5 times in a matter of weeks in 2002 and 2003, as well as the Prime Minister Shakut Aziz

If we don't support Pakistan and Pakistan falls into the hands of terrorists, I gurandamnteeit that there would be a nuclear incident on Western soil

There are indeed radical elements in that country who are hostile to the US, and I'm not so sure that Musharraf isn't among them. It's hard to claim, as this administration does, that our aim in that region is to spread democracy when we support regimes that take power undemocratically and proceed to rule authoritatively. Not to mention that Pakistan's role in the GWOT (aka the global struggle against extremism--which doesn't bode well for members of ES) is largely out of necessity, not out of the goodness of their hearts. We caught them selling nuclear secrets to North Korea and other hostile states and then trying to cover it up, and we made them an offer they couldn't refuse. That is, join the GWOT or face repurcussions. Not to mention the explicit words of this administration after 9/11: either you're with us or against us--or, do what we say or we'll consider you among the terrorists.

While Pakistan has killed and captured many of al-Qaeda's members, they've also harbored and, as this editorial suggests, allowed them to operate through some sort of peace agreement with the taliban, another hostile regime who has yet to be reigned in.

And yet most of our efforts are focused on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 and posed no threat to the security of this country or even the region.

[headexplode]

So true, SHF!! Seems like some writer can't quite get past the 60s mentality of "how can the US support a dictator..." As Michael Corleone would say "who's being naive now, Kay?"

Yes, I'm naive in thinking that a Pakistani dictator might not have the best interests of the United States at heart. The fact of the matter is that when you play in the slop you're going to get dirty. I hoped that some folks would've learned that lesson with Saddam Hussein. We helped engender his regime by giving diplomatic support and weapons and money (which helped, in part, kill the thousands of Kurds whose corpses were exhumed and paraded around when they were selling the first and second incarnations of the gulf war) and yet we act shocked-shocked-shocked when he turned out to be an *******. But I'm naive.

You cannot claim to be trying to spread democracy when your actions and alliances suggest otherwise.

But, as Michael Corleone also says, "We're [all] part of the same hypocrisy."

[SkinsHokieFan]

Yes, I'm naive in thinking that a Pakistani dictator might not have the best interests of the United States at heart. The fact of the matter is that when you play in the slop you're going to get dirty. I hoped that some folks would've learned that lesson with Saddam Hussein. We helped engender his regime by giving diplomatic support and weapons and money (which helped, in part, kill the thousands of Kurds whose corpses were exhumed and paraded around when they were selling the first and second incarnations of the gulf war) and yet we act shocked-shocked-shocked when he turned out to be an *******. But I'm naive.

You cannot claim to be trying to spread democracy when your actions and alliances suggest otherwise.

Well to be honest, you sound very niave and completely ignorant with regards to both Musharaf the person and the freedom people have in Pakistan

People don't just disappear off the streets and are tortured by Musharaf's sons. In fact, his oldest son is an investment banker in Boston

Musharaf has not used any of his weapons on his own people.

Musharaf has already called for legitimate elections at the end of this year. He hasn't decided law by decree in Pakistan, as domestic law is created by Parliment and signed off by the Prime Minister, who was an ex US investment banker himself (at Citibank, and already 2 assination attempts have occured against Shakut Aziz)

What the general did, which I think was a great idea, was take democracy down the lowest levels at first. Within 2 years of coming into power, there were local elections for things such as the town council. After that it stepped up to the Parliment, who then chose the PM. Now it'll be for the top executive in 2007, 8 years after the overthrow of the corrupt regime of Nawaz Sharif

If you knew anything about Pakistan, you would know how corrupt the 2 previous "democratic" regimes in Pakistan were. Benazir Bhutto had a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Karachi and the Sindh province against the "mahajars," who are people that came from India during partition.

