DeMediacratic Nation: The Times Editorial Board in THEIR Labrynth When Considering Musharraf

Hmmm, The Times editorial board is at it again and all emotionally as well.

Regarding General Pervez Musharraf the board believes the U.S. should cut its loses with the sinking fortunes of the Pakistani leader:

“Washington continues to uncritically support the general’s highhanded rule.”

“We’ve seen this story too many times before. One version starred the shah of Iran, others some of General Musharraf’s predecessors. None ended happily for the United States or the nations involved. Dealing with dictators is sometimes necessary. Clinging to them when their people want them gone is unbecoming of the world’s greatest democracy and unhealthy for America’s long-term interests.”

It is just another cut and run tactic The Board loves, although I’ll agree that it would be nice as the board says, to have Pakistan “return to free elections and civilian rule,” in time; but at what cost? Even Time Magazine sees the light in reference to what Musharraf is up against at home, with:

“Called "my buddy" by George W. Bush, Musharraf, 62, has paid a price for his decision, having been the target of multiple assassination attempts by the militants who infest his country. His ties with the U.S. enrage religious radicals, who are his most dangerous opponents.”

Best by far is from someone that has a clue and doesn’t get into a hissy fit like The Times editorial board whenever something even slightly Bush is the subject.

From Foreign Affairs, “A False Choice in Pakistan,” Daniel Markey, July/August 2007 Vol 86, Number 4

“It is true that Pakistan's government needs greater popular legitimacy -- won through the ballot box -- in order to advance both long- and short-term counterterrorism goals. But the critics' prescriptions for how to advance these goals risk throwing the United States, Pakistan, and the war on terrorism off course without offering a better alternative. If members of the Pakistani army and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) retain ties to militant groups, including Taliban sympathizers, they do so as a hedge against abandonment by Washington. The past six decades of on-again, off-again bilateral cooperation have undermined Pakistani confidence in long-term U.S. partnership. Washington, accordingly, should resist the appeal of the cathartic but counterproductive approach of confronting Islamabad with more sticks and fewer carrots. Any attempt to crack down on Pakistan will exacerbate distrust, resulting in increased Pakistani support for jihadists; coercive threats will undermine confidence without producing better results.”

Markey suggests “shifting gears:”

“Washington should shift gears in its approach to Pakistan, but it should not reverse course. Given the abysmal state of U.S.-Pakistani relations on the eve of 9/11, the Bush administration's six-year partnership with Musharraf has paid real dividends. Pakistan's macroeconomic outlook and its relationship with India have both improved, creating new prospects for long-term stability and prosperity.”

Shifting gears is appropriate advice to any side of our arguments these days. The Times, the Left and others growing weary of Musharraf’s Pakistan prefer shifting gears into R, which, suffice it to say is not Race; anyone knows (I hope) that driving along at a decent clip and jamming the gearshift into Reverse isn’t really a good thing. The same applies to any alliance, whether perfect (are there any out there?) or not. We need to appreciate the positives rather than just negatives and not simplify the arguments, which is something we love to do; great for the game of politics but not the game of life.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2366650358533406350

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -