Replies

In a very Machiavellian way, the demise of Musharraf might bode well for our war on terrorism in the long term - if the Islamofascist nutjobs who are trying to assassinate him succeed and take over, that would provide a good pretext for the U.S. military to take swift action against the Pakistani nuke program.

We should get the Indians on board with this, too: their security and that of the entire region would depend on a swift, decisive strike against the Islamofascists before they get their hands on the nukes, and Indian cooperation would ensure its success.

I'd like to point something out here. Remember how the dems after 9/11 began to act as if it were totally obvious the attack was about to take place and the administration was negligent for not acting to prevent it? (well, I say that in past tense- actually, they are still trying to go with this line) But in hindsight, it is always easy to know what was not apparent at the time.

Now, here, we have a potentially disastrous situation brewing. Is it the number one story? Is it even top ten? Are the dem candidates banging on their drums about the potential catastrophe in Pakistan? No. It's all about Iraq- a current issue. You don't hear them saying what they'd do to sort out Pakistan. Instead you hear them talking about what they would not have done 9 months ago. This is the problem with any populist party. Because of the dynamics of appealing to voters instead of having any real platform and issues, they can't and won't talk about serious problems that the public isn't interested in. The past is gone. Nobody can go back and unmake Operation Iraqi Freedom. It happened and that's the reality now. It is useless, as such, to continually carp on it now as if getting elected will make the war un-happen.

This situation in Pakistan could easily dwarf all our other problems combined if the fundies were to get their hands on those nukes. After it happens (if it were to happen), you'll find a lot of 20/20 hindsight among all the dems currently running for the office of president but you don't hear anything out of them now.

I don't think Musharref is riding the fence, I think he's riding the tiger. And it's well known that once you get up on the tiger's back, there's no easy way to get off.

In his speech the the nation, which he gave to explain why he was making a deal with Bush--who had made him an offer he could not refuse--he spent ten out of twenty minutes discussing religious matters, which the New York Times did not see fit to print, because the New York Times doesn't understand religion.

What he did was to retell the story of Muhammed's early career. How he made a solemn alliance with the Jews of Medina, because it was necessary at the time, and then broke it. Then how he made a solemn alliance with the Infidels of Mecca, and then broke that. What that said to me is that he was telling his people that it was necessary to make a pact with Bush, but that he would break the pact when the time came to do so.

Subsequent events, however, have painted Musharref into a corner, or placed him on the back of the tiger. He CAN'T break the pledge with America, or he will be swept away. He CAN'T go after the Muslim fundamentalists, because they belong to his own base of support--intelligence and the army. The secular civilians would prefer to bring back the old corrupt civilian regime. So, he has no choice but to play it one day at a time and try to survive.

I agree that if he is killed, things will be much worse. Terrorism will be back in charge, and we will have to confront it with force rather than persuasion.