The Good War?

While on the campaign trail for the 2008 election Barack Obama often extolled the virtues of the Afghanistan War, contrasting it sharply with the disastrous Iraq War which he had vociferously protested.  A year after winning that election, he faces arguably his toughest political decision to date: should he send more troops to Afghanistan? The debate within the White House appears to be focused on how Obama should continue this war (more troops or more sophisticated technology such as unmanned drones) as opposed to why he should. In reality, sending in more troops is delaying the inevitable and Obama must put an end to this war as soon as possible.

The first reason to end this war is the lack of clarity over the war’s objective. In March, the President stated that his goal in Afghanistan was to “to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al-Qaeda”. Yet most experts will tell you that al-Qaeda is a diminished force which has largely fled Afghanistan. It would be more prudent for the U.S. to concentrate on defeating al-Qaeda in countries such as Yemen and Somalia, which have recently become a hotbed for Islamic extremists, while paying more attention to the tinderbox that is Pakistan. Unfortunately, the U.S. is bogged down in a perpetual battle with the Taliban at huge human cost for all concerned. The War in Afghanistan has evolved into another nation-building exercise, despite the fact that Obama stated that “We are not going to be able to rebuild Afghanistan into a Jeffersonian democracy“.

The military is ostensibly in Afghanistan to protect the U.S. from future al-Qaeda attacks, yet how many of al-Qaeda’s most devastating attacks have been organized from Afghanistan? 9/11? Yes. The attacks provided the casus belli for the war. The 2002 Bali Bombings? No. They were planned in Thailand. The 2004 Madrid Bombings? No. They were planned in Spain and North Africa. The 2005 London Bombings? No. They were planned in England. The idea that the War in Afghanistan will protect the U.S. from future attacks is naïve and myopic.

BRIC Roundup – January, 2009

There isn’t much new major news coming out of the BRIC countries this week, so instead, I will give you a quick roundup of some of the stories that have been developing through the weeks:

Russia is continuing its expansion of influence over its neighboring countries in whatever way possible.  As we have documented through the weeks, it is clear that the conflict in Georgia, the continuing spat over the missile shield in Poland, and the energy dispute in Ukraine are all part and parcel of the same effort of Russia to bring itself back into global prominence.  This week, Russia has promised Kyrgystan a $300 million loan and a welcoming-back into the fold if the former satellite country will close its U.S. military bases that are being used to support the war in Afghanistan.

It is interesting to ponder whether these moves are actually tactically relevant, or whether they are more psychological stabilizing to the Russian mind.  To be sure, it is probably a bit of both.  Russia may be looking well into the future at impending conflicts over energy and hoping to create a sort of barricade of large countries around it; at the same time, it seems in large part that the motivation is psychological, as Russia feels increasingly separated and ideologically differentiated from the countries that surround it, and needs to carve its own niche.

India continues to wrestle with Pakistan over the Mumbai crisis, and not much has changed.  India has supplied what it believes to be proof of the attacker’s origins, which Pakistan has accepted–but denied any accountability.  It also appears (according to Reuters in that article) that the U.S. has backed away its pressure and involvement in the situation, without which India is losing some steam.  This let-down of international pressure is what I warned against allowing a few weeks ago, and despite my provocations it has occurred.  Tomorrow’s-President Obama will be put in a tough situation to respond to Pakistan having missed the opportunity to make reasonable demands that will not be seen as hostile.

In lighter news, a fantastic movie, Slumdog Millionaire, won the Golden Globe for best picture and stands an almost sure-bet to receive an Oscar nomination.  The movie tells the story of an Indian boy growing up in various areas of India (including Bombay/Mumbai) through his appearance on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?”  I might speak more about it in the future, but in the meantime, go out and see it both for its interesting portrait of life in the lower classes of India and its cinematic magnificence.

Brazil is still taking the lead on the Doha development round.  This might be somewhat surprising given the current financial crisis, but it may be indicative of an important ideological difference from the incoming administration in the U.S–as we gear up for Keynesian deficit spending in the trillions and its potential corollary of protectionism, Brazil is still pushing free trade to the front of the agenda.  It could just be an opportunistic move by a developing country looking to rise out of the crisis in a much better position, but in any case, evidences a commitment that is interesting at the least.

