Letters to the Editor
-
One point ... the real economy in Pakistan ...
" Musharraf, who came to power in a 1999 military coup, had presided over six years of strong economic growth, adding millions to the urban middle classes."
While this may be true, Pakistan is suffering as are all other countries the growing divide between rich and poor. It is very disingenuous to talk about economic growth anymore as neoliberal economics have skewed almost all gains in the world's economy upwards to the rich. The poor in Pakistan are no different andd have watched the growth while their own situations have deteriorated markedly.
-
Pakistan.......
The vast majority of the educated Pakistanis are indeed moderate and are certainly in favor of dismantling the extremist militants. The election results in the Frontier have once again shown that. Unfortunately most of the resources sent to Musharraf by the Bush government weren't subject to oversight and disappeared into other areas while the terrorist cells in the NWFP kept gaining strength. The good news is that the civilians are about to take over. The bad news is that the Army stills wields all the real power and Musharraf may still have his key men there able to do his bidding. There are also, fortunately, men in high ranking positions in the army whose aims of supporting a democracy are in keeping with those of the vast majority of Pakistanis. It's easy to name a few of these. The truth is Pakistanis are a fair and intelligent people who can be reasoned with. Strong armed tactics have only bred rebellion and chaos. It's time for the much neglected diplomatic approach to be introduced. I know the presence of nuclear weapons there may cause us to continue with the panic/force reaction. Let's resist that.
-
It will be interesting to see how
Anyone else keeps Pakistan from flying apart in withering anarchy. I'm not sure it can be done. But I guess the liberals can be satisfied with that - after all there will always be someone to blame for dead Muslim babies.
-
U.S. meddling..
..has helped damn few countries around the world. We might have better results if we just focused on incremental changes, rather than doing things like CIA-driven regime change, arms sales, installing puppet governments, and arrogantly claiming to be spreading democracy around the world.
Does democracy work all that great here? I really don't think so. No one has been representing my views for the past 20 years. They just keep taking my tax money. But I digress.
-
The US in Pakistan
I have a co-worker who was in Pakistan during Bhuto's assasination. His reaction was interesting after he came back. He commented that Pakistan was reduced to anarchy within hours of Bhuto's death and that the army and police were kept off the streets. He described a country of 200 million people reduced to chaos in a couple of hours by organized gangs; he wondered who would have the logistical power to pull it off ... he thinks it is the CIA doing the neocons bidding. This, he feels, in an effort to convince Middle-Easterners that this chaos will be visited on those country's populations that refuse to do U.S.'s bidding.
I hope it's not true.
Point two, wasn't an anti-US government just elected into the Palistinian territories? What has happened? Will anything really change? It will be interesting to see how our client state will handle this situation.
-
Ironic?
The esteemed Juan Cole states:
"Ironically, Musharraf, who came to power in a 1999 military coup, had presided over six years of strong economic growth, adding millions to the urban middle classes."
Not ironic at all if you ever have read the works of the quintessential student of radicalism and revolution:
"We are usually told that revolutions are set in motion to realize radical changes. Actually, it is drastic change which sets the stage for revolution. The revolutionary mood and temper are generated by the irritations, difficulties, hungers, and frustrations inherent in the realization of drastic change. Where things have not changed at all, there is the least likelihood of revolution." - Eric Hoffer
-
Great Article
Thank you.
I love it when all the US attempts to create "democracy" (yeah right) in other countries actually backfires and creates a real democracy that we have no choice but to support.
This would be beautiful if it wasn't for all the death and destruction promoted by the good ole USA that got them to this point. Sigh. I would be totally depressed were in not for the coming election and the hope that either Obama (hopefully!) or Clinton can come in and really change the way we involve ourselves with other countries.
But it does sound like a positive that Musharraf is out. Hopefully they can hold on through the fall.
-
The Attempted Murder
I guess it could be construed as 'attempted murder' if you won't give a plane clearance to land that is running out of fuel.
That said, I would think that the captain of the plane would be within his/her rights to disregard the refusal & land anyway since it will soon be coming down one way or another.
I guess I can't imagine an airplane pilot saying 'oh well, they won't give us clearance. Dammit, I guess we'll just run out of gas & crash'. If that's the case, Pakistanis are much more intrinsically law-abiding than this American.
-
I don't understand, Dr. Cole
Which of the dozen failed governments in Pakistan over the last 60 years was stable?
-
Button button who's got the button
One question: How well does this bode for the security, command and control infrastructure for Pakistan’s nuclear weapons?
-
Where was Jack Bauer?
AFter the next corporate warmongering shill in the white house decides to stabilize Pakistan, people may have to ask the unfortunate question, "Where was Jack Bauer?"
-
What?
Okay, I do not think Bush has ever had a thoughtful, effective foreign policy, but this is a bit over the top. Bush did not install Musharraf - Bush had to garner support from countries as they had constituted themselves. Sure, the U.S. could have taken the position that Pakistan needed to embrace a more democratic form of government, but it is hard to say if U.S. pressure would have been a stabilizing force on Pakistan. In any event, one can make the same observation about our policies towards several nations, that we support not democracies or even democratic movements, but strong men and kings.
I'll be happy to see Bush go, but come on, he did not make Pakistan. If this illustrates anything, it is that the influence of the U.S. is limited. The only question, in my mind, is how much has our ability to influence events deteriorated during Bush's presidency?