I think we do use diplomacy and other means of persuasian in order to persuade Pakistan to help us get rid of terrorist havens there.
Musharraf is an authoritarian, but he's better than the alternatives -- is the way the thinking goes.
If you are looking for an example of what NOT to do, the US treatment of Iran in the 1970's is a very good example. The Shah was an authoritarian, not at all a nice man, but the Ayatollahs are far, far worse. Carter thought that if the Shah fell, something like European government would take hold.
Wrong.
Chiang Kai Shek was not a nice man, but Mao was far, far worse.
The Tsar of Russia was not a nice man, but Lenin was far, far worse.
Etc.
If you study the histories described above -- we can't force the people of Pakistan to accept a better man than Musharraf -- If you take away the autocrat, the man who comes next isn't likely to be a democrat, unless the people do it by their own power, IF that's what they want. It seems to me that the man they'd chose would be Islamist.
So, while one could be cynical and say that we derive some benefits from Musharraf's rule -- India does, too. An Islamist government like the one in Iran would be far, far worse.
Also -- Central Asia, which I think includes Northern Pakistan, with all the rest of the "Stans" is simply not civilized. The northern mountainous region of Pakistan is as primitive as any place on earth. And we have nothing to offer them except Western culture, which they abhor. |
