Posted on 03/08/2002 3:37:17 PM PST by Madiuq
President George W. Bush has declared that the next phase of the anti-terrorism campaign would be aimed at pressing Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- the so-called Axis of Evil -- not to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. He also stressed in his State of the Union Address that the war against terrorism would be grounded in a set of universal values, including the rule of law, religious freedom and respect for women. Much of the commentary that followed Bush's speech raised questions about why he lumped together Baghdad, Teheran and Pyongyang, which, after all, have different political systems and divergent foreign policy goals. A more intriguing mystery, though, concerns a country that was missing from the list: Pakistan. Islamabad should have been placed at the center of the "axis," not only because of its close ties to radical Muslim terrorist groups and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction, but because its anti-Western and militant Islamic orientation is the antithesis to the universal values that the Bush administration is supposedly promoting as part of its foreign policy. But instead of being placed on President Bush's list of evil states, Pakistan is now topping America's "A List" of the anti-terrorism coalition. The garden-variety dictatorship in Baghdad, the reformist government in Teheran, and the detente-oriented North Korea are being marginalized and punished by Washington and compared to Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. But Pakistan's military dictator, General Pervez Musharraf, who brought an end to his nation's short democratic experience and has advanced Pakistan's nuclearization program, while promoting ties to radical Islamic groups at home and abroad, is being praised by U.S. officials for his "courage" and "vision." And he recently was a guest of honor at the White House. Pakistan's government, led by an unreliable military clique that is assisting radical Islamic terrorist groups in Kashmir, pressing for a war with India, and presiding over a corrupt and mismanaged economy, has been a recipient of vast sums of U.S. military and financial aid. One should recall that it was America's "friend" Pakistan that, through its military-religious nexus, led by its infamous intelligence services, provided the Taliban fighters with the military aid that helped bring them to power in Kabul in 1994 and create the anti-American terrorist state of Afghanistan. At the same time, the "evil" Iran was a regional adversary of the Taliban regime and one of the leading backers of the Northern Alliance opposition forces. Moreover, despite Washington's hostile attitude and its efforts to isolate Iran diplomatically and economically, Tehran agreed to give indirect logistical support to the American military campaign in Afghanistan and cooperated with effort to oust the Taliban. Pakistan, on the other hand, joined the American-led coalition only after enormous U.S. diplomatic and military pressure and in exchange for increasing American aid. In fact, while the Iranians were helping their Northern Alliance allies in their war against the Taliban after Sept. 11, Pakistani military and intelligence services were assisting the losing Taliban fighters and evacuating thousands of them into Pakistan. Although the Bush Administration should certainly continue monitoring the efforts of Iraq, Iran and North Korea to acquire or develop weapons of mass destruction and should take every measure to prevent the transfer of such military technology to terrorists, it's important to remember that these three nations have agreed open some of their weapons-production sites to international inspection. Most experts agree that it will take several years for Iraq and Iran to develop nuclear military capability and that neither those two countries nor North Korea have provided WMD technology to Al-Qaeda or other terrorist networks. If anything, the Bush administration's concern with nuclear proliferation and with the possible transfer of WMD to terrorist groups, should make Pakistan -- a nuclear military power, whose military leaders and scientists are committed to the notion of an "Islamic Bomb," and who have maintained ties to the international network of radical Islamic groups, including Al-Qaeda -- a focus of U.S.anti-proliferation and antiterrorism policies. No, Pakistan shouldn't be branded as "evil" and subject to a campaign of diplomatic isolation and military confrontation that the Bush administration seems be directing against Iraq, Iran and North Korea. But neither should Pakistan be lauded as America's strategic ally in the war against terrorism and be the recipient of U.S. military and economic aid.
They are just an enemy whose land we badly needed to use right at that moment.
The author of this piece is an idiot, not a pragmatist.
He's an idiot? That's your criticism? Gee and I thought to get a foreign policy analyst job at the CATO Institute, you had to be kind of intelligent.
But of course, judging from your posts, you're a genius.
No. You just have to be libertarian.
No intelligence needed.
You are just plain wrong there.
Aah.
After a life spent at 110 F in Pakistan, he himself knows he needs to chill out, and the only way he ever will is if we let him in here.
BTW, what the hell does this mean?
I'll take your opinion more seriously after you've grown out of your FR diapers.
Mamy people here know me from a different name, and I can assure, I have been around for a long long time.
Yea. Sure.
What did you get kicked off for?
Well put.
Musharraf today is the best thing that India could possibly hope for, someone who is taking courageous and impressive steps to stop terrorists in his own country, the very ones who also threaten India. India has legitimate complaints about Pakistan's past behavior. Few people question that. But that's not the issue.
Bush and Musharraf reached an understanding about changing the course of Pakistan. India doesn't believe it and won't accept it. There's nothing anyone can do to change that.
It's not an Indian name I've ever heard of. And I've heard many ;-)
By the way, a Google search on the string 'hadar' indicates it may be Jewish, not Indian. Check it out.
Without our aid, it would rank among the poorest countries on the planet. As the only super power, I find it demeaning that we are kow-towing to this impoverished nation of America-haters and to Musharraf whose sincerity is questionable. Reports of Pakistan's covert assistance to the enemy can't all be inaccurate.
Haven't lost your flair for hyperbole, have you?
As the only super power, I find it demeaning that we are kow-towing to (Pakistan)
Pakistani troops on American soil, Pakistani military bases on American soil, Pakistani command and control control over American civilian air traffic, OMG you are right, we are kowtowing to them!
I don't know that Jews are any more fond of Pakistan than Indians are, but at least we should strive to be accurate about these things.
Thanks for pointing this out.
Our military aid to Pakistan was/is unneccesary, and could very well turn around and bite us.
Musharraf may want to turn Pakistan in the direction of civilization and he might even be honorable, but he doesn't really control Pakistan or the treacherous ISI. I had given the guy the benefit of doubt, until today's BBC article.
JMO, this article does raise serious issues and has valid points. Very valid points.
India has certainly said all along that Pakistan was not sincere in it's claim of eliminating terrorism. Today BBC reports that Lashkar-e-Toiba and the Jaish -e- Mohammad (along with many others) are free to go if they sign a pledge not to engage in terrorist activities. What kind of BS is that? Were the arrests just a show for America?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.