"No Truce," you have no clue. I have no clue? I do not believe I am the one singing the praises of a third-world thug, a dictator who overthrew the elected government of a country, and is only on our side because he was given a choice between a lead bullet and a gold coin. I am not the one who believes that "elections do not a free country make," to justify support for a dictator (certainly as Orwellian a position as I have seen on this board in a long time).
Elections may not a free country make, but it seems to me a necessary, if not sufficient condition. Hitler and Milosevic were initially elected, but as with Musharraf, abused the powers they had to pervert and overthrow representative governments. It seems to strange that someone who claims to be a libertarian spokesman finds so many good words for a thug who spits on the principals of libertarianism. So give me a clue oh great one. How do you square Musharraf with libertarianism?
What about Pinochet? In a crisis, where the choice is between an elected tyranny and a military coup, the best choice is -- what? Pakistani libertarians, I would say, have a loooong road ahead of them, but a military leader who seizes power can, as in Chile, pave the way for a free market economy. Pinochet saved Chile from Communism. Musharraf, under somewhat different circumstances -- and, no doubt, with covert US support -- saved Pakistan from sliding into chaos or, perhaps, falling under the rule of a Taliban-type regime. It seems particularly wrong for the US to pull the rug out from under him and side with the odious government of India when he supported the US war effort all the way. The aim of this manuever is to isolate America compeltely from its Muslim allies and destroy the coalition -- and I can hardly believe that I, an opponent of this war, have to point this out to you, presumably one of the "let's roll" crowd.
I trust that answers your concerns.