Another Blame America Moment (Courtesy Of Paul Richter and The LA Times)

For days now, the Myanmar government was silent on whether it would even accept aid in the aftermath of the recent deadly cyclone that many believe caused the deaths of over 100,000 people. And when they did accept aid, the military government immediately seized the first shipments. The reason they did this was initially unclear, until this morning's news hit cyberspace.

Myanmar's military regime distributed international aid Saturday but plastered the boxes with the names of top generals in an apparent effort to turn the relief effort for last week's devastating cyclone into a propaganda exercise.

Not surprising in the least, this is a good chance for the otherwise worthless junta's leadership to look like it has some minimal value. But if that doesn't take the cake, this next little tidbit from the LA Times will.

As Myanmar's aid crisis deepens, the Bush administration is facing criticism that its denunciations of the military regime may have contributed to its resistance to allowing foreign aid workers to enter the storm-ravaged country.

After Tropical Cyclone Nargis pounded Myanmar, First Lady Laura Bush and administration officials condemned the government Monday as illegitimate, blasted its human rights record, and charged that it had failed to give its residents adequate warning of the storm's approach.

Germany's Chancellor has been critical and even wanted the UN to force the Myanmar government to accept aid, as did the French Foreign Minister. But ironically, no mention of this in the LAT article.

So, if the Myanmar leaders were displeased with the criticism from the US Government to the point they were willing to reject badly needed aid in a deep crisis, why did they turn their noses up at help from the rest of the world? Why were other nations becoming frustrated with their insolence, not the object of Mr. Richter's extrapolation?

Why do organizations like the LAT (like many other newspapers that are in deep financial trouble) want to paint the US in the worst possible light? I suspect they will soon be missing their days of taking potshots at the Bush Administration, very soon. They have to strike while the iron is still hot because if Obama gets elected in November, the US will once again, do no wrong.

The Role Of The Media: The Bhutto Assassination

Unless one has been in a cave the last 24 hours, we have all heard of the sad and tragic news of former Prime Minister Bhutto's demise. In light of this event, I will say it is not unexpected. Since her return to Pakistan, there has been an uneasiness and a certain level of trepidation that she was going to be killed, at some point. I felt it, many of you may have felt it, and I am sure she felt it.

During the coming days, there will be every accusation and theory as to who the responsible party is. Some of those have already surfaced. Musharraf, al Qaeda, the Taliban, will all be mentioned by the expert pundits, who will be paraded out on the news networks in the coming days (as many already have). And if you listen hard enough, search the internet long enough, you may even find someone on the fringe accuse the CIA and/or the Mossad.

The truth is, we don't know who was behind it. Almost all of those I have mentioned had a vested interest in seeing her assassinated. Their objective was two-fold: Eliminate her and create a state of chaos that will result in long-term instability in Pakistan. On these counts, both goals appear to have been met.

An even sadder truth remains, in that, we may never know the real truth. This situation is extremely complex ans murky, at best. And to think that any investigation or claim of responsibility will immediately be credible, demonstrates a naive thinking process and in some cases delusional thinking.

In the meantime, the thought of Bhutto returning to power has been set forth as an idealistic mantra and panacea that (at best) can be categorized as the same. The media has painted this picture of hope and vision, all the while it has been draped in error and miscalculation.

The build-up to her return and the possibilities it created was entirely fueled by the same media that tells us all that our soldiers are on killing rampages, targeting innocent civilians in Iraq. These are the same people who lend credibility to the thinking that the War On Terror is a bumper sticker phrase and to reporters that sit in their hotel rooms paying locals for slanted and biased accounts of events, they are too scared to cover in person.

The truth is, this woman was painted to be a saviour of sorts to her country, while ignoring how ineffective and corrupt she was while she was in power. There were elements that hated her then (and drove her out). Today, we can see there are still many that hated what she stood for, and would benefit from her death.

With all of this known, it astounds me how the media could paint her return as some bright shining moment, in the quest for the return of democracy in Pakistan. Yet, they did. I guess they wanted a story, and they got it.

So, as the expostulations and pontifications from the experts flow out of the interviews and the roundtable discussions, remember that this is not as easy to sort out, as they want us to believe. All will get their faces on TV, voices on radio, and names in the newspapers. But, Bhutto gets a funeral and the people of Pakistan get uncertainty and chaos.


Note - Here are some other views starting to emerge:

1. An excellent essay in the NT Post today about the facade of Bhutto.

2. Which goes along well, with some of what Mustang is saying in his latest post.

3. AC of Fore Left has some thoughts, some of which may differ from mine. But still, they are worth considering.

4. Interesting food for thought here at Q and O.

Lawyers, Guns, and Pakistan

Not exactly the kind of material that makes for a good Warren Zevon song, but such was the scene in Pakistan earlier today. Decimating the Supreme Court in that country is something that hasn't gone over too well, with that nation's law lobby.