Finally, China is participating in a program among the ASEAN countries of Southeast Asia to create a fund to ward off effects of the financial crisis.  This is interesting in part with its combination of other efforts to insulate itself from the effects of the crisis by pushing off effects onto other nations, as I wrote about here.  I’m not quite sure what to make of this move, but it is worthwhile to watch China’s movements in this crisis.  China is the largest creditor to the United States, assuring that both countries are linked inextricably while pursuing opposite goals.  How each country emerges from this crisis will be important to the other.

Such is the state of the BRIC world on this Monday, January 19, 2009.  There is an important story with significant impact on U.S. foreign policy and economic life in each nation, evidencing the importance of the study of these nations.  I’ll make sure to keep you updated in the coming weeks, so keep checking back every Monday at mid-day.

Listen to the Pashtuns

The recent torching of over 100 NATO military depots, a Pentagon official claimed, ‘has had an overall insignificant impact to date’ in the US’s strenuous effort to stabilize Afghanistan.  The comment couldn’t be further from the truth.

This significant attack did not occur in Afghanistan but on the US’s new front in the War on Terror – the tribal areas of Pakistan.  The Guardian and The Boston Globe identified the Taliban as the perpetrators, while other outlets, like the International Herald Tribune, said ‘Islamic militants’  were too blame.  There is speculation, however, that the attackers had no affiliation to either identity, and that in fact, they were simply Pashtun tribesmen defending their ancestral homeland, their tribal codes of honor, and their religion of Islam.  But how can the US distinguish between the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Pashtun militants?  The label of ‘terrorist’ remains loosely defined but yet dangerous as ever.

When the War on Terror began in 2002, the US identified the Afghan government, then controlled by the Taliban, and the terror network they supported, al-Qaeda, as the primary enemies.  Bush invaded Afghanistan, captured Kabul, and overthrew the Taliban stronghold – which eventually found a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas.  Bush also gave millions of dollars to support his military alliance with Musharraf, who eventually conducted military raids in the ‘Talibanized’ tribal areas dominated both in population and culture by Pashtuns.

When the Taliban regrouped after the initial battle for Afghanistan, Bush blamed Musharraf for his lackluster commitment in destroying the terror cells in the tribal areas.  As a result of Musharraf’s poor performance, Bush increased the US military’s presence in the Pashtun dominated tribal areas.  This diplomatic blunder created the greatest mishap of the Bush administrations War on Terror – the little consideration paid to the intricacies of tribal culture and the fierce resistance with which the Pashtuns have historically shown towards foreign invasion.

The Pashtun tribe is the largest ethnic group in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.  Their geographic region extends along the border from northern Pakistan into southern Afghanistan.  The Pashtuns are historically a fierce and very proud people, as they have ousted the likes of Alexander the Great, the British Empire, and the Soviet Union from its ancient turf.  The Pashtuns govern themselves on the Pashtunwali, the traditional tribal code that strictly governs behavior and personal honor - it also provides warm hospitality to visitors – hence why their Muslim brothers of the Taliban were welcomed after the overthrow of the Afghan government in 2002.  Moreover, they are proud Muslims and adhere closely to the Islamic law, customs and values.

The Pashtuns today, my colleague Frankie Martin notes, ‘feel threatened by the Pakistani government and military, composed mainly of urban ethnic Punjabis; the government in Afghanistan, composed mainly of Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras’.  Recently, the Pashtuns are threatened with the US’s cross border raids into tribal villages in pursuit of terrorists, as well as with US drone attacks that often claim the lives of innocent civilians.  It should come as no surprise, then, that many Pashtuns are identifying and sympathizing with the religious rhetoric and zealotry of the Taliban’s mullahs and al-Qaeda’s charismatic leaders.

Poor diplomacy and culturally insensitive policies towards the Pashtuns have proven to be the US’s achilles heal in Afghanistan.  If Obama seeks to change the direction of the war, he must avoid the disastrous policies initiated by President Bush.

Cornering the Taliban and al-Qaeda in the tribal areas will be an unsuccessful military maneuver if the US does not win the respect and favor of the Pashtun people.  A surge of up to 20,000 soldiers will only encourage the Pashtuns to defend their culture and religion from outside influences.  Obama should engage in consistent dialogues with Pashtun leaders in an effort to establish a relationship of mutual cooperation.  Listening to the fears and concerns of the Pashtuns can help Obama swing the pendulum away from the Taliban and into the US’s court, a shift drastically needed to bring stability to Afghanistan.

