<p>I was under the impression that Pakistan has not been a democracy for some time. Certainly other CCers can shed light. . .</p>
<p>It is a democracy, just an illiberal one. Constitutional rights and democracies don’t necessarily go hand in hand (Fareed Zakaria wrote a wonderful piece on this a few years back), and while the citizens of Pakistan do vote for parliamentarians (who in turn elect the President), we know what’s really going on, don’t we. However, the Bush administration has turned a blind eye for the sake of preserving the alliance, perhaps rightfully so…?</p>
<p>Do we want to support a government who arrests lawyers, political opponents and dissadents, shutting down newspapers, blocking broadcasting media and suspending the constitution as the Pakistani president is now doing?</p>
<p>It might benefit our national interests in the short run but the long term consequenses may be far more serious.</p>
<p>The country may(or may not) have elections but is being lead by a military dictator at the present time. And this is the good guy?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I think the answer is, in Pakistan, yes.</p>
<p>Does anyone know if any group lending support to the lawyers? As lawyer, I am proud of them. I’d hope that the bar would be out in full force if the US Constitution was suspended, but you can never tell.</p>
<p>Vicarious, I do not think so. According to recent polls a smsll percentage(less than 5%) support radical elements in Pakistan. Aligning our hopes to a military dictator will not serve our interests in the long term. While there may not be much we can do in the near term, we should continue pressure on him to reinstitute the constitution, release political prisoners, and hold fair and honest elections. This is what almost all moderate and liberal Pakistanis desire and we should support them. We do like to encourage democracy around the world dont we?</p>
<p>I’m sure that Dick Cheney is looking on with approval from his undisclosed location, wishing he could get away with something like that here.</p>
<p>The hierarchy of problems has been Pakistan > Afghanistan > Iraq for quite some time. Invading Afghanistan after 9/11 was completely defensible, although it would have been much better not to have been so half-assed in the follow through. Invading Iraq as the height of stupidity, letting Georgie boy wave his genitals around the Middle East to one-up his father. Unfortunately, the cost of that little exercise is 4,000+ lives, hundreds of billions of dollars, and damned little influence in places like Pakistan and damned little resources to apply to any other problem. All hail our Glorious Leader.</p>
<p>Musharraf has been doing only as much against AQ as he needs to, sporadically, to keep the US aid coming. Otherwise he’s much more interested in nuclear posturing against India, the dispute over Kashmir, and quelling internal opposition.</p>
<p>Love ya, Dad!</p>
<p>Well said Dad… Our great grandchildren will be paying for this clowns over-sized ego.</p>
<p>originaloog: Your points are well taken and I couldn’t agree more with the short-sightedness of the policy to support authoritarian governments around the world. Pakistan is just one of them. But then US foreign policy has rarely if ever been marked by far-sightedness. In fact, most government policy these days (eg cut taxes, spend more) is short sighted.</p>
<p>Having said that, I think Pakistan’s history suggests that the current leader is not much worse than previous ones regardless of whether they were democratically elected or not. We need to have a smart short-term and long term strategy for that country. The scary thing is that this nuclear armed country may be only a couple of suicide bombs away from anarchy.</p>
<p>VP, I don’t think we have a strategy, only expediency.</p>
<p>The last time we backed a public rising over a pro-American dictator we got rid of the Shah of Iran and got the Ayatollah. We need to back Musharraf and forget demoracy in Pakistan. Pakistan is a source of the Taliban. The last thing we need is to let “the people” also known as religious nuts have a nuke. Muslims aren’t capable of democracy – demoracy is directly opposite to the requirements of their religion that they live in a religious state.</p>
<p>Funny, but Muslims in Lebanon made it work in Lebanon for years. It’s like saying that Catholics can’t have democracy because of fealty to the Pope.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Lebanon was run by a Christian-dominated government until the 15-year-long civil war started in 1975. So, as long as Christians ran the government (and, frankly, kept the Arab Muslims largely unenfranchised), the country was peaceful and prosperous. The Muslims in Lebanon had legitimate grievances against the post-Ottoman government, but there is little doubt that the country is far more dangerous and less prosperous since 1975. It’s hardly a shining example of the potential of Muslim government. I probably would have picked Jordan as a better example of a peaceful Muslim government, largely due to the Hashemite Kingdom’s ruthless suppression of Palestinian militants and their refusal to welcome Palestinians into Jordan after the Six Day War.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh. Please read [this</a>](<a href=“http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html]this”>http://www.fareedzakaria.com/ARTICLES/other/democracy.html)before continuing on with ridiculous statements like that. Constitutional liberties, perhaps, which I did point out earlier, may conflict with certain interpretations of Islamic values, but not democracy.</p>
<p>I’m old enough to remember when most of Central and South America were run by dictators. Things do change, and I think Muslims are, indeed, capable of forming democracies. Perhaps Muslims living in the U.S. can offer some leadership.</p>
<p>so, how long do we support a leader who terroizes his own citizens all in the name of protecting us from terrorists?</p>
<p>and how much of OUR money is being used to round up, jail, and hurt innocent civilizians </p>
<p>and thought our war on terror was to protect democracy, or create democracy…guess not…guess our “allies” can do what they want to anyone they want all in our name</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…wow.</p>
<p>1) Yeah, Pakistan is a source of the Taliban. Guess why? Because Musharraf does as little as possible to them while still getting US aid.</p>
<p>2) The people aren’t all religious nuts. I assume you were implying that for dramatic purposes. If not, you’re sadly deluded. The largest push against Musharraf right now is coming from the secular middle class in Pakistan, which is great.</p>
<p>3) What you just said about Islam is almost offensively incorrect. Go do some research, please.</p>
<p>
Ok, I read your link to a post written in 1997. Here is what it says about Islam:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Like I said, Muslims are not capable of democracy as we know it. Their version of democracy results in theocracy and intolerance.</p>
<p>You have provided no proof to back up your assertion about Islam. Doing a quick Google search including the terms “democracy” and “Islam” brings up any number of scholarly articles and reports on why democracy and Islam can easily be compatible - including this [Islam</a> and Democracy by David Smock: Special Reports: U.S. Institute of Peace](<a href=“http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr93.html]Islam”>http://www.usip.org/pubs/specialreports/sr93.html) - and only one kooky argument as to why they can’t (tom demonstrate how absurd the argument is, it uses the fact that there’s no word for equality, democracy or politics as a major argument).</p>
<p><em>edit</em> No, they’re perfectly capable of democracy. What comes out may not be as liberal as you would like, though. (<em>GASP</em> razorsharp, a liberal? the horror!)</p>