Politics Is Politics
Politics is politics. Right and wrong only serve political ends when they suit political purposes, a reality that has spanned millennia. Today the Prime Minister called for Pakistan’s expulsion from the Commonwealth (updated: Pakistan has now been barred from the Commonwealth), something I’ll not argue given the undemocratic state of affairs in Pakistan. But one has to wonder why this wasn’t an issue during the years prior to this latest crisis?
Is it because there is now a significant pro-democratic groundswell in Pakistan that justifies such action on the part of other Commonwealth countries? Is it because Pakistan was a useful ally in the War on Terror, making any such move detrimental with regards to its use in that capacity? Is it because the Bush Doctrine espouses the need to support the growth of pro-Western democracies and now that the internal situation within Pakistan itself has deteriorated that that principle can now be applied to it despite the fact that Musharraf’s regime has played ball with the United States since late 2001?
There’s no questioning that there has always existed a connection between militant elements within Pakistan and those in Afghanistan. There is also no questioning the fact that elements within the Pakistani military establishment have played a role in ensuring that that connection is not jeopardized. Sure, they’ll throw a bone Washington’s way now and then, but it doesn’t mean that their support for such groups has at all been abandoned. And, until the ISI’s influence is severely diminished, nothing will change in that regard, nor will the power of Pakistan’s ‘ghost government’ be realistically diminished.
Pakistan is a nuclear power. Therefore, recent suggestions by various US neoconservatives that the country be invaded to secure Pakistan’s nuclear capability are utterly ridiculous. Any military action taken against Pakistan directly would plunge the Afghan frontier into a state of chaos that would make the current state of chaos along it look acceptable by comparison. The truth is that none of Pakistan’s neighbours, save Afghanistan, would allow foreign forces to stage operations against it from within them – not even the Indian government is that dense, especially given the long standing tensions between the two. Thus, the use of tactical nuclear weapons could very well be a possibility in that situation, with forces based in Afghanistan being their primary targets – and wouldn’t that be the crowning achievement of hypocrisy, to utterly endanger the lives of those that you have claimed to have been saving since the early winter of 2001.
No, direct military action is not a realistic option. A coup d’état, on the other hand, could be. But there again, the ISI has to be taken into account. Without their assistance, such a venture would be a dangerous exercise. If they were excluded from the process, diminishing their influence over whatever government succeeds Musharraf’s regime, a dramatic rise in Guerrilla activity in Pakistan would most assuredly follow, rendering the country unstable for who knows how long. And like it or not, when foreign governments undertake such things, those that they have placed in power are beholden to them – a decidedly un-democratic practice.
There is, of course, a flip side, which is that were elements within Pakistani military and intelligence forced to the periphery and given no other option but to exist in a militant capacity, foreign forces would have free range to strike at such groups in those regions of Pakistan that have long been militant hotbeds. It would, in a sense, create a pocket of containment that could be worked over by both aerial bombardment and conventional forces in an attempt to end the use of the frontier as a haven for militants operating in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then again, there are some 2 million refugees living in such border regions, which would considerably complicate the level of overt force that could be employed. Not only that, a dramatic rise in violence in Afghanistan itself would most assuredly occur.
Despite the headlines and the belief that real democratic reform may be in the works in Pakistan, the reality is that without foreign assistance the process will take some time, and that is something that those who would offer their assistance, entirely for their own ends of course, aren’t currently in the position to endure.
Democracy has become a tool of destabilization and, ultimately, indoctrination with regards to Western ideology. The current foreign policy doctrine of the United States, while entirely hypocritical in its application, is geared towards to the exploitation of such situations for their own benefit. At the end of the day, the US, and its allies, Canada included, may very well be the architects of Pakistani ‘democracy’. Of course, everything comes with a price – politics, after all, is politics.
In Addition
Updated at 1:54 PM PST and 5:47 PM PST.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:52 pm
There was an interesting story today on Afghanistan preventing a UN vote on condemnation of human rights in Iran. The motion fell by two votes, one of which could have been Afghanistan’s. Canada was seen as suffering from the vote - because the Canadian UN ambassador had brought forth the motion.
November 22nd, 2007 at 12:54 pm
link to story:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=1dc9edb3-e6c3-4eb0-8adb-152313d4ef36&k=15287
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Matt,
Please tell me that you saw the article in the Globe and Mail on the U.S. air invasion plan of Iran. It was bone chilling to read. I don’t have a link, but it is in today edition and it is called “A Plan to Attack Iran Swiftly and From Above.”
Here are some shocking quotes from the article,
“….Democrat Senator Hilliary Clinton and Republican Rudy Giuliani, have said that Iran’s ruling mullahs can’t be allowed to go nuclear.”
“Bombing Iran would be relatively easy.”
“but their citizens (that of Arab countries) will see this as what they perceive to be America’s ongoing war on Islam.”
I’ve got goosbumps.
