Software

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Terrorist's main problem

0 helpful
14 replies

by onbliss

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

The article resonates with lots of my thoughts on the subject matter.

Link: http://www.paradisepost.com/columns/ci_5913206

******************************
By David Paul Brown
Article Launched: 05/17/2007 01:00:00 AM PDT

When Spain's previous leader backed President Bush in going into Iraq, he was beaten handily when he was up for re-election. Ditto for the head of Italy. Britain's Tony Blair is being pushed out of 10 Downing Street earlier than he anticipated, almost entirely because of backing Bush.

Now it appears that the president's most important ally in the Middle East, Pakistan 's President Musharraf, may be on the ropes.

Monday in the San Francisco Chronicle, former American diplomat Ed Gomez wrote about the current state of affairs in Pakistan .

He said, "If President Musharraf falls, it won't be good for Team Bush to have aided him for so long, literally buying his support in its aimless war on terror. If Musharraf uses heavy handed tactics to crush Pakistan 's pro-democracy movement, that won't look good either for a U.S. administration that still claims to be a big promoter of democracy around the world."

Don't forget Musharraf came to power under a military coup as he essentially stole the election in 1999. The Chief Justice of Pakistan's High Court, Iftikhar Chaudry, was fired by Musharraf last month for nepotism. Some claim the reason was bogus. Many in the legal community are backing Chaudry. Last Saturday as Chaudry flew into Karachi , the financial center of Pakistan , a riot erupted between Musharraf's backers and his opponents. The result of the bedlam? Forty people killed, more than 100 injured and dozens of vehicles torched. The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), backs the Musharraf. They have been known for using extortion to raise money and have been cited for human-rights abuses according to Amnesty International.

Gomez claims, "President Musharraf's position is dangerously weak now. He's viewed as a illegitimate figure by most of the population, and the prospect of being attacked by the nation's legal establishment - almost unprecedented in history - has highlighted this shortcoming."

The irony is of course, that U.S. military people have accused Musharraf of giving both the Taliban and al Qaeda safe haven in Pakistan. Groups that promoted democracy in Pakistan have been oppressed and even jailed under his rule. But Bush still says he's our guy. I know Musharraf is walking a tightrope, trying to back the U.S. in fighting terrorism, but not too vociferously so as to get his administration overthrown or get himself killed. There have been two attempts on his life by his fellow Pakistanis.

But once again, America finds itself in a spot it has been in too many times before, under presidents and Congresses of both parties.

We support a dictator because we think he'll work with us and serve our geopolitical and financial interests. Invariably the poor masses sign on with whatever group or ideology that throws them a lifeline, and one that often has enmity toward the U.S. Why? Because they see us funding and supporting the very people oppressing them.

True, sometimes they've chosen communist regimes. But other times they've chosen to stand with the Christian church.

Sometimes they act in a violent fashion. But other times they're peaceful and just want basic human rights and dignity. This has happened worldwide for decades, but has been especially pronounced in South and Central America and Africa .

This seems to be the lesson America never learns, or maybe doesn't want to learn. It's bigger than backing the leader of Pakistan , even though he's played us like a violin. It goes to the core of what country do we want to represent to the world. Yes, I know the opposite arguments to mine. They go like this. "We may have to back a devil but it's the devil we know." "He's an SOB but he's our SOB." "They'll be anarchy if we don't support this guy."

The thinking is, if we want them to buy our goods, we have to set up U.S. companies in their country and employ them. Of course we pay the local workers virtually nothing and ignore worker and human rights. But we endear ourselves to their upper class who have the money and the clout to further our interests. It's as if Manifest Destiny, and White Man's Burden were empirical truths and never faded into history. And on it goes, ad infinitum.

My point is yes, it may serve you and me as to nominal fees on goods, maybe even a higher standard of living, but ultimately at what cost? The cost is much of the world turning on us? Osama bin Laden has said his primary problem with the U.S. was that we were in his country of Saudi Arabia, too near the two holiest sites in Islam, Mecca and Medina, and closely aligned with the Saud dynasty, who he sees as corrupt and oppressive.

I've never totally bought the line from President Bush the Islamic terrorists hate us because of our wealth, our modernity, our way of life.

There may be some jealously, they may see us as too sexually promiscuous, shun our alcohol use, and think our religions aren't genuine.

But as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul pointed out at the GOP debate Tuesday, the terrorist's main problem with us is we're in their countries, telling them what to do and supporting people they don't like. And they see us as profiting economically from their misery.

Not to mention we should be going after terrorists with Interpol, the CIA, FBI and their equivalents in the respective countries of our allies, and the police. The idea that we're using the military is absurd on its face. You don't use the military to fight people with no uniforms, no home base, no country, often no allegiance to anyone but a small group, no trading partners, that transacts all its business incognito, or under the radar. But alas, that's another newspaper column for another day.

Is our government correct to support Pakistan under President Musharraf, despite his two-faced policy towards us and cruel treatment of democratic dissenters in his own country?

Perhaps, but I don't have to like it.

14 replies

by john.a.wills

President Carter did many wrong things, but one excellent thing he did was to issue an executive order preventing the export of weapons to non-democracies in America. A decade later every American country except Cuba and Haiti was a democracy. The same rule for the world as a whole would not work so fast - after all, the world as a whole is not so dependent on U.S. weaponry, and the U.S. does not supply weaponry to as large a proportion of the world as it does to America. But the Pakistani, Sa'udi and Israeli armed forces rely on the U.S. for their most powerful toys, so would probably insist that their political masters move promptly towards democracy. The attempt to democratize Iraq by conquest should not have been made until such a rule had been in place for at least a decade, when the increase in democracy would have changed the whole pattern of politics in the Near and Middle East.

by onbliss

It is a democracy just for the name. Coups and military dictators have been ruling and making a mockery of democratic norms. And selling arms to them...?

by john.a.wills

I listed Pakistan as a non-democracy which can and does buy weapons from the U.S. Please reread my posting with the brain engaged.

by absolutely

Military weaponry has a special place in market economics. Even if manufacture of such weaponry occurs in the private sector, such manufacturers are able to pursue their [b]economic[/b] profits only because of the [b]political[/b] protections of their right to do so, by the government of the United States. As such, they have [b]no right[/b] to profit by selling weapons to our enemies, eod.

by onbliss

...to ban all weapon trades at all. Probably not. But that would be an ideal situation :-)

by tig2

I personally think that the "War on Terror" was a poor choice. But that is just me and not a rule for other thought.

