Soob

At least as far as Pakistan is concerned. I tuned into the Democratic debate in Nevada this last Thursday night and paid particular attention when the subject of the current events in Pakistan arose. Nearly all the contenders sang the song of Democracy as a means to stabilize Pakistan and proposed an end to or limitation of aid to the Paki military should Pervez Musharraf continue his effective martial law.

The exceptions being Senator Hillary Clinton, who seemed to tread lightly with a rather ambiguous position, and Senator Chris Dodd who, quite effectively, drew a line in the sand by stating, no bullshit here, "be careful what you wish for."

I'm amazed that the top down approach to applying democracy hasn't been relegated to that of abject failure by the majority of the democratic candidates. Given the example of Iraq and they're own sometimes valid, more often vitriolic, commentary regarding such one is led to wonder why the idea of enforcing, rather than allowing democracy is suddenly something to be embraced.

I suspect most of the positions regarding Pakistan are designed to induce political popularity. The hard reality that there exists, amidst the realm of foreign policy, the idea of necessary evils, has been tossed aside by most. Kudos for Senator Dodd for kicking aside the popular resolve and putting forth, with much force, his own realisations regarding the Pakistani conundrum. Dodd seems to have learned the hard lessons of the Palestinian election that, regardless of US approval, ended in the election of a rather anti-western element as Hamas rose to power. Very illustrative of Dodd's own warning, "be careful what you wish for."