Now that the general has defied the White House, suspending Pakistan’s Constitution and imposing emergency rule, old tensions are flaring anew. Mr. Bush is backing away from the leader he once called a man of “courage and vision,” and critics are asking whether the president misread his Pakistani counterpart.
“He didn’t ask the hard questions, and frankly, neither did the people working for him,” said Husain Haqqani, an expert on Pakistan at Boston University who has advised two previous Pakistani prime ministers, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. “They bought the P.R. image of Musharraf as the reasonable general. Bush bought the line — hook, line and sinker.”
The “Bush-Mush relationship,” as some American scholars call it, has always been complicated, more a bond of convenience than a genuine friendship, some experts said. When he was running for office in 2000, Mr. Bush didn’t even know General Musharraf’s name; he couldn’t identify the leader of Pakistan for a reporter’s pop quiz during an interview that was widely replayed on late-night television.
Experts in United States-Pakistan relations said General Musharraf has played the union masterfully, by convincing Mr. Bush that he alone can keep Pakistan stable. Kamran Bokhari, an analyst for Stratfor, a private intelligence company, who met with General Musharraf in January, said the general viewed Mr. Bush with some condescension.
“Musharraf thinks that Bush has certain weaknesses that can be manipulated,” Mr. Bokhari said, adding, “I would say that President Musharraf doesn’t think highly of President Bush, but his interests force him to do business with the U.S. president.”
Neocon politicians and their obedient followers think they are the 21st Century answer to Caeser. Their adoption of slogans like the “new world order” and the “new American century” only illuminates the dementia fogging their brains.
just another case of history repeating itself. We wont do anything, and once its all over everyone in Pakistan will hate us for it.
Supporting Musharraf is a good idea. He’s the guy keeping the Islamists at bay.
#2. so was the Shah.
Yeah, and how has withdrawing support for him worked out?
We wouldn’t even be in Iraq right now if it weren’t for that decision.
Ah another Saddam Hussein.
Or:
Baby Doc
Chiang kei-Shek
Fauds
Noriega
Sandanistas
Shah
Bastista
Amin
Cedras
Marcos
Pinochet
Trujillo
Rabuka
Nol
Pot
Selaisse
Suharto
And on and on and on.
No one learns from history in the US do they?
Cursor_
I am just waiting for Bush to declare a state of emergency in November of next year…
#4. Actually, we supported the Shah right up to the bitter end. He got tons of American aid, visited Jimmy Carter at the White House and was toasted as a great leader.
It is no coincidence that the Iranian Revolution was violently anti-US.
deja vu all over again.
The role of the U.S.: I did not know it then – perhaps I did not want to know – but it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out. Clearly this is what the human rights advocates in the State Department wanted … What was I to make of the Administration’s sudden decision to call former Under Secretary of State George Ball to the White House as an adviser on Iran? … Ball was among those Americans who wanted to abandon me and ultimately my country
Despite your wishful thinking, Jimmy Carter didn’t support the Shah.
Cursor_ – That list is a real eye opener.
MikeN – Just curious, but do you ever use any historical references at all for your statements? I mean, EVERYTHING you say is so opposite from scientific, political, military or historic consensus that one really has to wonder about your mental health.
You might want to consider talking to a mental health professional about your paranoia and lack of touch with historical reality.
The next thing you will be posting is that the Holocaust never happened, and that there is a liberal war against Christmas.
8,
Carter may not have supported the Shah, but he allowed his administration to do so. Carter is a great man, but he wasn’t a very good President. We created the monster in Iran (as well as many other monsters, as pointed out by Cursor_)
We allow terribler regimes to opress people, stifle their attempts to free themselves, then wonder out loud why they hate us. Look at what is going on in our “ally” Paklistan today.
Bush (and the rest of the shitheaded neocon ilk that surrounds him) knew that Musharraf was a dictator who siezed power from an elected government, but he went the way of short-term political expediency. One day we’ll sit wringing our collective hands wondering why Pakistan is so f*cked up and anti-USA.
#8, #11
Jimmy Carter DID support the Shah.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/timeline/timeline2.html
1977:
November 15: The Shah of Iran visits the White House, prompting demonstrations by anti-Shah forces.