I have issues with Pakistan as well. Again, just me.

My question to you is to ask if you are approaching the Pakistan question as an American or an Indian, recognising and validating that the two view points are equal yet different.

We have some major problems. We can't seem to figure out what the right thing is. Regardless, I want to understand your position so that I may respect it.

by onbliss

As an Indian, can not ignore the "claims" of Pakistan aiding and supporting terrorist activities on the Indian soil.

As an American resident, can not ignore the fact that America has entered into a pact with the Devil. And there are consequences.

by tig2

And I appreciate the information presented, although I have not gotten through it all.

I have Pakistani friends, I have Indian friends. It disturbs me that, while we are all in this country, there seems to be constant fighting.

What I would hope is that we can unite under a comprehension of what is going wrong and define next steps so that we can start to do something right. The US isn't entirely right (my opinion) and I don't believe has really taken the time to understand the deeper implications of their actions. I'm still trying to fathom Pakistan's goals. And while I know that there is a historical separation between India and Pakistan, I don't understand the nearly vicerial separation that exists.

How can we define the problem in a universal language and communicate it?

by absolutely

[i]This seems to be the lesson America never learns, or maybe doesn't want to learn. It's bigger than backing the leader of Pakistan , even though he's played us like a violin. It goes to the core of what country do we want to represent to the world. Yes, I know the opposite arguments to mine. They go like this. [b]"We may have to back a devil but it's the devil we know." "He's an SOB but he's our SOB." "They'll be anarchy if we don't support this guy."[/b][/i]

There are loads of studies showing that the [b]primary[/b] determinants of peace have nothing to do with the cultural norms associated with any of the "Manifest Destiny"-type crap you cite. You're absolutely correct, that over-simplified "thinking" is the precise cause of the problems of geopolitical instability. Peace is most strongly correlated to general prosperity and individual liberty. As long as populaces have these things, other cultural values are available to those who wish to pursue them. But "special interest" groups have special interests in convincing us to support specific intrusions for the sake of establishing easy, short-term profits in captive markets.

[i]The thinking is, if we want them to buy our goods, we have to set up U.S. companies in their country and employ them. Of course we pay the local workers virtually nothing and ignore worker and human rights. But we endear ourselves to their upper class who have the money and the clout to further our interests. It's as if Manifest Destiny, and White Man's Burden were empirical truths and never faded into history. And on it goes, ad infinitum.

My point is yes, it may serve you and me as to nominal fees on goods, maybe even a higher standard of living, but...[/i]

Forget that, there are no "but"s about it. Look more closely at the up-front costs of any foreign adventure in comparison to the value returned, and how well you thrived without our government interfering where it never belonged. Consider the problems of chemical abuse [b]caused by[/b] Richard Nixon & Ronald Reagan's drug prohibition campaigns. Before they interfered in free market economics here and in South & Central America, the return on investment in addiction was too little for drug dealing to be a lucrative profession, and there was comparatively little abuse. Those two clowns turned their dislike of hippies into a crusade, which has drastically increased violence [u]in the United States[/u] (not to mention elsewhere, but my point is that there are no "but"s about it; our national self-interest is not [b]really[/b] served at the expense of nations that we make into enemies) and interfered with the productivity of millions of addicts and their friends & families. Again, individual liberty is correlated to peace, and its absence is correlated to violence. Look at every political issue with this paradigm and you'll see it rarely fails.

by onbliss

I am sure you must have noticed that I did not write that article :-). Yes, I do agree on several of his views.

by absolutely

[i]I have Pakistani friends, I have Indian friends. It disturbs me that, while we are all in this country, there seems to be constant fighting.

What I would hope is that we can unite under a comprehension of what is going wrong and define next steps so that we can start to do something right. The US isn't entirely right (my opinion) and I don't believe has really taken the time to understand the deeper implications of their actions. I'm still trying to fathom Pakistan's goals. And while I know that there is a historical separation between India and Pakistan, I don't understand the nearly visceral separation that exists.

How can we define the problem in a universal language and communicate it?[/i]

Problems are particular, specific, isolated apparent conflicts in two or more entities' [u]pursuit of their interests[/u]. The key is always to identify the interests instead of fixating on the conflicts. Once common ground is established the conflicts dissipate of their own accord, as people are happy to work in pursuit of their own happiness, so long as we're not obstructed at every step. Discussion of the conflicts themselves tend only to reinforce each sides' complaints rather than establish any basis of cooperation, or even peaceful co-existence. The "moderated resolution" approach taken at Camp David works only when the moderator is far more powerful than the feuding parties, such as the case of adults vs. small children. The power differential in this case is not wide enough to apply such a ham-handed approach.

by onbliss

Your thoughts are pretty valid in a general sense.
One of the core points is that the feuding parties, or factions in them, are not willing to co-exist peacefully. India-Pakistan has a slight variation, Indians are willing to co-exist. I am so so are countless Pakistanis. Unfortunately for all of us Pakistan's government is working against its own citizens and rest of the World. In essence Pakistanis are victims of their own government.

This discussion is closed to new replies.