Most importantly, Obama must be extremely careful with how he labels ‘terrorists’.  Will a terrorist be anyone that attacks US or NATO military convoys?  Hopefully not.  The Pashtuns are not terrorists like members of  al-Qaeda.  Al-Qaeda is a global network that brings terror to other countries.  The Pashtuns simply defend their homeland, their culture and their religion from foreign invasion.  If US or NATO military outposts are attacked on Pashtun grounds in the future, and if the US declares war on the entire Pashtun tribe, Obama should then prepare for a long, arduous and probably fruitless guerilla war.

India and Pakistan Still on the Brink of Conflict

Now that our media coverage has switched mainly to domestic concerns, it is easy to forget the fact that India and Pakistan are still on the brink of conflict.

As that article discusses, India is continuing to pressure Pakistan to clean house and get rid of terrorism.  It is sad that a tragic catalyst was needed to bring the political community around to finally pressuring Pakistan, but, as I have said before, this just may be the perfect opportunity to take care of a serious problem of terrorism in Pakistan through peaceful means.

Some examples of Pakistan’s terrorist problem: For years, everyone has had a fairly well-founded belief that Osama bin Laden is hanging out in northern Pakistan; there are known terrorist training camps that anyone who can read wikipedia can learn about; and the group that carried out the Mumbai attacks was so politically powerful in Pakistan that it took several days for the weight of the entire international community to urge their arrest.  Pakistan is at least turning a blind eye to the presence of terrorism, and at worst actually supporting it.

It doesn’t help, of course, that the Pakistani government–which we do not question because it is a “democracy”–might still be funding Lashkar-e-Taiba; at the very least, their reluctance to arrest it leaders–and the subsequent speed with which they were arrested–does not inspire confidence.  Add that to the fact that a large portion of Pakistan is completely lawless and unsupervised (the tribal areas where Osama bin Laden is believed to be hiding) and Pakistan looks more and more like a place that needs some attention from the international community.

The world’s high beams have rounded the bend and are now pointed squarely at Pakistan.  With enough political pressure after this tragic event, Pakistan should have no other choice than to stop turning a blind eye to terrorism.   The U.S. should seize this opportunity to advance the goals of its “War on Terror” without any military action and before any conflict arises between Pakistan and its neighbor, India.

Of course, even diplomacy is difficult in this case.  Pakistan is a “democracy,” and Bush refused to get involved because of the fragile nature of our relationship with Pervez Musharraf, who some viewed for a long time as the only thing keeping Pakistan from an Islamic theocracy.  With Musharraf’s resignation and the subsequent election of Asif Ali Zardari (you will remember him as the widower of Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated a year ago), it seems that Pakistan’s democracy has in fact solidified somewhat, and, in retrospect, Musharraf’s military dictatorship was probably not a good surface for us to have rested our weight on for so long (although this is still somewhat up in the air).

Even as we express outrage, there are important lessons to absorb for our own foreign policy.  It is widely known that Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terrorist group behind the Mumbai attacks, received its inceptional funding from the CIA and the Pakistani ISI in order to help the fight against the Soviet Union in Pakistan.  They join a club that includes one of our favorite people, Osama bin Ladin himself and his mujahadeen, as direct recipients of U.S. funding in that conflict.

This is not to say that interference in Afghanistan in the 1980s was wrong (I mean, who didn’t cheer for Charlie Wilson in last year’s movie?), but it clearly provides a lesson in how U.S. foreign policy actions can have long term impacts.

President-elect Obama and the international community should join with India to pressure Pakistan to clean house.  With enough pressure and sustained global outrage from both governments and the public over the terror attacks in Mumbai, there is serious room for persuading Pakistan in the coming weeks and doing a lot to fight terrorism in the world.

Let’s just hope that pushing it off the news doesn’t close this opportunity.

Congolese Women Bear the Unbearable

I’ve worked as a Pennsylvania-certified sexual assault and domestic violence counselor since I was nineteen years old. I’ve counseled women as young as fifteen who have been assiduously cheated by the United States justice system, wandering through the remainder of their lives helpless and destroyed.  I’ve witnessed the way sexual violence breaks a woman’s spirit. But I’ve only done work in the United States, where victims have access to free counseling services and medical attention.  Across the globe, in war-ridden communities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, women are forced to make do, to piece themselves back together and reintegrate back into society, without such resources.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, rape is an inescapable reality.

