Video: Bush addresses the crisis in Pakistan
posted at 4:21 pm on November 5, 2007 by Bryan
This clip is notable mostly for what the president didn’t say. He didn’t mention any intention to review US aid to Pakistan, which both Secretary of State Rice and some Democrats in Congress have brought up as a response to the unfolding crisis there.
I don’t have a strong opinion on what ought to be done from a US perspective. It’s true in some ways that what we have is less a Pakistan policy than a Musharraf policy. But it’s also true that Pakistan goes a long way toward demonstrating the problems with democratizing the Islamic world: Osama bin Laden is far and away more popular in parts of Pakistan than anyone else. What sort of policy can you have for dealing with a country whose help we do need but whose people are predisposed to hate us?
Maybe it’s just me, but when I hear talk about putting pressure on him coming from the Democrats and State Department, the first thing that comes to mind is the fall of the Shah of Iran. There is a huge danger in the US applying any pressure on Musharraf at this point. There is also a huge danger in applying too little pressure on him, as it might end up becoming a betrayal of our own stated goals and principles. The Musharraf regime is extremely brittle and is buffeted on two sides, democrats on one hand and Islamists on the other. If the current crisis breaks the wrong way, we could end up with something like Afghanistan in Pakistan, where everyone is in control of something but no one is in control of the country’s central government.
Or we could end up with something like the Iranian mullahcracy in charge of a country that possesses nuclear weapons. We’ve arrived at another of those crossroads when there just don’t seem to be any good options on the table.
I’m also struck by another thought. When a US ally declares a state of emergency at least in part to deal with a real existential threat (and a judicial threat to his own power, to be sure), we all go ballistic and the Democrats seem to be out in front and the State Department gears up to bring a hammer down on him. But when a US enemy like Hugo Chavez who has allied himself with other US enemies like Iran gets his rubber-stamp legislature to grant him dictatorial powers, and he has been ramping up the anti-US rhetoric for years, just about the only place you’ll find much discussion of that is on the right. We may be sending the dangerous message that we’re tougher on our allies than on our enemies. That strikes me as unwise.
Update: Pajamas Media correspondent Ghaila Aymen reports from Pakistan on the “familiar uncertainty” of martial law.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
At this point all we can do is watch and wait
Removing our support for Musharaf spells the end of him and Bhutto and also will lead to a Taliban like government with nukes – which will promptly be followed by an Indian invasion.
Supporting him too much gives way too much power to Musharaf who can think he can do anything he wants without US interference. That can have its only problems especially if he wants to double cross Bhutto and the Democrats there.
Defector01 on November 5, 2007 at 4:32 PM
The problem is allying with Pakistan at all in the first place. America gains nothing from good relations with Pakistan. Musharraf is not a friend and never has been. The only reason he pretended to be is because America started giving him money.
Hey, you give me 10 billion dollars and I’ll say whatever you want. That’s what Musharraf did, the people of Pakistan know this.
We need to forget about Pakistan (but Bush is a loyal guy) and deal with the region through India. Our close relationship with Pakistan just takes us further from India.
ThackerAgency on November 5, 2007 at 4:38 PM
You’ve noticed….
This has been a big problem in American policy for decades, but at least in this administration, it’s been mostly a problem of the opposition.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on November 5, 2007 at 4:41 PM
I’m sure the Indians aren’t sleeping too soundly these days.
reaganaut on November 5, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Well, the left doesn’t view Chavez as an enemy, so that’s not really a surprise.
There’s not a damn thing we can do here. What kind of pressure can we put on and to what end?
It’s like holding on to the tail of a tiger. It’s a damn uncomfortable position but it beats letting go.
Drew on November 5, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Osama bin Laden is far and away more popular in parts of Pakistan than anyone else.
References please? I seem to recall a recent survey that said 70% of Pakistanis were against increased Islamic influence in the state, or something like that.
drunyan8315 on November 5, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Actually what we can do is tell Musharif to turn a blind eye to our actions in northern Pakistan and we would turn a blind eye to his actions in Southern Pakistan.
Not a great solution and we cant force democracy on Pakistan right now. Musharif has to control the south he has lost control in the north. Civil war is now a greater threat in pakistan than in Iraq. Even worse because of the nukes.
We need Musharif to keep control of the nukes and take out the Taliban and Islamic nuts that threaten him up north. Once they are gone we can switch back to pushing him on Democracy as he will owe us a favor
William Amos on November 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM
You can use Google as well as I can, but here ya go. Things are worse in Baluchistan and Waziristan.
Bryan on November 5, 2007 at 4:57 PM
He said in PARTS of Pakistan like warizistan. There Osama is Very popular unlike the southern part of Pakistan
William Amos on November 5, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Sorry. Is there a difference? State has been running a shadow government Bush’s whole term, undermining his actions at every opportunity. They even nudged Colin Powell over to the dark side.
pistolero on November 5, 2007 at 5:10 PM
BINGO! BINGO! BINGO!
It would be nice though to, behind the scenes, try to get Musharraf and Bhutto together somehow.
MB4 on November 5, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Now more than ever, I think, we must heed the words of Buck Turgidson.
km on November 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Pakistan w/o Mush would be a disaster. We need to support Mush b/c at least we are in a steady state with him. W/o Mush, Pakistan will be more like Mad Max than anything. I’m not worried about being nuked by the Pakis, but am worried about the potential “loss” of nuclear material items into the hands of terrorists. The Pakis are not concerned that much with the US and Israel. They are one hundred times more likely to nuke India than anyone else. W/o Mush, the risk of a nuclear war b/w India and Pakistan becomes frighteningly real. If that happens, China and Russia could be brought into the mix, and we would be forced to choose sides. Europe would sit on the sidelines, of course, being a bunch of pantywearing sissyboys.
