OxBlog

Front page
XML Feed

Read Our

"Love your site" -- Dan Savage

"A great read" -- Fareed Zakaria

"I enjoy OxBlog very much" -- Michael Barone

OxBlog: Trying to live up to the hype since April 23, 2002!

David Adesnik, a research analyst in Washington DC, received his doctorate in international relations from Oxford.

Email David

[Powered by Blogger]

The Media:
NYT
WaPo
OpinionJournal
TNR
Weekly Standard
NRO
Slate
Commentary
BBC

Other Blogs We Like:

George Washington:
InstaPundit

James Wilson:
Brett Marston
Volokh Conspiracy

Alexis de Tocqueville:
American Scene
Crescat Sententia
Crooked Timber
Galley Slaves
Eve Tushnet
Christopher Hitchens

Theodore Roosevelt:
Amygdala
Belgravia Dispatch
Phil Carter
Joyful Christian
Joe Gandelman
Adrianne Truett
Winds of Change
Pejman Yousefzadeh
Global Guerrillas

Calvin Coolidge:
ScrappleFace

Winston Churchill:
Sasha Castel
Innocents Abroad
Andrew Sullivan
Tim Blair

Franklin Roosevelt:
Kevin Drum
Josh Marshall
Matt Yglesias
Democracy Arsenal
Dan Nexon

David Ben Gurion:
GedankenPundit
Kesher Talk

Friedrich Hayek:
Jane Galt
Virginia Postrel
Natalie Solent
VodkaPundit
Matt Welch

Ronald Reagan:
Power Line
RealClearPolitics
Worldwide Standard
RedState
Liz Mair

Daniel Patrick Moynihan:
Daniel Drezner
How Appealing

Tuesday, August 07, 2007

# Posted 11:22 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

OBAMA VS. GATES VS. MUSHARRAF: After Hillary accused him of being naive about national security, Obama decided to advertise that he would attack Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan even without the permission of Gen. Musharraf. On Sunday morning, Tim Russert decided to ask the Secretary of Defense a very similar question:
MR. RUSSERT: Before you go, if we had actionable intelligence about Osama bin Laden or high level targets in Pakistan, and General Musharraf—President Musharraf did not act, would we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y GATES: Musharraf has been a very strong ally. The fact of the matter is, if we had actionable intelligence that Osama was in Pakistan, I think—my view is that President Musharraf would work with us to make sure that we could go after him.

MR. RUSSERT: But if he didn’t, would we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y GATES: I think we would not act without telling Musharraf what we were planning to do.
A diplomatic answer from the Secretary, although not a very clear one. Thus, it seems Obama has found a way to position himself to the right of the Bush administration on one small aspect of national security.

On the one hand, I'm glad to see that Obama can think of at least one situation in which he would support the use of force unilaterally. But his position strikes me as opportunistic. He can afford to antagonize the Pakistanis precisely because he isn't President. If he were, both the State Department and the Pentagon would be knocking down his door to prevent him from risking the US government's entire relationship with Pakistan. I'm guessing that since Democrats are so big on exhausting all diplomatic options before resorting to the use of force, Obama would listen.

If it hadn't been just a week after Hillary attacked him for being naive, I doubt Obama would've tried to flank both her and Bush from the right.

Labels: , , ,

(4) opinions -- Add your opinion

Thursday, March 22, 2007

# Posted 1:54 PM by Ariel David Adesnik  

HOPE FOR PAKISTAN? OR JUST ANOTHER CRISIS? Ahmed Rashid suggests that Musharraf's time has come.

Labels: ,

(5) opinions -- Add your opinion

Sunday, March 18, 2007

# Posted 11:44 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

THE MUSHARRAF DILEMMA: In the bad old days of the Cold War, our government had a bad habit of pretending that friendly dictators were actually democrats. Even though George W. Bush has condemned this hypocrisy and insisted that stability is achieved by promoting freedom, it doesn't seem that we've actually broken our habit:
"We have a fundamental interest in the success of Pakistan as a moderate, stable, democratic Muslim nation," Assistant Secretary of State Richard A. Boucher said at a news conference Thursday in Islamabad during which he announced a $750 million aid package. According to the Associated Press, he added: "That's the direction that Musharraf is leading the nation, and we are proud to work with him."
That quotation is from a WaPo editorial, which goes on to explain why Mr. Boucher's statements are absurd. In addition, the WaPo observes that according to the logic of realpolitik, alliances with dictators are acceptable in the name of national security. Yet Musharraf seems to be doing at least as much to undermine our security as he is to improve it.

That is where the Post's editorial leaves off. As you can tell, I sympathize with it, because democracy promotion is an issue that I am extraordinarily passionate about. But when it comes to Musharraf, I still wonder whether there are any better options, because he may just have us by the balls.

Most of the dictators the US once befriended in the name of security were actually in control of their own countries. Yet Musharraf doesn't even seem to control his own military or intelligence services -- which actually strengthens the argument for giving him our support, since he could be replaced very quickly by someone very hostile toward the United States.

So, are there any ways out of this miserable situation? Not that I know of. But I am pretty sure that we can dispense with the hypocritical statements proclaiming Musharraf to be a democrat.

Labels: ,

(2) opinions -- Add your opinion

Home