Nawaz Sharif in 1998 attempted to bully Parliment into passing Sharia law and making him the "spiritual leader" of Pakistan

So is Musharaf a dictator? Yes. Is he the best option we have in Pakistan for both us and the people of Pakistan? Yes

If you actually knew something about Pakistan you would realize how free the country is, and why Pakistani expats are behind the general 100 percent, even if he is a dictator. And that is because democracy in Pakistan was such a corrupt sham, that nobody cared that there was a strongman in charge now to clean things up

And things have been cleaned up quite a bit, especially against Al Qaeda in Pakistan

[SkinsHokieFan]

While Pakistan has killed and captured many of al-Qaeda's members, they've also harbored and, as this editorial suggests, allowed them to operate through some sort of peace agreement with the taliban, another hostile regime who has yet to be reigned in.

.

The peace agreement was a folly, however due to massive losses the Pakistani army was taking in the tribal areas (which once again if you knew anything about Pakistan you would realize what a lawless region this area is) and domestic pressure because people in Pakistan saw this as "lap dogging" to Bush

Like I said, Musharaf is between a rock and a hard place. He knows the danger of the terrorists on Pakistani soil, but also knows the price he will pay either in his life, or him being overthrown if he plays his hand too strong against the terrorists. It is a very difficult balancing act, as was the whole affair with the AQ Khan network. You punish a national hero too hard, you might end up being punished along with him

So once again there is a choice in Pakistan. Have a guy in power that you can work with and whose interests are the same, namely surviving against the terror onslaught, or force him to take actions which may end up getting him overthrown and you have a regime in place which makes the Saudi's look like secularists, and oh yea these guys have nuclear weapons in firing range of 150,000 plus American troops

The choice is pretty clear

[headexplode]

Well to be honest, you sound very niave and completely ignorant with regards to both Musharaf the person and the freedom people have in Pakistan

Odd how someone calling me naive and ignorant about Pervez Musharraf can't even spell his name, but that's besides the point.

People don't just disappear off the streets and are tortured by Musharaf's sons. In fact, his oldest son is an investment banker in Boston

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Bin Laden also has/had relatives educated in this country (in Boston, no less) and who has/had business endeavors in this country. A lot of folks do business in the US--that doesn't lend to his credibility.

Musharaf has not used any of his weapons on his own people.

This may be true to a degree, but certainly his own people have been killed and displaced--collateral damage--in his ostensible fight against terror. And anyway that's a bit off topic. My main concern is the reports from various intelligence agencies and media outlets that he has not only not been as vigilant against extremists as he claims, but that members of his government and military actively fight alongside the taliban and al-Qaeda and even provide financial support and protection for training camps and he can't seem to do anything about it. Either he can't, or he doesn't really want to, or perhaps a little of both.

Musharaf has already called for legitimate elections at the end of this year. He hasn't decided law by decree in Pakistan, as domestic law is created by Parliment and signed off by the Prime Minister, who was an ex US investment banker himself (at Citibank, and already 2 assination attempts have occured against Shakut Aziz)

Saddam Hussein had elections in Iraq every so often, and I think we all know how legitimate those were. Just because there are elections held, does not mean they are fair or democratic. Granted, Musharraf is more moderate than most in the region and in the country, but you'll have to get up pretty early in the morning to convince me that his government is legitimately democratic or that he even intends it to be.

If you knew anything about Pakistan, you would know how corrupt the 2 previous "democratic" regimes in Pakistan were. Benazir Bhutto had a campaign of ethnic cleansing in Karachi and the Sindh province against the "mahajars," who are people that came from India during partition.

I understand corruption has been rampant in that country for some time, now. That does not legitimize the corruption of Musharraf. And you forget that the previous regime was "democratically" elected in as much as anyone could tell, and Musharraf only held elections after the fact (which most Pakistanis did not participate in). Most governments are corrupt, whether they are democratic or not. Again, I'm not concerned with the details of internal politics of Pakistan. My concern is our overly-chummy alliance with Musharraf and those elements within that country whose aims and loyalties are less than clear. Especially when we are supposedly fighting in Iraq to spread democracy when we're not too concerned about democracy in Pakistan.

So is Musharaf a dictator? Yes. Is he the best option we have in Pakistan for both us and the people of Pakistan? Yes

If you actually knew something about Pakistan you would realize how free the country is, and why Pakistani expats are behind the general 100 percent, even if he is a dictator. And that is because democracy in Pakistan was such a corrupt sham, that nobody cared that there was a strongman in charge now to clean things up

And things have been cleaned up quite a bit, especially against Al Qaeda in Pakistan

I can see your point here: perhaps he is the best we can hope for at this moment. And perhaps he is best for Pakistan--I can't claim I know what's good for Pakistanis. I haven't read the same PR materials you have, nor have I read "In the Line of Fire." I can tell you this: the alliance that has emerged between the Bush administration and the Musharraf government has gone beyond a simple strategic alliance and has entered the realm of stupidity and naievity. We go out of our way to excuse his actions and even defend him (as you have been trying to do) when he is, quite simply, a dictator whose alleigances do not lie with this country, and who is not democratic and really makes no bones about it, and who is not some benevolent force for good and freedom in the middle east. And just like always happens when we start making buddies with dictators: it always comes back to bite us in the ass.

Perhaps you are Pakistani or have relatives who are from there, which would certainly make you more knowledgeable of the situation there than myself, but to state that I'm ignorant and naive about that country and its leader is absurd.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Odd how someone calling me naive and ignorant about Pervez Musharraf can't even spell his name, but that's besides the point..

Spelling on a messageboard has never been a strong suit of mine. I can barely spell my own name

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. Bin Laden also has/had relatives educated in this country (in Boston, no less) and who has/had business endeavors in this country. A lot of folks do business in the US--that doesn't lend to his credibility...

On the contrary it does to a very moderate guy like Musharaf. His son lives here and has his life here, why would he want to ruin his ability to make a living and live a decent life? OBL on the other hand could care less about this world, that is the difference

This may be true to a degree, but certainly his own people have been killed and displaced--collateral damage--in his ostensible fight against terror. And anyway that's a bit off topic. My main concern is the reports from various intelligence agencies and media outlets that he has not only not been as vigilant against extremists as he claims, but that members of his government and military actively fight alongside the taliban and al-Qaeda and even provide financial support and protection for training camps and he can't seem to do anything about it. Either he can't, or he doesn't really want to, or perhaps a little of both.

There are has been lots of collateral damage which is why he had so much pressure to tone down the offensive against the extremist elements in Pakistan. And its not just in the tribal areas either, there is plenty of people who dislike both Musharaf and the US in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar and Hyderbad

As far as in the military and government, yes there are plenty of extremist elements there as well, in particular in the ISI. He has taken several steps to purge these agencies of these elements, but seeing how Pakistan had gone through 20 years of Islamization from General Zia in the 1980s to Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s, it is not an overnight process.

At one point the bigots, illiterates and religous fanatics had very little say in the actions of the government. Today that is not the case due to the actions taken in Pakistan from 1979 to 1999

Saddam Hussein had elections in Iraq every so often, and I think we all know how legitimate those were. Just because there are elections held, does not mean they are fair or democratic. Granted, Musharraf is more moderate than most in the region and in the country, but you'll have to get up pretty early in the morning to convince me that his government is legitimately democratic or that he even intends it to be.

Yes, however the democratic process in Pakistan has been a slow devolution to the bottom and now going back to the top. The parliment is able to enact its own laws on domestic issues, spending bills etc, and elect the Prime Minister, who signs off on the laws.

Musharaf faces an election this year. Not the "yes, no" variety but a real election with political parties involved. It will be a test to see if he is true to his word about re-installing democracy at all levels, not just at the parlimentary level.

I understand corruption has been rampant in that country for some time, now. That does not legitimize the corruption of Musharraf. And you forget that the previous regime was "democratically" elected in as much as anyone could tell, and Musharraf only held elections after the fact (which most Pakistanis did not participate in). Most governments are corrupt, whether they are democratic or not. Again, I'm not concerned with the details of internal politics of Pakistan. My concern is our overly-chummy alliance with Musharraf and those elements within that country whose aims and loyalties are less than clear. Especially when we are supposedly fighting in Iraq to spread democracy when we're not too concerned about democracy in Pakistan.

