Pakistan, more nation building?

BBB
If we keep our nose out of Pakistan, how will George Bush enhance his democracy saint legacy?

BBB

Possibly we should butt out. However, there are the matters of the nuclear weapons in Pakistan; the interests of the Islamist organizations that were likely behind the assassination; and just what might be India's reaction to the chaos on her, still disputed, border with it.

The truth is there is a good deal of trouble and discord in the world, the origins of which have almost nothing to do with the United States, but for which the problem of containing them almost always draws some involvement from us. (In this case the problems of India/Pakistan and the disaffection and discord among Moslems are rather clearly tracable to the misdeeds of European colonialism and imperialism - primarily Britain, Russia and France, as well as to certain failures of political development within the Islamic world itself.).

Opinions are mixed on the question of the appropriate degree of US involvement in the resoution of popular issues in the world. We are criticized for involving ourselves too much and too little, often by the same parties, depending only on the issue at hand and their interest in it.

While we are vilified for our often excessive support of Israel, we are expected to lead the parties in this intractable struggle to some kind of peace - often by the very (mostly European) nations that worked so hard and for so long to make the situation in the Middle East the impossible mess it has become.

Europeans insist on the application of binding treaty or UN limits on national CO2 emissions as a necessary condition of progress on the matter of global warming. China, India, Russia and most developing nations are fine with such binding limits as long as they are not applied to themselves. The Europeans, plus Canada and others adopted such "binding" limits nearly eight years ago with the Kyoto treaty, but have so far universally failed to even approach the limits they so loudly accepted. What is the right remedy now? The truth is, despite all the blather, there is no international consensus on what should be done about it. Those who still pursue authoritarian means (in spite of the demonstrable failure of Kyoto) say the remedy is for the United States to join an expanded version of the Kyoto scheme. The United States still insists that innovation and a universal effort by all nations will be required, and in particular that India, China, Russia and developing nations cannot be exempted. Who is right?

well yes georgeob interesting points all but I was posting about "nation building" and Afghanistan.

Re: Pakistan, more nation building?


I was responding to this.

Bhutto and Musharif were the only capable political forces opposing the Islamists in Pakistan, and we were trying to find a balance between maintaining stability and restoring democracy. Not easy to do, however, no effort would likely have yielded chaos a long time ago.

I don't think it is either fair or accurate to say that we have "zero policy" in Pakistan. Do you believe that we should not have one at all, or do you fault the administration for not having one?

Do you think the United States is to blame for the "60 years of corruption, thuggery, and incompetence" you say have infested Pakistan since its creation? India has only recently chosen to emerge from the bureaucratic, authoritarian economic stagnation it imposed on itself soon after its independence was gained 60 years ago. Was that our fault too?

I didn't get any implication from Dys that the U.S. was to blame for
Pakistan's failures of government.

Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan.

I used to enjoy watching Laurelandhardystan.