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 -

Trackposted to Right Pundits, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Perri Nelson's Website, Committees of Correspondence, Mark My Words, The Random Yak, Big Dog's Weblog, Right Truth, The Pet Haven Blog, DragonLady's World, Shadowscope, Webloggin, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Faultline USA, third world county, Wake Up America, Walls of the City, Nuke's news and views, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, Right Voices, and CatSynth.com, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part III and the End (at last)

Combating Global Terrorism

In continuation of my reaction and comments to Obama’s essay (wouldn’t want to erringly refer to it as an analysis); the focus moves to combating global terrorism.

I hope for the sake of Senator Obama that former Senator John Edwards does not also consider Baracks terminology too bumper-stickerish.

I cannot disagree with the importance of Obama’s opening point “From Bali to London, Baghdad to Algiers, Mumbai to Mombasa to Madrid,” as appropriate to the all the locations on the planet that have or have had terrorism thrown in their faces firsthand. I would however add that it might be appropriate to recognize other attacks elsewhere on their anniversaries as we do here in the U.S. on 9/11.

The media does a poor job of reporting on the worldwide plight of people that must live in the face of the terrorist scourge and if they did, perhaps it would be easier for all to make the connection that a threat does indeed exist.

According to Obama, “We must refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan -- the central front in our war against al Qaeda,” to which we likely are focusing there as well as in the Iraq the candidate discounts. More can certainly be done, but as Obama says we must “act quickly, judiciously and decisively,” by pursuing “an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces;” we would likely ‘act slowly, too judiciously and indecisively.’

Perhaps one tactic he will employ is “aggressive diplomacy,” as the candidate says he will “join with our allies in insisting -- not simply requesting -- that Pakistan crack down on the Taliban, pursue Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants, and end its relationship with all terrorist groups,” as well as get Pakistan and India to settle their Pashtun border issue.

Homeland security must be buttressed and strengthened to include “checking all passengers against a comprehensive watch list,” which hopefully will not include a certain senior senator from Massachusetts who goes by the name of Tedward.

Finally, “America must make every effort to export opportunity -- access to education and health care, trade and investment -- and provide the kind of steady support for political reformers and civil society that enabled our victory in the Cold War.” A very fine example of applying old tactics in an historical era; from someone calling for new angles and a fresh look at today’s problems.

Rebuilding Our Partnerships

This is good:

“To renew American leadership in the world, I intend to rebuild the alliances, partnerships, and institutions necessary to confront common threats and enhance common security. Needed reform of these alliances and institutions will not come by bullying other countries to ratify changes we hatch in isolation. It will come when we convince other governments and peoples that they, too, have a stake in effective partnerships.”

I like this as “convincing” others has been the problem all along. Convince France to forget about the economic advantages of doing business with Iran or better yet convince Russia and any number of other nations.

In an aside with regard to Russia; an interesting tidbit in the most recent issue of National Review (subscription necessary):

“When Ronald Reagan proposed sharing missile-defense technology with the Soviet Union in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev scoffed at the idea. More than 20 years later, however, Russian president Vladimir Putin is showing more interest — or so it would seem, based on his surprise suggestion that the United States incorporate a Russian radar in Azerbaijan into a missile-defense system whose main purpose is to protect NATO countries from an Iranian nuclear threat. If Putin hoped that his proposal would persuade the Bush administration to step back from building our own radar in the Czech Republic and basing ten interceptors in Poland, then he badly miscalculated: Defense secretary Robert Gates has made clear that these plans will proceed. Russian cooperation in a missile-defense system would in fact be welcome, especially if the Russians finally have decided that the ayatollahs pose a geopolitical threat to the civilized world, themselves included — in which case Moscow might take helpful diplomatic steps right now and suspend all nuclear cooperation with Iran, sever some of its commercial ties, and support tougher sanctions at the United Nations. Let’s hope they get around to it before another two decades pass.”

A sure thing? Nothing ever is, unless you’re a candidate for president like Obama. Although it isn’t a “sure thing” until Obama takes charge.

Bottom line is Barack Obama will work with everyone and get everything done which will bring the U.S. back to the world stage and viewed passively.

Building Just, Secure, Democratic Societies

“Finally, to renew American leadership in the world, I will strengthen our common security by investing in our common humanity. Our global engagement cannot be defined by what we are against; it must be guided by a clear sense of what we stand for. We have a significant stake in ensuring that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow.”

“People around the world have heard a great deal of late about freedom on the march. Tragically, many have come to associate this with war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change. To build a better, freer world, we must first behave in ways that reflect the decency and aspirations of the American people. This means ending the practices of shipping away prisoners in the dead of night to be tortured in far-off countries, of detaining thousands without charge or trial, of maintaining a network of secret prisons to jail people beyond the reach of the law.”

There is not much that can be said to this section, although a continuation of the reaction could go on and on. It like the entire essay is an example of seeing threats that for almost seven years have been pooh, poohed by the Left; but oddly are entirely realistic now that someone from the far Left is talking about them.

Apologies for the lack of citations, facts or anything else one might expect in a college paper, as this is not a college paper; it’s just what it is so you make the call.

Restoring America’s Trust

“Confronted by Hitler, Roosevelt said that our power would be "directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. We Americans are not destroyers; we are builders. It is time for a president who can build consensus here at home for an equally ambitious course.”

“Ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success -- unless they trust that their government hears their concerns as well.”