Actually the government of Nawaz Sharif was not democratically elected. Basically from 1988 to 1999 the heads of government alternated between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Eventually they would each get so corrupt that the President would dismiss that gov't, and then the other party would gain power (Benazir was part of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Sharif, the Pakistan Muslim Leauge) Nawaz Sharif, in order to prevent losing power again, basically forced the assembly to amend the consitution consolidating power into the executive branch and giving the President very little power.

So no, Nawaz in 1999 was NOT a democratically elected leader, and was doing everything in his power to become a president for life, while looting the nations treasuary for himself and his minions.

Our overly chummy alliance is far less chummy when you get beyond the superficial surface and on to the operation level. The Bush administration is smart enough to know the NOT rebuking Pakistan publically is some of the leverage Musharaf has to stay in power, after the Pressler Amendement in 1990 and sanctions levied by the Clinton administration, Pakistani's are a bit distrustful of the intentions of the US gov't.

I can see your point here: perhaps he is the best we can hope for at this moment. And perhaps he is best for Pakistan--I can't claim I know what's good for Pakistanis. I haven't read the same PR materials you have, nor have I read "In the Line of Fire." I can tell you this: the alliance that has emerged between the Bush administration and the Musharraf government has gone beyond a simple strategic alliance and has entered the realm of stupidity and naievity. We go out of our way to excuse his actions and even defend thim (as you have been trying to do) when he is, quite simply, a dictator whose alleigances do not lie with this country, and who is not democratic and really makes no bones about it, and who is not some benevolent force for good and freedom in the middle east. And just like always happens when we start making buddies with dictators: it always comes back to bite us in the ass..

http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/EnlightenedModeration.aspx

An article talking about necessary changes that need to be made in the Muslim world, written by Musharraf

To say he is quite simply a dictator is riddiculous considering the fact that Pakistan was essentially ruled by dictators during the decade before Musharraf took power. Those govt's were the ones that aligned themselves with the religous powers and allowed them to gain a very strong foot hold (who do you think underwrote the Taliban from 1996 to 2001?) in the affairs of the gov't of Pakistan.

The actions of the "democratically" elected governments of Pakistan were far more harmful to US and Middle Eastern interests then actions that Musharraf has taken. You walk around Karachi, not only is the place teeming with potential extremist elements, but it is also teeming with FBI officers and CIA case workers. This was NOT the case in the 1990s, we had no base of operations in Pakistan, and being able to have the type of foothold we have in Pakistan has been a huge help

Just look at the arrest of KSM, where it occured and how it happened. It wouldn't have happened when Pakistan had "democratically" elected leadership in the Prime Minister position

Perhaps you are Pakistani or have relatives who are from there, which would certainly make you more knowledgeable of the situation there than myself, but to state that I'm ignorant and naive about that country and its leader is absurd.

Now we are getting somewhere. I was born and raised here, but have visited several times, both Karachi and Islamabad and been to some of the tribal areas

I know Pakistan has some of the most fanatical and backwards people on earth, as well as some of the most progressive and forward minding people on earth. During Pakistan's infancy, the religious zealots of the nation were NOT involved in national politics and had very little power

From 1979 on, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and after General Zia took hold of Pakistan the extremist element was harnassed and now has become a force. 2 decades of catering to them has put Pakistan in the boat it is in today, a battle between progressive educated people, and backwards, intolerant, illiterate extremests.

Musharraf is on our side of this battle. Considering the extremists tried 5 times to kill the man, and he has been at war with them in the tribal areas since 9/11, and allowed the FBI and CIA free reign in the country, he is the best choice we have

And defending him IN PUBLIC is very key to the perceptions of the people of Pakistan. The messages the administration sends out on Musharraf is not intended for American audiences, it is made to assuge the fears of the citizens Pakistan that the US is just using them for its own purpose and will once again abandon Pakistan, and place sanctions and restrictions on it

Research the Pressler amendment of 1990, the F-16 deal, and the sanctions of 1998. You'll see why Pakistani's are weary of giving America carte blanche to do whatever, because last time it happened (in the 1980s during the Afghan war), Pakistan was put on the backburner by the US after it was all over

[Riggo-toni]

