Pakistani Military Aid

[rraley]

Ok, so in case you watched the news this week about something besides Terri Schiavo...here's something else you might like to talk about...

The United States has decided to sell a squadron of F-16 fighter planes to Pakistan, a nation that has been tremendously helpful in the War on Terror. But in my opinion, this action may cause some troubles for our international relations and may contradict the Bush Doctrine of promoting democracy.

First of all, the US should be incredibly steamed that Pakistan did not hand over A.Q. Khan, a nuclear scientist, to the international community for prosecution involving the sale of nuclear secrets to nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya. The A.Q. Khan network presented the greatest proliferation of nuclear information and materials in many years, and all that we did when we discovered this was to allow Pakistan to graciously pardon Khan because our his national hero status in the nation (he built their first nuclear weapon, which was for protective purposes against India). This Pakistani action should not have been so cooly accepted and I do not think that providing fighter planes is a good signal to send to the Pakistanis.

Furthermore, Pakistan has still refused to sign the Nonproliferation treaty. It is one of only a handful of nations that has not done so. Such an action is characteristic of a rogue state, rather than a stable, rational factor in the world community. Once again providing fighter planes seems to be a vindication of Pakistani actions and non-signing of the NPT. This is not what we should be seeking to do in either actuality or perception.

And finally, I am worried that we are supporting an unelected government far too much. President Bush has declared in no uncertain terms that all peoples deserved freedom and that we in America would promote democracy everywhere and fight tyranny. The Pakistani government was formed after a military coupe and President Musharaff is still a general in the Pakistani military. Such a military dictatorship conflicts with the American ideal of freedom and democracy. Meanwhile, India, who has been on the verge of war with Pakistan for years, has been alienated and it is the world's largest democracy.

In conclusion, this action of providing military aid to Pakistan only suggests to the world community that the United States is not serious about promoting democracy, but that it either tacitly supports the undemocratic actions of Pakistan or that it turns it cheek. This is a perception that we can ill-afford as President Bush makes a renewed effort to bridge the gap with other nations.

 

[FromTexas]

I find your logic flawed. Pakistan has been responsible for more Al Qaeda arrests than any other country. So, should we not reward those who work with us? That just says, "No matter your philosophy, we are putting you against the wall!" It gives no incentive to come over. Also, maybe you haven't been paying attention, but Pakistan is a far better place now than it was 20 years ago. It is still improving.

I don't know about you, but I support people who ally themselves with us. Also, the same deals are being made with India to balance the scales. They both have nukes, they both get the same weapons, and its a standoff.

I guess we could just say, "Thanks Pakistan! See ya later! Here's fifty-cents for your troubles!"

Are you so callous as to just look for reasons to dislike the Bush administration even against those who aid because they aren't perfect on human rights? If we starting holding that measuring tape up, we won't be able to aid many allies. That will leave us... hmmmm... 70% of Europe!

Also, President Musharef (sp?) did topple a leader that most of the country despised, but he has not sought to keep there from being elections. In fact, he has sought for a smooth transition back to democracy. So, please get your facts straight.

 

[rraley]

FromTexas I do have my facts straight, and this has nothing to do with disliking the Bush Administration. Like my posts have shown, I strongly support the President's goals in foreign policy and their philosophy regarding the advancement of democracy worldwide. I just would like for our actions to match our philosophy. Supporting a military dictatorship with military aid is not what we should be doing. Nothing in Musharaff's past has suggested that he is pushing for real democracy. He promised to opposing political forces in 2002 that he would resign from the army, but then he backed away from that, citing national security. How does such a cloak and dagger move suggest that he is a fan of democracy?

Furthermore, can we not make this about supporting or opposing a particular cause, side, party, administration? Let's make this about looking at facts and making sound conclusions based on those facts. A partisan hissy fit isn't debate.

 

[FromTexas]

FromTexas I do have my facts straight, and this has nothing to do with disliking the Bush Administration. Like my posts have shown, I strongly support the President's goals in foreign policy and their philosophy regarding the advancement of democracy worldwide. I just would like for our actions to match our philosophy. Supporting a military dictatorship with military aid is not what we should be doing. Nothing in Musharaff's past has suggested that he is pushing for real democracy. He promised to opposing political forces in 2002 that he would resign from the army, but then he backed away from that, citing national security. How does such a cloak and dagger move suggest that he is a fan of democracy?

Furthermore, can we not make this about supporting or opposing a particular cause, side, party, administration? Let's make this about looking at facts and making sound conclusions based on those facts. A partisan hissy fit isn't debate.

1) Mushareff re-established Parliament right away. There were elections.

2) The people who asked Mushareff to resign from the military do want him as the civilian leader. They just want it balanced.

3) Mushareff did have cause to worry about his country sinking back into chaos with everything going on. He has put himself in a precarious position allying with us. If he gave up military control, there are large factions of terrorist oriented citizens in his country. We may not have a had an ally anymore... much less a living one.

4) If you study the actions over the years, Pakistan is trying to recover from a government that was determined to see it headed backward. That kind of change doesn't just happen. Musharref now has greater incentive than other to come along due to our actions and his siding with us. If he loses us as an ally, he is probably as good as hung in his own country.