Policymakers in the Western world tremble in fury each time news of an honor killing or gang-rape in the Muslim world reaches their ears. Three years ago, when former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf banned gang-rape victim Mukhtar Mai from leaving the country so she wouldn’t “blacken her country’s reputation,”  Washington erupted in rage. Condoleezza Rice personally ordered the travel ban reversed. Mai was vindicated.

The U.S. government has taken similar actions in Saudi Arabia, and other Middle Eastern countries. But why have our policymakers not exercised the same resolve to aid women in the DRC, a country with the highest rate of sexual assault in the world? Up to 70 percent of Congolese women are estimated to have been raped at some point in their lives.

Stories of their ordeals are nothing short of horrifying. Many women are reported to have bullets shot into their vaginas, others raped by multiple soldiers. Still others are sexually assaulted using tree-branches and bayonets. Rape in the Congo has evolved into a war strategy, utilized by various rebel groups to force their enemies into submission.

Last fall, Vice-President-elect Joe Biden co-sponsored the International Violence Against Women Act, a bill that will provide one billion dollars over the course of five years in U.S. aid to international programs that deal with sexual violence.

Both President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect  Joe Biden have demonstrated their commitment to supporting the I-VAWA and providing aid to the women of the Democratic Republic of Congo. President-elect Barack Obama personally wrote a letter defending the legislation and rebutting a group’s claim that the I-VAWA is an example of anti-male, anti-family propaganda. He also wrote a letter to Condoleezza Rice, urging her to take action on behalf of the rape victims languishing in this central African country.

So, while it remains to be seen how the Obama team addresses violence against women in the DRC, perhaps there is hope. It would be a shame if our concern for victims of sexual assault and domestic violence continued only to extend to countries of geopolitical and strategic interest.

India Becomes Front for Terror; Russia Responds to U.S. Missile Plan

To accommodate the increasing visibility of the Rising Powers on the world stage in recent weeks, this post needs a double focus.  If you want to read the full discussion, be sure to click “Read the rest of this entry” below.

First, we are all at this point familiar with the tragic events in India over the week.  As India becomes a front for the “war on terror,” it is going to face heightened tensions with Pakistan and a reevaluation of its identity.

Should President-Elect Barack Obama engage early-on with the Pakistani government to uproot terrorists out of the lawless regions?  Will the events in Mumbai allow a change in the status quo to allow for such an incursion?  Will India threaten to move militarily against Pakistan?  All of these are vital questions for the coming weeks.

Also, in direct response to U.S. policy to build missiles in Poland, Russia announced plans this week for a counter-missile installation.  Obama will need to decide whether Russia is merely posturing, whether they will install the new missiles no matter what in a sort of power grab, or whether the U.S. needs to change policy in response.

While the move by the Russians is simply another move toward intimidating President-Elect Obama into backing away from the missile shield, it is an important signal that the pressure will not recede by the time Obama takes office, and he needs to have a firm plan ready to go on day one to deal with this flare up.

Although these are the biggest stories coming out of the world of the Rising Powers this week, there is plenty of other stuff to catch up on.  Next week, I will be profiling the role of the Rising powers in the World Trade Organization talks, and how the global economic crisis is bringing the world together in important ways.  Be sure to check back on Mondays for the weekly recap of the world’s Rising Powers and U.S. foreign policy.

The United States in Pakistan

With revelations that Pakistani intelligence services planned the July 7th attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, the continent is quickly approaching what may turn out to be a confrontation of massive proportion. While this may come to no surprise as the two nations frequent headlines over Kashmir and other incendiary issues including religion and territorial encroachment, India and Pakistan have long been at odds and may be facing another enormous hurdle to avoid hostilities. How the United States factors into this relationship may prove to be a critical factor in determining the course of action.

The U.S. has played both sides of this conflict for sometime now, correctly recognizing India as the more natural ally (English speaking, democratic, free market) but acknowledging that combating terrorism in the region would be incredibly difficult without the support of the Pakistani government.  No matter who occupies the President’s desk it has been critical to have the military and political support of Pakistan, given its proximity to Afghanistan and the Middle East as a whole. However as the last year of conflict has revealed, Pakistan’s support may be tongue in cheek. With the revelation of a conspiracy to attack the Indian embassy and the orchestration by Inter-Services Intelligence in Pakistan, it appears to be another step in the direction of open confrontation.

