If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed. Thanks for reading!

George W. Bush seems terribly confused these days (and not just because he can’t decide whether the U.S. supports the Kurds in Iraq, opposes the Kurds in Turkey, encourages Kurdish terrorism in Iran or does all three simultaneously). With Pervez Musharraf declaring emergency rule in Pakistan, the Bush Doctrine has come face to face with a genuine challenge: should the United States toss in its shameful support for Pakistan’s authoritarian Falstaff or… well, not?

The latter, it seems, has become the favored option in Washington. On Monday, the New York Times reported:

The Bush administration signaled Sunday that it would probably keep billions of dollars flowing to Pakistan’s military, despite the detention of human rights advocates and leaders of the political opposition by Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the country’s president. In carefully calibrated public statements and blunter private acknowledgments about the limits of American leverage over General Musharraf … the officials argued that it would be counterproductive to let Pakistan’s political turmoil interfere with their best hope of ousting Al Qaeda’s central leadership and the Taliban from the country’s mountainous tribal areas. <<< more

As AngryArab previously pointed out, I especially liked the free apologetics on behalf of the Times about “the limits of American leverage”. Apparently billions of dollars in economic and military aid doesn’t for much these days—at least not to the New York Times.

Bush called on Musharraf to restore democracy in Pakistan. I for one was unaware that Pakistan enjoyed democracy before this weeks events… Even more interesting, Salon.com reports:

In the fall of 1999, as he campaigned for the presidency, George W. Bush was asked by a reporter to name the leader of Pakistan. Bush could not. He famously replied: “The new Pakistani general, he’s just been elected — not elected, this guy took over office. It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country, and I think that’s good news for the subcontinent.” Although Bush didn’t know Gen. Pervez Musharraf’s name and was confused as to how he got into office, the soon-to-be American president was sanguine about the anti-democratic developments in Pakistan. <<< more

In all fairness, one cannot argue that Bush has strayed from the tenets of his own Doctrine. As far as I’m concerned, the events in Pakistan prove that the Bush Doctrine is alive and well. In the words of a close aide to General Musharraf:

“If your agenda is to save attacks in the U.S. and eliminate Al Qaeda, only the Pakistani Army can do that … For that, you will have to forget about elections in Pakistan for maybe two to three years.” <<< more

Tags: PervezMusharraf, Pakistan, Falstaff, Authoritarian, Dictatorship, Democracy, George W. Bush, United States, New York Times, Asia