5) Do you deny that Pakistan has seen vast improvement uner Musharref? Is that not what we strive for? Do we expect a 90% or better match to our philosophies right out the gate?

6) If you want a "hissy fit", I can link you to Howard Deans next appearance followed by Al Gore. To even it up and not be so partisan, I can show you where Trent Lott or Zel Miller is speaking next.

7) Yes, there still have been factional power struggles still in Pakistan and Musharref has been among them with dirty tricks, as well. Do you expect thousands of years of tribal/factional philosophy to dissipate so quickly when even here we still have a rampant us and them mentality with African-Americans and whites?

 

[SamSpade]

Unfortunately, one thing we can't afford is the ill will of a Muslim country WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

I'm glad they're hunting al-Qaeda, and not *helping* them.

 

[Larry Gude]

rr...

Let's make this about looking at facts and making sound conclusions based on those facts

Welcome to the world of imperfection.

The US stands nearly alone in the world along with our UK cousins in viewing the way things ought to be, the way you and President Bush think things should be. We have dozens and dozens of smaller nations who have helped and will help in the future but we need to be out front.

As Rumsfeld so famously (should have) said; "You deal with the world as it is, not as you would like it."

This administration saw an epic opportunity in Iraq; Democracy! Minority rights protected by rule of law! The region is trembling, trembling with the dawning, perhaps, of a new, better world; the one we would like. And it's messy.

Having said that, the administration has judged that the Paks have done enough to receive some more of our help to meet their national security goals.

Is it possible that some of the things you mention that you'd like to see them do are now on the nearer horizon?

Here's a good example; The Clinton administration decreed that we do not deal with dirty people in the area of intelligence. No more paying off murderers or suspected terrorists to gain information on what may be coming up. So, the CIA lost all sorts of informants and contacts and we also lost a great deal of expertice by our own people dealing with folks. For whatever reason, Clinton decided we must be pure on this issue.

The result has been obvious.

The Paks may not be quite perfect as judged by you but they are an ally.

You are right to express your concern and disapproval as a citizen but I'm not sure how an adminsitration satisfies your concerns when the only way to do so may be to reveal secrets, let cats out of bags and so forth.

You're stuck trusting that we're getting something out of the deal.

 

[2ndAmendment]

First of all, the US should be incredibly steamed that Pakistan did not hand over A.Q. Khan, a nuclear scientist, to the international community for prosecution involving the sale of nuclear secrets to nations like Iran, Iraq, North Korea, and Libya.

We do not nor should we recognize the International Court, so why would we insist that he be turned over to the international community for trial?

Furthermore, Pakistan has still refused to sign the Nonproliferation treaty. It is one of only a handful of nations that has not done so. Such an action is characteristic of a rogue state, rather than a stable, rational factor in the world community.

The actions of Pakistan has demonstrated that they are not a rogue state. I have not investigated their reasons for not signing the nonproliferation treaty. Until evidence is presented that they are proliferating nuclear weapons, I think we err on the side of preserving an ally in the war on terrorism.

And finally, I am worried that we are supporting an unelected government far too much. ...
In conclusion, this action of providing military aid to Pakistan only suggests to the world community that the United States is not serious about promoting democracy, ....

I disagree. I think it sends a signal that we support those that stand with us. Pakistan has been instrumental in rooting out Al Qaeda. In the words of Sun-tzu, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

 

[ylexot]

Who cares about the jets. What I would like to know is what kinds of weapons we'll be giving/selling to them to go on the jets. Without weapons, that F-16 might as well be a Cessna.

 

[FromTexas]

Who cares about the jets. What I would like to know is what kinds of weapons we'll be giving/selling to them to go on the jets. Without weapons, that F-16 might as well be a Cessna.

As with India and other countries, they rank well down on the list for what they can receive. It will be stripped down and older weapons (without our latest software, etc... ), but it will still be above standard for the region.

Like with F/A-18s, countries who are higher security risks receive the old A-D's without the latest technologies on board making them turkey shoots for us in any combat situation.

 

[ylexot]

As with India and other countries, they rank well down on the list for what they can receive. It will be stripped down and older weapons (without our latest software, etc... ), but it will still be above standard for the region.

Like with F/A-18s, countries who are higher security risks receive the old A-D's without the latest technologies on board making them turkey shoots for us in any combat situation.

I assumed that much. I always wondered if they put some backdoor coding into the software so that if we ever went against those aircraft/weapons, all we'd have to do is send out a special signal and their stuff wouldn't work.

 

[Larry Gude]

We'd NEVER do that...

all we'd have to do is send out a special signal and their stuff wouldn't work

...would we?

(count on it)

 

[Ken King]

Rraley,

Nothing in Israel's actions show that they want a true democracy either, they have attacked and killed our sailors in the past, and we give them a ton of military hardware every year. But they like Pakistan are working with us a lot like Iran used to do when we were helping them with arms too.

As long as our hardware is top of the line others will want it and work with us to obtain it. It's a great bargaining chip and as others have mentioned we don't give them the latest and greatest.