Sooner or later Washington will have had it’s fill and begin to (as it already has) construct a strategic plan for increased levels of engagement in the region. It has been left with little alternative given the attacks on the border to Afghanistan and the deaths of allied forces. Falling to both the department of defense and the intelligence community, it would go far beyond the border engagement that has already taken place, and delve more at the heat of the problem: the inner workings of the Pakistani government.

ISI has been working to undermine US interests abroad. Whether or not the plans against the Indian embassy (and others that may or may not be discovered) had support at the top from Director General Nadeem Taj and President Musharraf, it must be made clear to Pakistani forces they must not continue to engage the US and its allies in anything close to resembling a proxy war. Doing so casts the nation in the same light as Iran, which is not in its best interests if the nation wishes to progress. If it cannot control elements of its military and intelligence divisions, the consequences may be as severe as to warrant stronger military engagement inside the borders of Pakistan.

The US would reach out to India and encourage cooperative action against Pakistan, and given their history it may not take much to convince Prime Minster Singh that it is in the best interests of India to help stabilize the region. Given the revelations of the attack on the embassy, it would also allow for significant political willpower to successfully mobilize both the public and military for increased action. However, Prime Minister Singh is a deft politician and scholar who oversaw huge economic growth during his years in the government. He may wish to avoid any potential hostilities that could spiral out of control, although will most certainly face a call for action from the right given the Kabul bombings.

What form of action and the level of engagement remains to be seen, but at this point in time and given the cards on the table it’s hard not to seriously consider a stronger alliance with India working to target elements in Pakistan that have either gotten out of Musharraf’s grasp, or were never under his control in the first place. The best response may be coordinated efforts between the intelligence agencies of the US, India, and UK to identify those responsible and respond accordingly. These actions, in coordination with state diplomacy holding Musharraf accountable, may be enough to address the conflict while avoiding the beginning of a conventional war that surely would not end as one.

Giving Hope through Education

If you read The New York Times in the past few weeks, you would have noticed two articles describing, in full, across-the-board benefits of education in regions of the world that need them.

The first, by Nicholas Kristof, glorifies the endeavors of an American who spends his time partnering with tribal communities in west Pakistan to build schools for their children instead of bombs for war. The second is written by an Afghan school director, who advocates for haste in the implementation of high-quality universal education  for Afghanistan before the American military withdraws and an abundance of aid workers leaves with them. The articles argue, as Kristof concludes in his well-written editorial, that education "has done more to advance U.S. interests [around the world] than the entire
military and foreign policy apparatus" of the current or previous administrations.

In this spirit I hope to draw attention to the cause of a similarly-minded organization called the Kroo Bay Initiative (KBI). KBI’s mission captures the heart of the above-mentioned articles, namely that education is the key to a host of development needs, including but not limited to economic opportunity, conflict prevention and resolution, progressively sound public health, even democratization processes. It is an organization that seeks to advance attainable peace and hope through goodwill endeavors in a vast slum located in one of the world’s poorest countries (the poorest, according to the UN Human Development Index): Sierra Leone.

The name of the slum is Kroo Bay, the organization’s namesake, a community of over 6,000 displaced Sierra Leoneans immersed in refuse, corrugated metal, and pollution delivered from upstream. It is emblematic of displaced communities and slums everywhere, places where mortality rates skyrocket and preventable diseases fester, and which contrast sharply with Millennium Development Goals.

KBI’s mission is to give hope to Kroo Bay’s children through the assurance of a high-quality education. Goals include:

• restoring existing schools and constructing new ones

• providing school supplies to students who need them

• comprehensively covering school fees

• supplementing the salaries of underfunded teachers, who often live without pay for months

KBI’s mission is nothing more than the eradication of Kroo Bay — a symbol of slum-living and extreme poverty — through the assurance of high-quality universal education for children who would otherwise mature lacking it.

If you’re interested in KBI’s endeavors, I invite you to learn more about the organization by visiting its website here: http://kbinitiative.org/default.aspx. You can also send an email to kroobay@gmail.com.

Maybe if we can support universal primary education worldwide, we can have peace. And to quote John F. Kennedy:

"Let us think of
education as the means of developing our greatest abilities, because in
each of us there is a private hope and dream which, fulfilled, can be
translated into benefit for everyone and greater strength for our
nation."