As I said in my earlier post, this is a difficult foreign policy problem for the U.S. and all others that recognize there is a war against those that seek to export jihad. There is no magical solution.

Here are some articles from various news outlets on this crisis:

The London Times

National Review Online

Wall Street Journal

USA Today

International Herald-Tribune

As you can see, there's a wide variety of opinions and angles that the media is forming on this situation. Not being an expert on Pakistan, it's always difficult to form a judgment on the way things are being handled and playing out. But, as time ticks on, all we can hope for is a reasonable solution that will return the Pakistanis back to the normal state of confusion, it has endured over the past few years.

One thing this does, it takes the international attention off of Iran (where it should be right now). As all eyes and ears turn toward Islamabad, Tehran is still working on a bomb and still threatening others in the process.

But on the other hand, there is one thing that could work to our advantage here. If this crisis lingers on for awhile, we could see foreign fighters that are now causing havoc in neighboring Afghanistan (and even Iraq) flock into Pakistan to fight the infidel Musharraf and his military. This would give us more time to secure the areas we now are committed to rebuilding.

Perplexing Problems In Pakistan

While a significant portion of people were being consumed by NFL fever yesterday, something really serious was taking place, this past weekend. The Pakistani President implemented martial law and rounded up foes in Pakistan. That pretty much trumps anything else currently on the agenda at the State Department, first thing this morning.

This is a tricky situation here. There is no 10-second election sound bite solution.

Musharraf has been an important ally in the war on terror. Maybe he isn't the best we have, he hasn't allowed us to chase Taliban, from Afghanistan into Pakistan. But, he's better than nothing.

Yet, when we consider the actions of said president, it perplexes us more than we need to be. It puts us into a serious dilemma. Do we support someone that skirts democracy, even though they have provided much assistance while we chase the bad guys that seek to impose their special version of oppression? Do we condemn it, call for change immediately, and risk the possibility of throwing away Pakistan's cooperation? Or do we embrace it and compromise the principles of free elections and self-determination?

Such questions are not going to be answered very easily. There will be no magical panacea fall into our laps with specific detailed instructions, here.

We must consider that democracy in Middle Eastern (ME) countries with a large percentage of jihadists (and those that sympathize with their cause) doesn't do too well when it is implemented. So it is, we can come to realize that there may be a good chance that democratization of ME cultures may not be a realistic goal. Even more so, they may be next to impossible to achieve.

That's the Machiavellian in me, I suppose.

But before we draw some sort of moral conclusion about this, we need to read this piece from the Guardian.

Disengaged western audiences, pumped full of the current pro-democracy intoxicants, will almost universally decry Musharraf's behaviour. I decry it too, precisely because I am a disengaged westerner and I have that luxury. However, the story in Pakistan is not so straightforward.

What I am being told by bazari merchants, some young professionals, and some industrialists in Karachi and Lahore is that they merely care for stability, whether it comes in the form of the military, or in the form of democracy. Incidentally, many of them believe that it is Musharraf who is more likely to assure that stability. A couple of people, with middle class businesses, suggested to me that Musharraf should behave more like a dictator; a secular version of the previous Islamist dictator, Zia ul Haq, in order to assure stability for business and economic growth. However, that is a minority view.

The democratic push in Pakistan is not some sort of romantic affair pitting slaves against a demonic genocidal Stalin. Musharraf made his errors (like the Red Mosque fiasco and the disappearances linked to the War on Terror) but he is not homicidal. Cinema, music, the arts and freedom of press are thriving in Pakistan. The popular satire programme - "We are Expecting" - has a regular character mocking Musharraf, which does nothing more than grunt and proclaim "Yes!" in a loud voice.

What this all boils down to is, we must look at the stability of Pakistan and ask ourselves some poignant questions. A place to start is: Would Musharraf being out of power, allot for more freedom under an Islamic state? My educated guess would be, no.

My problem supporting Musharraf is even more distinct: I remember the Shah.

Burma Violence To Spur UN Action?

The political crisis in Burma is mounting sufficiently enough that a meeting is supposed to take place tonight in the UN. But after watching this organization perform at a snail's pace in other pressing matters around the world, I wouldn't get too excited or expect that anything substantial will emerge from it.

Besides the fact that the UN sat idly by in years past while dictators like Saddam butchered his people, the UN is not known for its speed and efficiency. The current crisis in Darfur bears this out. The UN also is in no hurry to take on the burden of the Iranian situation, so how are we to believe that this meeting tonight will yield anything of any reasonable value?

But, like all things that come out of the UN, I am sure that whatever comes out of tonight's gathering will sound good in a sound bite and look good on paper. Meanwhile, the protests and the repression of such will most likely continue, while the UN tries to hoodwink us all into thinking they are relevant.



Addendum:

Found this article from the WSJ. It adds to the mix in this story, in that, the UN will fail because China will always be there to obstruct anything that would prove the slightest bit constructive. I said when China became a member of the Security Council, the world would someday rue that day. I think that "someday" is already here.