You are being very defensive about a scenario that is entirely credible.
You said it is not people like Bush who loose goodwill of USA it is statements like the one you have written and Seymour sponsors that helps erode goodwill for USA
I made a statement, in response to the Hersh link that you provided, that the US more than likely has contingency plans to neutraize Pakistan's nuclear capability if a fundamentalist regime came to power in your country.
I also said that it is entirely conceivable that Israel would be a partner in such an enterprise. All of this was part of what Hersh alleged. I speculated that India could also be coopted if it came to this. It would not be in India's interests to have a nuclear fundamentalist Islamic regime as its neighbor and especially one that has fought several wars with India - but India, like Israel, will take its lead from the US.
I have no first hand knowledge of whether any of this is true - and neither do you. But it would be downright irresponsible for the US not to have such contingency plans. Pakistan is in the throes of a great deal of upheaval and there have been several assassination attempts against Musharraf. What will happen if he is assassinated or overthrown is an unknown. You make a good point when you state that the actual process of such neutralization might be a lot easier said than done.
Do you know that there were reports about a year or so ago that Pakistan/Musharraf had shared with the US information regarding where Pakistan had stored its nuclear weapons so that, if things went awry, the US could act promptly? I have no idea whether these reports were accurate.
Given that USA is ready to accept a theocracy in Iraq I would doubt that a friendly Islamic government anywhere would not be tolerated
The "stay the course" Bush administration is looking to exit Iraq - this should have been very obvious even before this statement was made. Rumsfeld's statement that a theocracy in Iraq would not be acceptable appears now - to quote Ziegler's (from Nixon days) phrase - to be "inoperative". But there is a vast difference between a theocracy in Iraq without WMD and a fundamentalist Islamic regime in Pakistan that has WMD. Why do you think that the US is so intent on ensuring that Iran does not have a stockpile of WMD?
Hersh is an excellent investigative reporter who has been recognized by his peers. You may not like what he said about your country but that does not take away from his credentials.
I said that the current alliance between the US and Pakistan is one of convenience and you disagreed saying From opening up of China, Seato, Cento and Budber and from 1948 it was conscious decision of Pakistan to side with USA when given a choice between USSR and USA
Give me a break and stop living in the past! The alliance with Pakistan was during the heyday of communism being a threat to the US. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the US washed its hands off Pakistan - I am sure that you are aware of this. It was only after 9/11 that the US sought to renew the alliance because of Pakistan's strategic position.
You may not like to hear this but the longer term strategic and economic interests of the US, in your part of the world, are now with India more so than your country. The end of the Soviet Union removed the irritant in US/India relations caused by the non-alignment policy that India had embraced. India is a democratic country, it provides an educated English speaking labor pool and is more stable. Pakistan, despite its history as part of the British Empire, has been under the rule of its armed forces for much of the time since it became independent. It has had what might be described as flirtations with democracy. Perhaps you should reflect on why democracy has not been able to take root in so many Muslim countries including your own.
Musharraf has been quite bold in rejecting past failed policies and moving your country forward but he may well be ahead of his times. There is a danger in embracing change faster than the masses are willing to do - Sadat was also ahead of his times and he paid the price.
Finally, I consider myself to be very well informed but by no means am I an expert on Pakistan, South Asia and the Middle East. However, I would venture to say that I know more about your part of the world than you do about the political and cultural dynamics as it pertains to the US. |