November 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Blackbox, I stopped getting goosebumps when I realized all this talk about bombing Iran could really happen. I now read these kind of stories on the toilet to avoid the messy clean up and laundry.
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:20 pm
[quote comment="34060"]Matt,
Here are some shocking quotes from the article,
. . .
“Bombing Iran would be relatively easy.”
[/quote]
Easy? Relative to . . . Iraq? I mean look what a success that was! And Iran would be even easier! Happy Thanksgiving! It’s like going to Timmy’s; Wendy’s is right there. You just have to slide over a little bit. It’s just that simple! Seriously. It would have to be easy: it’s basically the same country! I mean, don’t even think of it like a country. Think of it like . . . more sand . . . like the beach. Yes, we should go to the beach, and we all know you never need a reason to go to the beach. You can just make one up. Like we did with Iraq.
In all seriousness, after the human rights disaster in Iraq, if the Bush administration can sell the American people on a similarly unjustified war (against a country which only replaces “q” with “n”, no less) by simply substituting the words “nuclear weapons” for “weapons of mass destruction” in its “blitzkrieg” media offensive against the America, I must say that I will be ashamed to be an American.
Humbly yours,
P. Martini
November 22nd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I have told people I work with that I feel there are two countries who we (the U.S.) should be most concerned with. One is Saudi Arabia. The other is Pakistan. The Saudis funnel millions of dollars to militants. Pakistan serves as the way station for arms and militants into Afghanistan.
The cover of a recent Newsweek validated my argument and the article is one that I strongly suggest everyone read. Pakistan is currently dealing with the devil to try to keep the peace within it’s borders. I fear that the overall control of that situation is slipping through Musharraf’s hands and Pakistan will one day become uncontrollable by anybody the world would want in control.
That whole region is a tightrope. Winds are blowing strong from many directions and there is no net.
November 22nd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
It’s a very tangled web that’s woven -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1266317,00.html
The chase:
The Pakistani ISI has a guy called Omar Sheikh wire Mohamed Atta (the lead 9/11 hijacker) $100,00 just before 9/11.
Omar Sheikh is later convicted of killing Daniel Pearl a WSJ journalist investigating links between Al Qaeda and Pakistan’s (ISI).
Omar Sheikh paid Atta on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan’s ISI. Ahmed, the paymaster for the hijackers, was actually in Washington on 9/11, and had a series of pre-9/11 top-level meetings in the White House, the Pentagon, the national security council, and with George Tenet, then head of the CIA, and Marc Grossman, the under-secretary of state for political affairs. When Ahmed was exposed by the Wall Street Journal as having sent the money to the hijackers, he was forced to “retire” by President Pervez Musharraf.
Any questions?
November 23rd, 2007 at 2:34 am
Being a moderate with conservative tendancies, even I know that America doesn’t have the energy or resources to deal with Pakistan. While I enjoy the commentary, I have yet to read a solution here. It goes without saying that the Mayor of Karachi, Musharraf is out and he will be lucky to live a day after he is gone. The unfortunate reality of it is that the entire region is beyond politics. Its more like that annoying friend you’ve had forever that you can’t cut off. The friend that constantly grubs money from you and like an idiot you keep giving it to them despite the knowledge you will never see it again. You want to cut that friend off but they have some darn good redeeming qualities that you like. The devil in disguise. I am sure we will all agree that Pakistan and Afghanistan for that matter is beyond unification. Carter knew it way back when, this it not new. Its just new to the media that didn’t exist back then. No one has been able to tackle that region, most have been too cowardly. I don’t see a difference between then and now but I am willing to be enlightened. I am also willing to read some realistic solutions for the situation in front of us. It doesn’t matter what has brought this matter to this point, but what the next step truly is.
November 23rd, 2007 at 4:49 am
Politics suck. I wouldn’t even know how to describe my political beliefs or affiliations. I couldn’t even stomach voting because I see no hope in it.
Whatever happens in Pakistan, I know one thing; it’s just going to get worse. Everything gets worse. Yeah, Pakistan has nuclear capabilities and we always have to be concerned about how the U.S. will react.
Everyone makes it so complicated, like there are actual peaceful solutions to the problems in this world so let’s have mind numbingly boring political conversations to figure out ways to bring peace in the middle east and fix the pot holes in Quebec. The way I see is there are super rich evil douche-bags that want to kill off at least 80% of us and have created a planet of confusion that will usher in a new kind of slavery. Nevermind, let’s talk about Pakistan.
November 23rd, 2007 at 5:12 am
And another thing: could someone please explain cogently how it is even possible that being a Bible-beating Jesus freak and a mongerer of unnecessary war somehow have been parts of a consistent (and very successful) political platform for 8 years?
P. Martini
November 23rd, 2007 at 6:32 am
The Saudis are the Kings of the oil, they’re never gonna be touched.
November 23rd, 2007 at 9:53 am
lets not forget the opium trade and its impact on decisions….