When confronted by Hitler and Japan we remained on the sidelines for two years. One thing necessary to make Obama’s vision a reality is an opposition party that is more of a thoughtful one that adds to the debate rather than just tears down. This rhetoric filled post is in response to a rhetoric filled essay by a candidate. The willful dismissal of anything offered by the present president due to partisan politics has taken a huge upswing in this first decade of the 21^st century; at a very sensitive time.

Japan attacked the U.S. as al Qaeda did, however Japan was a recognized nation in a more or less text book definition of war. Our challenge today is asymmetrical and without national affiliation, although we certainly know where many come from. When it suits, the opposition party can refer to a moment in history citing a war that fit our understood definition. When the president does this, all manner of attacks ensue. This has to stop to Barack and this is to both parties, (all real easy to say, no?)

I believe that it has been with the persistent rhetorical flair of the Democrat party that has done more damage to this nation’s standing than even President Bush’s war-mongering ways. Kicking in doors in the dead of night, new management at Abu Gharaib, worse than Stalin or Pol Pot, quagmire, Vietnam, etc. All old arguments or rhetoric, but a share of the damage done is due.

We live in an age where rhetoric makes the most complicated of things seem simple, which implies that so and so is doing everything wrong. There is nothing simple about anything going on out there, certainly the least of which cannot be resolved by a really swell and (self) well meaning essay will repair.

Our politicians are used to passing it all on, through garbage legislation that does nothing but perhaps obfuscate the fact that a given problem still persists. Legislation shaped to fix an imagined wrong followed by loud self congratulations. Immigration reform pointed to the reality that most of the electorate is growing tired of the same non-fixes that self-anointed lifer politicians use to remain in D.C.

If for no other reason, the threat of Islamist terrorism should call us together; hopefully sooner rather than later. The enemies of Western ideals have a three decade jump on us that our self-shackling exacerbates; making our victory in it more unlikely the longer we play games.

A spade is a spade, Vietnam is Vietnam and all the rest. Sorry Professor A.

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part I

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part II

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1150584095205789887

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Pirate's Cove, Webloggin, Perri Nelson's Website, The Amboy Times, The Bullwinkle Blog, Wake Up America, High Desert Wanderer, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part II

Revitalizing the Military

“To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.”

Candidate Obama suggests that:

“We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others.”

This is much like Obama’s and any candidates picture perfect scenario. Most if not all of the dreams require cooperation from all sides; with self-absorbed bureaucracies this is indeed a challenge, forget about foreign cooperation. But again, this is all failing due to the intransigence of Bush. The Bush administration suffers and suffered from the great push back from the military as well as a lack of cooperation from individuals in the State Department and elsewhere that were and are used to doing business a certain way. Senator Obama should not expect more open arms, excepting of course that he is not Bush…anybody but Bush.

Halting the spread of Nuclear Weapons

“In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.”

What is aggressive diplomacy? Sounds decisive, active or action oriented, it certainly doesn’t imply sitting on ones hands. Is the tactic that has been used with regard to Iran, i.e. EU-3, UN, IAEA, what is inferred? Could it be considered “aggressive” to continually return to the same negotiating table over and over; is this forcefully aggressive? Why should Obama or any of the other candidates get a pass, when they bravely proclaim the “military option” will not be taken off the table? Is it only different based upon the reaction or overreaction of the opposition party or media that makes it “war-mongering” and troublesome?

In halting the spread of nuclear weapons, one of the reasons for going into Iraq, is it really wise to use the military? Might that not enflame international sensitivities? “Blood for radiation,” is this really what we want to put our youngest and brightest up against?

The senator writes of rogue regimes developing nuclear know-how (in one instance under the auspices of “peaceful nuclear energy.”) and terrorist groups like al Qaeda that would love to get their hands on the materials or purchase an existing nuclear weapon.

Our present set up is not enough, according to George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn; which I do not doubt, but shouldn’t we check with others on this as well? Perhaps in a more bi-partisan fashion?

It is no lie that poorly secured stockpiles of uranium and “approximately 15,000-16,000 nuclear weapons,” in the former Soviet Union exist, but as Obama declares he will immediately begin providing “$50 million to jump-start the creation of an International Atomic Energy Agency-controlled nuclear fuel bank and work to update the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty” be the answer? Isn’t this just looking for more bureaucratic red tape and international bickering going to remain? Is it really wise for a leader offering “aggressive diplomacy,” to invest in the same IAEA that has failed thus far to curtail Iran’s “peaceful nukes.” We’ve done four years of this to date; isn’t it really time for something else? Perhaps not, as 14 plus years was still not enough with regard to Saddam’s Iraq.

Where will these “strong international coalitions to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program,” come from? Our we talking about the same group of nations that are presently on our planet? “Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races,” really, hasn’t that already begun in the Middle East with the forward momentum of Iran’s advances prodding them along?

Active cooperation from Russia is a necessity even though we don’t see eye to eye on everything and we “must not shy away from pushing for more democracy and accountability” from them, but the common interest of nuclear weapons and material is something we should strive for. Good idea.

In the interest of thinking it through, where will we put all these stockpiles of “nuclear material,” Yucca Mountain?

End of Part II

"In Rebuttal to Barack Obama’s Essay – “Renewing American Leadership” – Part I"

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1084433132527383597

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Exposing the Neo-Right, The Virtuous Republic, The Random Yak, 123beta, Maggie's Notebook, The Pet Haven Blog, DragonLady's World, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Pursuing Holiness, Right Celebrity, Alabama Improper, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.