Thursday, February 21, 2008
Where's Ron Paul?
Where's Ron Paul to call out the administration when we need him?
The Bush team has been spending $80 million dollars a month, close to $1 billion a year in contingency (off-budget funds) through a program called the Coalition Support Fund which pays the army of dictator of Pakistan Perez Musharraf. It pays specifically for the opeations of 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistan troops on the northwest frontier of Pakistan.
As the Clarion highlighted months ago the average Pakistani's view is that this conflict is internecine separtism, with long held gripes, that have to do with resource and power distribution. The Washington Post today reiterates that they, Pakistanis, view these actions in the present as "America's War." Survey after survey has shown support for America in Pakistan is extremely low and getting lower.
Now that dictator Musharraf has lost the Pakistani elections, will he go quietly or attempt to cling to power? And what has the Bush adminstration gotten for its $80 million a month in support of a dictator? Quite likely a successor who will be less than kindly disposed to the United States, if for no other reason, than we attempted to block their path to power.
Labels: Middle East, Politics
Comments:
To begin with, I will refrain from elaborating on the not-so-subtle irony of the title of your blog. Paul's foreign policy position of non-intervention is finally one ultra conservative hook you can hang your hat on I guess. The Bush administration has always supported a transition to democracy and free parliamentary elections in Pakistan. Bush's support of Musharraf and the state of emergency was seen as a path toward promoting stability that would allow the democracy that the major Pakistani civilian political parties support. Bhutto's death only served to deepen the support for a more rapid end to the state of emergency and transition to democracy. The leading candidate now, Fahim, is seen as a consensus builder and someone that may help to close the gap to democracy and hopefully diminish the influence of extremists in Pakistan. It was never Bush's agenda to keep Musharraf in power but rather use him as a bridge to a democratic and hopefully more stable and prosperous ally in the middle east. The recent elections have highlighted the lack of public support for Musharraf, which stems from not only his crackdown on independent judiciary, but also, at the same time, his inability to stop the rise in Islamic militancy that has killed hundreds in recent months. The people of Pakistan feel its time for a change, and the Bush administration would most likely agree. However, this shift in leadership does not undermine Bush's policy but is simply the continued evolution of it.
# posted by 
: 2/23/2008 12:18 PM
: 2/23/2008 12:18 PM
I didn't know the bush administration had any actual policies. God, do I feel better about America now.
Anon-
Boy that is awful hopeful, sorta of like arguing that the Nixon administration support of General Pinochet was based in the idea that average Chileans would get so pissed and demoralized that thirty years later they'd have ditched him and military dictatorship. America would encourage oppression, censorship and assassination so that Chile would have a stable, fiscal invigorated, democracy some time in the distant future. (My how brilliantly Orwellian.) The problem is the facts belie the thesis, the American government did everything they could to resist this transition in Chile. (As it has done and is now doing in Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Egypt, Uzbekistan, etc. etc.)
In Pakistan, the Bush administration is doing everything they can (behind the scenes) to keep Musharraf in power, at all costs. Musharraf wasn't and isn't a bridge to anything. He has subverted every attempt to make him cede power. It is totally facetious to say he failed to stop the rise of Islamic militancy, his dictatorship, his willingness to totally disregard the rule of law fomented Islamic militancy.
Not mention that most "Islamic Militancy" in Pakistan is actually a desire for self determination and financial independence that is more accurately characterized as separatism of a nationalist bent. The Baluchis and Wazhiris of the northwest frontier province have more in common with separatist movements in north eastern India, Indonesia and the Philippine archipelago than they do with a global jihad movement. They all want their share of the federal budget pie, aid, jobs, schools, hospitals and roads---kitchen table issues, dominate the day. The rhetoric of global jihad matters to only a few. However, by making their lives day to day substantially worse, the struggle for subsistence even harder, Musharraf is driving more and more people into the arms (and alms) of extremism. The Bush administration is providing the budget. (See the growth of Hamas over the last twenty years while the EU provided the dictator of the PLO's budget for an example of how this works.)