RW Wacko on November 5, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Significant point and difference, extremely well made.
Entelechy on November 5, 2007 at 5:30 PM
Indeed. Let’s hope some good minds are working on that. I don’t have much faith in either Musharraf or Bhutto, but together…maybe.
Bryan on November 5, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Ditto!
Lawrence on November 5, 2007 at 5:35 PM
We really need to keep our fingers in this one, and keep any faction within Pakistan from rubbing India to far the wrong way. We must remember that India also has the capabilty to take out whatever nukes are in Pakistan. And India going nuclear just raises the stakes for China to step in.
So bailing on Musharraf right now, no matter how distasteful supporting him is, is shooting ourselves in the collective foot.
This could all get real messy, real fast.
Lawrence on November 5, 2007 at 5:39 PM
For my two cents Pakistan is now in a full out no holds barred power struggle and our options could boil down to propping up Musharraf by force if necessary or chance Jihadi Mullahs coming into some handy nukes.
Musharraf’s actions may chap our backsides and at the same time the alternative at least in the short term could be a lot worse.
Musharraf no doubt is no doubt acting in his own interest but the current scenario in Pakistan could open a window in which the US could be issued a Jihadi hunting license in exchange for saving Musharraf’s a$$.
Speakup on November 5, 2007 at 5:53 PM
When someone politely asks for a reference to support an assertion, telling him he could have Googled himself it misses the point that he was interested in how and from what sources you formed your opinion. If you are posting your opinions on a forum like this, one could be forgiven for assuming you would not mind being asked questions about it.
drunyan8315 on November 5, 2007 at 6:11 PM
We better know where Pakistan’s nukes, uranium and plutonium are, and have the will to take them out of play when (note I did not say if) that becomes necessary.
steveegg on November 5, 2007 at 6:19 PM
Ouch!
Are people still linking “democracy” and “Islam” in the same thought? Take a closer look at Pakistan and point out its golden era of actual democracy.
Pakistan is the land of the pure as in Islam is first in all things. Therefore I wonder how many viable weapons they have properly maintained on any given day?
BL@KBIRD on November 5, 2007 at 6:40 PM
There are some arousing thoughts that pop into my head when thinking about the state of Pakistan right now.
1. Why is the US “deeply disturbed” by all this if Musharraf is trying to do what is in the US’s best interest: keeping Pakistan’s nukes out of the hands of Islamic radicals.
2. Is “democracy” more important than Islamic radicals acquiring nuclear weapons?
3. Musharraf is brave.
4. Over half of Pakistan has been radicalized
5. Musharraf may be the next “Marie Antoinette”
I think, although the US is coming out publicly against what Musharraf is doing, they believe that Musharraf IS DONE.
I think they believe that Musharraf got himself into this position in the first place by trying to appease the Taliban in the north and letting them run free in their “no go zone”. A lot of what is happening right now is nobodies fault but Musharraf himself. I think the US has written him off as a lost cause, not willing to allow the US to help in his efforts, not letting us go in and destroy the area where we believe Osama Bin Laden is living.
I think the US government believes they can somehow go in and secure those nukes before they are ultimately taken over by Islamic extremists. It will be a military action of some kind; a special forces kind of operation no doubt.
Let this be a lesson to the rest of the world….DON”T NEGOTIATE WITH ISLAMIC RADICALS. You cannot co-exist with them. They will ultimately KILL you in the end.
There is so much at stake right now with Pakistan, I don’t know what is more important to the US. Securing the Pakistani Nukes or stopping Iran from building them. Take your pick.
As far as Musharraf goes, We are writing him off, folks. A casualty of War…A casualty of the War on Terror
infidelesto on November 5, 2007 at 7:06 PM
This is bad on so many levels, I agree with MB4 in that the best senario would be to get Musharraf and Bhutto together. They might have enough popularity combined to get control and have elections without the Islamics taking over.
Short of that, I think we start working with India, it’s going to be bad and bloody and the chances are that before it’s over some mushroom clouds are going to appear over one area or the other. But it just might come to that before we get control of this thing and insure that Osama or his ilk don’t get their hands on nukes.
Lets not forget that the Jew’s may get involved in this as well.
conservnut on November 5, 2007 at 7:21 PM
words from this man are worth as much as words from a snake oil salesman.
he deserves no more credibility.
madmonkphotog on November 5, 2007 at 7:59 PM
This is getting complicated and I already have a headache. It should be painfully obvious to the American people that we need a real leader in Washington. That certainly is not Hillary.
boomer on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 PM
Hmmm, if only we didnt go about establishing democracies based on sharia, and invading countries based on faulty intelligence. Just maybe we might have a plan we could enact for securing the nukes when the shiite hits the fan.
paulsur on November 5, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Reguardless of faulty intelligence Saddam needed to be ousted. He was violating a lot of the rules put upon him after the first gulf war and he was also guilty of murdering his own people. He brought it upon himself. In reality we should have never stopped when we did with the first war. Besides Even if we had not invaded Iraq, Afaganistan is the problem here. Just what would you do to secure another countries nukes? I somehow don’t think that asking nicely will work.
boomer on November 5, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I think you guys overuse the “nuance” tagline.
DaveS on November 5, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Perhaps the first Islamic nuke crisis will not originate from Iran…
Halley on November 6, 2007 at 2:34 AM