Unrest and Alarm in Pakistan

As reported Sunday by David Sanger in the New York Times, it has been revealed that advanced nuclear weapon blueprints were part of Pakistani Addul Khan’s notorious weapons ring of the early twenty-first century. These blueprints, as described by the Times, are far more advanced than Chinese knockoffs that had been thought of as the previous standard in the black market. It has raised serious concerns across the security community as a result, and also cast deeper shadows on Pakistan’s already questionable ability to control access to its nuclear program.   

Subsequently, there are calls from Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai that he is strongly considering sending troops over the border into Pakistan to curtail cross border attacks by Taliban and tribal forces. Sunday we heard some of the strongest language from Karzai in addressing the issue, and could conceivably be drawn from an incident earlier this week.

US air strikes in Pakistan killed 11 Pakistani soldiers, and raised questions as to whether it was merely faulty intelligence or the US military targeting known Taliban collaborators inside of the country. There is little doubt insurgents have crossed the border time and again to engage coalition forces, and as such, it’s clearly in the interests of NATO security policy to halt these advancements at the line, which has been done.

Video Courtesy of the Pentagon via the BBC

The real question that everyone is thinking: what happens next? I’m not taking either side in this particular issue but merely doing my best to layout different perspectives.

When analyzing US interests, for many it’s not hard to justify support of Afghan action against Pakistan. There has been considerable incursion across the border and actions against coalition forces, and it simultaneously draws resources away from the internal security mission. Whether or not there is Pakistani support for such endeavors is irrelevant, as the attacks need to be curtailed. If the government does not take a proactive approach, the only alternatives lie outside of the country itself.

The US should be careful in how it addresses this issue, and do so with much humility. In the 1970’s and 80’s the US supported the Taliban against the Soviet Union and encouraged Pakistani villages on the border to welcome them into their homes, marry into their families, and support their actions. One might even say they are still doing exactly what the United States requested (the Pakistanis), as strange and convoluted as that might sound. Any action against the Pakistani border needs to be tempered and full consideration of civilians and infrastructure needs to exceed the normal standard for military operations.

If Pakistan wants to avoid increased hostilities, it would be in their interest to lockdown the border to Afghanistan as much as possible. Granted it’s a hugely difficult task, but even a valiant attempt would go along way to demonstrating the government does not support such militia actions. It needs to be much more aggressive then it has been in the past, and understand that no attacks into Afghanistan on coalition forces would give them serious political leverage against any action by Afghanistan and the US. It would also maintain current borders, which if increased hostilities did occur, might face uncertain consequences.

There are political and diplomatic solutions to this looming confrontation, and should be explored by both sides. A potential solution could be cooperative where US and coalition forces spearhead efforts within the mountains on the border, while Pakistani forces focus on internal security methods within the cities and town. This one is probably too much of a long shot given sovereignty issues and Pakistan’s lack of success thus far, but it could merit exploration.

No conflict serves both interests more fully than all out engagement, and with the looming question of nuclear ambiguity on the part of Pakistan, it only serves to raise the temperature of an already fragile region.

Repeating History: Pakistan

Pakistan seems to be on the minds of a lot of our bloggers here at AID.  Here’s my two cents to this issue:

On Sunday, as Pakistan’s General Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan, which will enable him to severely limit democratic freedoms in that country, the Bush Administration made it clear that this will have no effect on the billions of dollars we are pouring into Pakistan as our ally in the war on terror.

Exactly how many times does the United States need to get burned by propping up unpopular leaders who attempt to keep domestic power through dictatorship-like governance? Isn’t this similar to a Shah-run Iran over a generation ago or a Taliban-run Afghanistan two decades ago? We simply had to pour our money and support into those despotic regimes because if we didn’t the Soviet Union would have jumped on that weakness and communism and evil would have won in the end.

Sure…

Too bad back then we made problems worse for ourselves now, with a war in one of those countries, and harsh anti-US sentiment in the other. This is also a terrible move for an administration that built their foreign policy strategy on promoting democracy in the Middle East. “If your agenda is to save attacks in the U.S. and eliminate Al Qaeda, only the
Pakistani Army can do that,” said the close aide to General Musharraf. “For that, you will have to forget about elections in Pakistan for maybe two to three years.” (Source:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/05/washington/05diplo.html?ex=1352005200&en=bf4c7e3f9b8bbbbc&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink )

The Bush Administration has made it clear that their efforts are not to spread democracy, but first to “squash out terrorism”.  However, as Ben Franklin noted during the birth of our nation, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”