Submitted by Johnny Fisher, Nov 7, 2007 16:28

Pakistan suffers from endemic corruption and tribalism, and is infested with medieval religious nutjobs. It also has a stockpile of nuclear warheads and the means to produce more. Can anyone see Bhutto or Sharif controlling this situation?
Musharraf may be technically a dictator, but he is no mad-dog tyrant. On the contrary, he is a soldier's general - not an officer's nor a politician's - and owes his support to the army of ordinary squaddies, possibly the only non-corrupt organization in the whole of Pakistan. He is sober, honest, civilized and (a point in his favor) often seems out of his depth when dealing with politicians.
Democracy is not an absolute good. Remember, Hitler was elected. What kind of government might be elected in Pakistan? To allow idealism of any kind to overrule realpolitik in this case is terrifying. I do understand that GWB and many other Americans want to spread enlightened democracy in the world, but that will not happen by wishing, nor can it be imposed on a population that does not want nor understand how to make it work.
In short, Musharraf must be supported, backed to the hilt as long as possible. The worst danger is that he will be assassinated. Before that happens, and a rogue nuclear state appears, please USA, get in there, kill bin Laden and crush al-Qaeda. That, of course is the price Musharraf must pay.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.