Has there been a more embarrassing counterexample to George W. Bush's utopian Second Inaugural Address delusions than Pakistan? Bush proclaimed that "the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time" was supporting the growth of democracy. Yet, in the name of America's security, he doles international welfare out to a dictator. There is a flaw in the logic of Bush's second inaugural, and his policies toward Pakistan highlight this. For America's sake, it's a good thing that his actions do not match his rhetoric.

George Bush says democracy defeats terrorism. Pervez Musharraf says democracy inhibits fighting terrorism. He has suspended rights, he says, to uproot terrorists. Unfortunately, the people whose rights he has curtailed include the woman who seeks to take his place as leader of Pakistan.

For the second time this week, former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto has been placed under house arrest by Musharraf. She sought to hold a protest, which is pretty standard fare for political activity. But if even milquetoast political activity is verboten in the lead up to an election, how can the election be fair? There will be an election in Pakistan. There won't be democracy, or at least what has been conflated with democracy: liberty, rights, etc. The right to vote people into power isn't the key question. The limitations on the power of the elected is.

Should Bush crusade against Musharraf? No, because it's not in the direct interests of the United States (neither, it seems, are our bribes/aid). But his second inaugural says that he should: "So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." Blah, blah, blah. It makes you almost long for the time when U.S. presidents reflected, "He may be a sonovabitch, but he's our sonovabitch." At least those real politique guys weren't hypocrites.

Another drawback to the democracy uber-alles policy is that the results of elections don't always mesh with U.S. interests. Anatol Lieven writes in the International Herald Tribune, "a parliamentary coalition could be put together against the PPP [Bhutto's party]. Such a move would be completely democratic and constitutional. It would also have to include the moderate and not-so-moderate Islamist parties. What, one wonders, would the US administration make of this product of Pakistani democracy?" In other words, be careful what you wish for. Votes can bring a Hitler into power just as they brought a Washington into power.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YWVjYWI5MDFmYzUzNzU3NTVmNTNlYzBmYjRmOTYwY2M=

Ralph,

I read that NR article and the most important line he writes is his last one: "This thing can’t be scripted, in Washington or anywhere else."

Nice to see NR giving voice (even if by accident) to a more traditional realist foreign policy. But the author doesn't really apply this insight.

I think our govt should apply it in several ways: 1) cut off all aid to Pakistan;
2) stop declaring this, that, or the other as regards what Musharraf should do;
3) work seriously towards leaving Iraq entirely.

Once we stop being a prop for Musharraf and once we disengage in the region then much of the seething anger towards us will dissipate and Musharraf can likely even regain some actual control of the country. It will also be much easier for us to deal w/ the 5% of Muslims (just throwing a number out) who will actively try to harm us once we have gotten the other 80% who are radicalized by our policies to go back to indifference and their daily lives.

We should be using more indirect means of supporting stability there as whenever someone is seen as a puppet of ours his ability to govern is completely undercut. This stands to reason I think. E.g, there is experience of this reaction to rule seen as "foreign" in our own country's history from the Reconstruction Era.

We should have walked in there after 9/11 and warned these bastards that we will not tolerate muslims with nukes. Put a gun to the SOB's head and take over the country. Why didn't we do this? That country could be ours!

I think that people who are comfortable in the U.S. under our democratic government and rule of law miss what social, cultural and political chaos exists in most parts of the third world.

It's unfortunate, but dictators seem to work best in countries where tribalism trumps democracy and chaos trumps the rule of law.

Iraq is a good experiment and will be the example of what happens when an iron fisted dictator is ousted and replaced by a democratic regime.