 

[SmallTown]

I think part of RR's concern stems from our past support (financially and with weapons) of groups such as the Taliban and Bin Laden and then seeing the eventual outcome of that. Lets not forget that pakistan wasn't exactly a willing participant in the fight against terror at the beginning. Financial and political options were given to them and they were accepted.

Good thing is, if pakistan becomes an enemy (or is taken over by an anti-american group) we will have at least some of idea what to expect from their military.

 

[FromTexas]

Rraley,

Nothing in Israel's actions show that they want a true democracy either, they have attacked and killed our sailors in the past, and we give them a ton of military hardware every year. But they like Pakistan are working with us a lot like Iran used to do when we were helping them with arms too.

As long as our hardware is top of the line others will want it and work with us to obtain it. It's a great bargaining chip and as others have mentioned we don't give them the latest and greatest.

Uh, Israel is one of the purest forms of democracy in the world.

 

[Ken King]

Uh, Israel is one of the purest forms of democracy in the world.

Really, it might be for Jews, but ask the Arab-Israelis about that.

 

[FromTexas]

Really, it might be for Jews, but ask the Arab-Israelis about that.

The only legal distinction between Arab-Israeli's and the rest is that Arab-Israeli's do not have a mandatory requirement to serve in the Israeli military. They do this so the Arabs are not required to take up arms against their "brothers". However, that has not stopped many Arab-Israelis from serving.

Otherwise, they all enjoy the same voting, social welfare, and other rights.

 

[Ken King]

The only legal distinction between Arab-Israeli's and the rest is that Arab-Israeli's do not have a mandatory requirement to serve in the Israeli military. They do this so the Arabs are not required to take up arms against their "brothers". However, that has not stopped many Arab-Israelis from serving.

Otherwise, they all enjoy the same voting, social welfare, and other rights.

What rights? Israel has no Constitution or any express rights for their citizens. They are a government of majority rule with no freedom of the press and are subject to the whims of the controlling party in the Knisset.

 

[FromTexas]

What rights? Israel has no Constitution or any express rights for their citizens. They are a government of majority rule with no freedom of the press and are subject to the whims of the controlling party in the Knisset.

Actually, voting rights stay the same and can't be taken away. That is one. There are also health care and many other rights that have not nor will they be changed. As I said above, the only legal difference in treatment is the military angle.

A government of pure majority rule? Isn't that what a TRUE democracy is? A pure democracy? Everyone gets a vote, and the majority win out?

As for freedom of their press, Reporters Without Borders has continually ranked Israel above countries such as Italy, Australia, etc... usually around rank 30-40, and greatly above any other country in the middle east.

People in Israel have access to CNN, MSNBC, and many other of the same news services we do... along with unfettered internet access.

 

[rraley]

I understand many of your statements regarding the necessity of helping nations that are instrumental in the fight against terrorism. But, that aid in the war on terror is not all that a nation must do in the new battle for hearts and minds. I mean aiding nations that do not embrace democracy fully completely circumvents our purpose in the international community now doesn't it? We are not here to aid nations that merely ally themselves with us to stop terrorists, we are here to promote democracy and freedom worldwide (was I the only one paying attention in President Bush's Inaugural Speech?).

Furthermore, Pakistani action against terrorists have only occurred within their own borders and are mainly against factions that have sought to topple the Musharaff government. This sort of action seems to be more of an action to preserve the state rather than to curb international terrorism.

And to 2A regarding the International Court, the issue of international arms dealing and nuclear proliferation jeopardizes the security of hundreds of nations. Furthermore, it includes relations between countries and the A.Q. Khan network had factors in several nations. Why should prosecution be carried out in only one of the involved nations?

In any event, why was A.Q. Khan pardoned? Should he have at least been prosecuted in Pakistan?

 

[Ken King]

Actually, voting rights stay the same and can't be taken away. That is one. There are also health care and many other rights that have not nor will they be changed. As I said above, the only legal difference in treatment is the military angle.

A government of pure majority rule? Isn't that what a TRUE democracy is? A pure democracy? Everyone gets a vote, and the majority win out?

As for freedom of their press, Reporters Without Borders has continually ranked Israel above countries such as Italy, Australia, etc... usually around rank 30-40, and greatly above any other country in the middle east.

People in Israel have access to CNN, MSNBC, and many other of the same news services we do... along with unfettered internet access.

The majority rule without a Constitution results in no protection for the minorities or consistency in the application of law. Thus the will of the popular is dictated upon the less popular. I believe that Israel is what is defined as a parliamentary democracy, a form of governing slightly better then a dictatorship.

Israel under their Declaration of Establishment of the State of Israel gave the explicit intent of the state and that is that it will be a Jewish state. Logic dictates that when you establish a state on ethnic, religious, or favored race that you will discriminate against those not of that description. Check any human rights watchdog site and you will find that Israel is up around the top of their list of violators.

By the way, having access to the internet, CNN, and MSNBC does not mean that they have freedom of the press. Their press is controlled by the political parties and tows the party line or is squashed.