Pakistan helped North Korea with its WMD programs and may have helped Iran as well. Jim Hoagland thinks the Bush Administration is wrong to place so much importance on Musharraf's help with access to Afghanistan. Pakistan is a big problem as a source of technologies for weapons proliferation and there is always the threat that a more radical Muslim might get control of the country. But what I'd like to hear is a more detailed set of proposals on what Hoagland proposes to do about it. Yes, Jim, Pakistan is dangerous:
This response pushes toward a disaster that Bush officials -- and a Congress that has been negligent to cowardly in exercising oversight on Pakistan -- will one day protest that they could not have seen coming. The truth will be that they ignored warnings that were in plain sight, as the first Bush administration did on Iraq's Saddam Hussein.
The second Bush administration sees the dangers that "axis of evil" members Iraq and North Korea pose. It is fashioning considered, realistic responses to those dangers. But it seems paralyzed by the perceived need to secure Musharraf's help in fighting al Qaeda and stabilizing Afghanistan. Official Washington will not even tell the truth to or about Musharraf, much less hold him accountable for his lies and subterfuge.
I'd also like to know what Hoagland (or anyone else for that matter) thinks we should do to remove the developing threat that Libya, North Korea, and Iran pose. Is the Iraqi regime the only regime we should remove by invasion? Is there something we can do short of invasion to cause a large regime change in those other countries that will result in their dismantling their WMD programs?
|Share |||By Randall Parker at 2002 October 25 04:32 PM|