The Weekly Weigh-in -- The Enemy of My Enemy

So, Pakistan seems to be sliding ever closer to calamity. In fact, for the hundreds of activists who have been beaten and arrested in the past few days, things probably feel pretty calamitous already.

All of which -- surprise, surprise -- kind of puts the lie to Bush's endless platitudes about freedom and democracy being the aims of his foreign policy. Doing the only thing that it seems he can be counted on for doing, Bush and his cronies have successfully backed the United States into a corner in yet another Middle Eastern country. Having spoken at such length -- ad nauseam, if you will -- about his administration's dedication to spreading democracy, Bush and company can't very well just say nothing while Musharraf suspends the constitution, arrests the Supreme Court, and sends his soldiers out en masse to crack some skulls. At the same time, it's also true that Musharraf, as bad as he is, might be better than, well, democracy for the US, particularly if democracy would mean a radical Islamist government controlling the country's nuclear weaponry. But again, if Bush doesn't protest when a dictator is having people beaten in the streets, it kinda lets the world know that he was full of s*** when he said all that stuff about freedom (that is, to the extent that they don't know he's full of it already). Ah, what to do, what to do?

Well, apparently the answer for Bush, Rice, et al. is to cluck their tongues reproachfully but not make any serious efforts to punish Musharraf for his naughtiness, lest they inadvertently help to topple his government (which might happen anyway). Frankly, I doubt the world in general will fail to see the hypocrisy, particularly as it comes so close on the heels of the administration's far harsher language and actions against Burma's junta...but of course, the US isn't an ally of that repressive dictatorship.

At this point, though, I'm not sure what else the administration can do.

At other points, however, say starting around six and half years ago...Well, first of all, don't lie so egregiously about your motives and the allies you choose. Don't pretend that our military actions in the Middle East are all about spreading freedom when they're clearly not. People tend to see through that. Also, just because in the push and pull after 9/11 it might actually be expedient for the country to ally yourselves with a dictator here and there, don't fall all over yourself kissing said dictators asses and pretending they're something they aren't. Calling such people your "friend," as Bush has done with Musharraf, kind of makes you look a like a **** when your "friend" starts having his political opponents tortured.

But speaking again of those Middle East adventures, could it be that this is another area where if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball that is Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, things might not be so screwed up today? Like, maybe if we'd stuck to the utterly legitimate goal of wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not only would, say, bin Laden be dead or captured by now, but the Musharraf government, not having had to do so much of the military activities along its border for so many years now, might have a much stabler situation on its hands and be much better positioned to handle any internal opposition, particularly from Muslim extremists? Oh, and speaking of extremists, could it be that maybe, just maybe, by attacking a country that most of the world (rightfully) thought had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration might have increased the strength and numbers of radical Muslim groups in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan?

Just wondering.