"...Humanity is a breeding ground for ambition, for territorial competitors, for nations that do battle, and if the nations break down, then tribes, clans and households. We were bred for war, it's in our genes, and the only way to stop the bloodshed is to give one man the power to subdue all the others. All we can hope for is that it be a decent enough man that the peace will be better than the wars, and last longer..."
Who comes to mind after reading this passage? -General President Pervez Musharraf.
The word on the street is that the Bush administration is suggesting free elections to the Pakis to demonstrate their unflappable resolve to spread democracy, while from the other side of their mouths, they pray that he is re-elected and continues to control the unwashed masses. I stand firm in my belief that the Musharraf style of military leadership is required to keep peace among Pakistani [Muslims]- and that introducing democracy to a place where Islamic fundamentalism still reign supreme, would repeat a recent lapse in judgment by Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. What if the Pakis elect a Koran thumping cleric wearing a turban and counting prayer beads? Think of who will be in control of Pakistan's nuclear warheads. So then, why is anyone even talking about elections in Pakistan? To create an excuse to invade them too?
Look at how wonderful a place Iraq has become since their dictator was removed and democracy was "installed". Let's not even go there... But it's hard to deny that Iraq was better off with pre-war Saddam than they are with post-war democracy. Diplomacy was not exhausted as of March 19, 2003. Saddam offered to meet with Bush repeatedly, and was dismissed without exception, because the decision to invade was a foregone conclusion.
As for Pakistan, leave well enough alone, and think about grooming a like minded secular military successor. -AT