December 31: Carter visits Tehran on New Years’ Eve. He toasts the Shah, reiterating American support and calling him “an island of stability” in the troubled region.
There you have it. Jimmy Carter is not a great man, he is a despicable hypocrite, blathering on about ‘human rights’ yet feting the Shah.
Bush is just pissed that Mush didn’t follow his lead and just erode the constitution by stealth.
Oh, and let’s fast-forward to 1979 –
“October 22: Carter allows the ailing Shah of Iran to enter the U.S. for medical treatment.”
this would be strange behavior for a President who wanted nothing to do with the Shah. And the results were rather predictable:
“November 4: Outraged by the Shah’s welcome in America, militant students overrun the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, seizing 66 hostages. The 444-day Iranian hostage crisis begins.”
We did not sell out Iran by cutting the Shah loose, we sold them out by overthrowing their government in 1954 because they wanted a bigger slice of the oil revenue, which the British were systematically swindling them on. They could have become a quite stable and prosperous democracy, but for our meddling. Or they could have become like Pakistan. But either way, it would not be our fault.
Letting someone in for medical treatment is a far cry from helping him stay in power.
The fact is Jimmy Carter didn’t want to support the first Muslim leader to recognize Israel. That was too much for that Baptist preacher that would be aok with wiping Israel off the map.
I know Pakistan pretty well and I have never known Husain Haqqani to be wrong.
Besides, “[Bush] didn’t ask the hard questions, and frankly, neither did the people working for him,” pretty much describes every other decision Bush and this administration have done.
Goodness, save us from the bunglers and the Americans who put them in office.
#15, #16. But going to Tehran and reiterating US support for the Shah, IS supporting him.
No way around that – Carter backed the Shah. That you do not want to believe it does not make it any less true.
Doug,
It’s my memory, too, that Carter “supported” the shah. But in what way and how much?
My memory isn’t that good, so I did a quick Google. Here was an interesting snipped that came up at the top:
In discussions of the relationship between former president Jimmy Carter and the shah of Iran, some (conservative) writers have alleged that Carter’s failure to support the shah led to the success of the Iranian revolution and thereby “betrayed” the United States.
#19. the US had listening posts in northern Iran – that sort of presence is usually paid for with military aid. also, the CIA trained and worked with the SAVAK up to the point the Shah fell – that is how the US got blindsided by the revolution, we were too relient upon the Iranian secret police.
so I would say that the US was providing substantial support to the Shah right up through the Carter Administration.
I ain’t buying what partisan ‘historians’ are selling about Carter cutting off the Shah. other than sending troops to Tehran, there was no way the US was going to keep the Shah on the throne.
Doug,
(full disclosure here: I’m a lib)
I’m not aware of what this talking point is all about. Are the conservatives saying that Carter (supposedly) didn’t support the Shaw and thus he is somehow guilty of allowing the Ayatollah in – and, I suppose, radical Islam?
I have never hear this argued but I know how these silly talking points go.
The reality is that America’s installation of the Shaw, overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister is probably the single beginning point you could name for the rise of modern radical Islam.
The US SUPPORTING this despot gave radical Muslims some proof for their claims that America’s big talk about Democracy was nothing more but hot air.
Everyone I know in the Middle East knows this history and would tell you the same thing.
#21. that’s exactly what it is – a talking point, not a fact. And the CIA-engineered 1954 coup was a catastrophe for the US and for what little chance democracy had in the region.
Americans may not know the history, but the Iranians sure do.
This is shocking history coming from you guys. I guess you would prefer to blame everything on the US, than take the Shah’s statement that he thinks Carter withdrew support. Carter’s emphasis on human rights and hatred of Israel kept him from supporting the shah.
MikeN –
so when was it when Carter withdrew US support for the Shah? Before or after Jimmy was in Tehran toasting him as such a great leader?
The Shah was doubtlessly trying to shift the blame for his fall from himself to the US.
I always wonder how long it takes for the conservatives to just leap to the ‘you all are a bunch of blame-America-firsters’ rather than actually confront the genuine facts.
thanks for reminding me that it does not take long.