What the general did, which I think was a great idea, was take democracy down the lowest levels at first. Within 2 years of coming into power, there were local elections for things such as the town council. After that it stepped up to the Parliment, who then chose the PM. Now it'll be for the top executive in 2007, 8 years after the overthrow of the corrupt regime of Nawaz Sharif

This is similar to what the late King Hussein did in Jordan, and it's proven to be one of the most effective strategies in neutralizing the street credibility of theocrats. Religious nuts gain popularity because of the corruption of secular authorities, so holding elections for local offices allows these wackos to win power over their local towns without having any dangerous control over the military or national government. Once elected, the people discover that the theocrats are just as (and often more) corrupt and brutal than those they've replaced. They lose their street credibility, and typically lose re-elections. Holding nationwide elections for national power in that part of the world usually results in One Man, One Vote...One Time - see Algeria.

Personally, I think this is the strategy the US should've used more of in Iraq - having local elections and regional autonomy first, then gradually moving up to a national government. This would've gotten the Sunnis more involved in democracy from the beginning.

[headexplode]

Spelling on a messageboard has never been a strong suit of mine. I can barely spell my own name

On the contrary it does to a very moderate guy like Musharaf. His son lives here and has his life here, why would he want to ruin his ability to make a living and live a decent life? OBL on the other hand could care less about this world, that is the difference

There are has been lots of collateral damage which is why he had so much pressure to tone down the offensive against the extremist elements in Pakistan. And its not just in the tribal areas either, there is plenty of people who dislike both Musharaf and the US in Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar and Hyderbad

As far as in the military and government, yes there are plenty of extremist elements there as well, in particular in the ISI. He has taken several steps to purge these agencies of these elements, but seeing how Pakistan had gone through 20 years of Islamization from General Zia in the 1980s to Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s, it is not an overnight process.

At one point the bigots, illiterates and religous fanatics had very little say in the actions of the government. Today that is not the case due to the actions taken in Pakistan from 1979 to 1999

Yes, however the democratic process in Pakistan has been a slow devolution to the bottom and now going back to the top. The parliment is able to enact its own laws on domestic issues, spending bills etc, and elect the Prime Minister, who signs off on the laws.

Musharaf faces an election this year. Not the "yes, no" variety but a real election with political parties involved. It will be a test to see if he is true to his word about re-installing democracy at all levels, not just at the parlimentary level.

Actually the government of Nawaz Sharif was not democratically elected. Basically from 1988 to 1999 the heads of government alternated between Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.

Eventually they would each get so corrupt that the President would dismiss that gov't, and then the other party would gain power (Benazir was part of the Pakistan Peoples Party, Sharif, the Pakistan Muslim Leauge) Nawaz Sharif, in order to prevent losing power again, basically forced the assembly to amend the consitution consolidating power into the executive branch and giving the President very little power.

So no, Nawaz in 1999 was NOT a democratically elected leader, and was doing everything in his power to become a president for life, while looting the nations treasuary for himself and his minions.

Our overly chummy alliance is far less chummy when you get beyond the superficial surface and on to the operation level. The Bush administration is smart enough to know the NOT rebuking Pakistan publically is some of the leverage Musharaf has to stay in power, after the Pressler Amendement in 1990 and sanctions levied by the Clinton administration, Pakistani's are a bit distrustful of the intentions of the US gov't.

http://www.presidentofpakistan.gov.pk/EnlightenedModeration.aspx

An article talking about necessary changes that need to be made in the Muslim world, written by Musharraf

To say he is quite simply a dictator is riddiculous considering the fact that Pakistan was essentially ruled by dictators during the decade before Musharraf took power. Those govt's were the ones that aligned themselves with the religous powers and allowed them to gain a very strong foot hold (who do you think underwrote the Taliban from 1996 to 2001?) in the affairs of the gov't of Pakistan.