This pattern has repeated itself time and again in the actions of the hegemone, from the Roman empire to the colonization of Africa; draw the borders, appoint the local ruler, dole out the budget from thousands of miles away, suppress the opinions and will of the local populace if it does not serve your interests. What is remarkable is how little progress an enlightened America has made freeing itself from such a tragic pattern.
Boy that is awful hopeful, sorta of like arguing that the Nixon administration support of General Pinochet was based in the idea that average Chileans would get so pissed and demoralized that thirty years later they'd have ditched him and military dictatorship. America would encourage oppression, censorship and assassination so that Chile would have a stable, fiscal invigorated, democracy some time in the distant future. (My how brilliantly Orwellian.) The problem is the facts belie the thesis, the American government did everything they could to resist this transition in Chile. (As it has done and is now doing in Nicaragua, Columbia, Panama, Egypt, Uzbekistan, etc. etc.)
In Pakistan, the Bush administration is doing everything they can (behind the scenes) to keep Musharraf in power, at all costs. Musharraf wasn't and isn't a bridge to anything. He has subverted every attempt to make him cede power. It is totally facetious to say he failed to stop the rise of Islamic militancy, his dictatorship, his willingness to totally disregard the rule of law fomented Islamic militancy.
Not mention that most "Islamic Militancy" in Pakistan is actually a desire for self determination and financial independence that is more accurately characterized as separatism of a nationalist bent. The Baluchis and Wazhiris of the northwest frontier province have more in common with separatist movements in north eastern India, Indonesia and the Philippine archipelago than they do with a global jihad movement. They all want their share of the federal budget pie, aid, jobs, schools, hospitals and roads---kitchen table issues, dominate the day. The rhetoric of global jihad matters to only a few. However, by making their lives day to day substantially worse, the struggle for subsistence even harder, Musharraf is driving more and more people into the arms (and alms) of extremism. The Bush administration is providing the budget. (See the growth of Hamas over the last twenty years while the EU provided the dictator of the PLO's budget for an example of how this works.)
This pattern has repeated itself time and again in the actions of the hegemone, from the Roman empire to the colonization of Africa; draw the borders, appoint the local ruler, dole out the budget from thousands of miles away, suppress the opinions and will of the local populace if it does not serve your interests. What is remarkable is how little progress an enlightened America has made freeing itself from such a tragic pattern.
one further FYI
Bhutto's death was arranged by Musharraf's own security service (the notorious ISI) in an attempt to extend the state of emergency. Their demented hope was that by assassinating one of the leading candidates Musharraf could argue that chaos ruled the day, the state of emergency could be extended further and elections indefinitely postponed. The Bush administration sent CIA and FBI stoolies to help attempt to create this scenario.
Unfortunately, (or rather, perhaps, fortunately) it backfired spectacularly. Almost no Pakistani citizens believe Islamic extremists killed Bhutto. They see the much more logical motives for a government backed killing, not to mention the government's rapidly morphing tales of explanation. They have been conditioned by repeated coups and government sponsored killing of political leading lights, so that they are not so easily fooled.
Their outrage and the slide of the whole state into near chaos was what forced Musharraf's hand and left him unable to cancel or postpone elections.
Don't be duped into thinking this indicates he is ready and willing to leave office.
Post a Comment
Bhutto's death was arranged by Musharraf's own security service (the notorious ISI) in an attempt to extend the state of emergency. Their demented hope was that by assassinating one of the leading candidates Musharraf could argue that chaos ruled the day, the state of emergency could be extended further and elections indefinitely postponed. The Bush administration sent CIA and FBI stoolies to help attempt to create this scenario.
Unfortunately, (or rather, perhaps, fortunately) it backfired spectacularly. Almost no Pakistani citizens believe Islamic extremists killed Bhutto. They see the much more logical motives for a government backed killing, not to mention the government's rapidly morphing tales of explanation. They have been conditioned by repeated coups and government sponsored killing of political leading lights, so that they are not so easily fooled.
Their outrage and the slide of the whole state into near chaos was what forced Musharraf's hand and left him unable to cancel or postpone elections.
Don't be duped into thinking this indicates he is ready and willing to leave office.