The actions of the "democratically" elected governments of Pakistan were far more harmful to US and Middle Eastern interests then actions that Musharraf has taken. You walk around Karachi, not only is the place teeming with potential extremist elements, but it is also teeming with FBI officers and CIA case workers. This was NOT the case in the 1990s, we had no base of operations in Pakistan, and being able to have the type of foothold we have in Pakistan has been a huge help

Just look at the arrest of KSM, where it occured and how it happened. It wouldn't have happened when Pakistan had "democratically" elected leadership in the Prime Minister position

Now we are getting somewhere. I was born and raised here, but have visited several times, both Karachi and Islamabad and been to some of the tribal areas

I know Pakistan has some of the most fanatical and backwards people on earth, as well as some of the most progressive and forward minding people on earth. During Pakistan's infancy, the religious zealots of the nation were NOT involved in national politics and had very little power

From 1979 on, after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and after General Zia took hold of Pakistan the extremist element was harnassed and now has become a force. 2 decades of catering to them has put Pakistan in the boat it is in today, a battle between progressive educated people, and backwards, intolerant, illiterate extremests.

Musharraf is on our side of this battle. Considering the extremists tried 5 times to kill the man, and he has been at war with them in the tribal areas since 9/11, and allowed the FBI and CIA free reign in the country, he is the best choice we have

And defending him IN PUBLIC is very key to the perceptions of the people of Pakistan. The messages the administration sends out on Musharraf is not intended for American audiences, it is made to assuge the fears of the citizens Pakistan that the US is just using them for its own purpose and will once again abandon Pakistan, and place sanctions and restrictions on it

Research the Pressler amendment of 1990, the F-16 deal, and the sanctions of 1998. You'll see why Pakistani's are weary of giving America carte blanche to do whatever, because last time it happened (in the 1980s during the Afghan war), Pakistan was put on the backburner by the US after it was all over

You obviously know far more about Pakistan than I do, however I stand by my assertions that Musharraf is a questionable ally, who may offer short-term strategic support, but whose long-tem goals and motivations remain unclear, and who is at the time being allowing enemies of this country to operate with little worry. It is one thing to preach moderation and stability and another to practice it. I'll grant you that Pakistan is a state more akin to Turkey than to Afghanistan or Iran, but they are certainly not the model of freedom that we are supposedly trying to foster. And I do not believe that corruption from the past justifies corruption of the present. As far as I've read, there is a sense among some Pakistanis that this government is more corrupt than previous regimes, and again, I don't have the knowledge to comment, but there are reports suggesting just this. Again, I'm not that concerned about the internal affairs of Pakistan, I'm concerned with this administration's seemingly unwavering support of Musharraf who has made some very questionable decisions and statements, and whose military still continues to have ties to extremists.

Normally, I wouldn't bring up the spelling thing, but I take charges of ignorance seriously and I think if you're going to level that charge, you should at least take the time to make sure the subject's name is spelled correctly, like I did.

Anyway, you've piqued my curiosity and I'm going to try to find out more about Musharraf and Pakistan in general. Any sources you can recommend?

[SkinsHokieFan]

Anyway, you've piqued my curiosity and I'm going to try to find out more about Musharraf and Pakistan in general. Any sources you can recommend?

I am glad I could, and I am glad we had a pretty good discussion

A good source for news is www.dawn.com, which is Pakistan's largest English language newspaper, where you can read editorials and opinions (some in favor, some very much opposed to Musharraf, in fact the article you posted was run in this newspaper today). That is where I would start

Here is another link to other Pakistan newspapers, which you will notice are not state run and for the most part free to report http://www.dailyearth.com/IntnNews/pakistan.html

I do suggest reading "In the Line of Fire" to gain some insight as to the history of leadership in Pakistan. Much of it I already knew, just from being over there, talking with people and reading newspapers for the past 10 years

[headexplode]

I am glad I could, and I am glad we had a pretty good discussion

A good source for news is www.dawn.com, which is Pakistan's largest English language newspaper, where you can read editorials and opinions (some in favor, some very much opposed to Musharraf, in fact the article you posted was run in this newspaper today). That is where I would start

Here is another link to other Pakistan newspapers, which you will notice are not state run and for the most part free to report http://www.dailyearth.com/IntnNews/pakistan.html

I do suggest reading "In the Line of Fire" to gain some insight as to the history of leadership in Pakistan. Much of it I already knew, just from being over there, talking with people and reading newspapers for the past 10 years

Thanks, I'll check them out.