While his political instability is common knowledge, General Musharraf tried to reassert his authority by declaraing a state of emergency. Political dissidents have been rounded up, and the nation's supreme court head has been detained as well. Condoleeza Rice has stated that the White House is reviewing it's policy regarding Pakistan. This is a very vexing event, as it signals the diminished importance of the White House on influencing Pakistan.

Questions for debate:

1.)What can the White House do to strengthen Pakistan's democracy while not allowing terrorists an opening to raise havoc in Pakistan?

2.)Is democracy tenable in Pakistan, or do we need a pragmatic general to rule a place where we aren't very popular?

3.)How effective has the White House been in dealing with Pakistan?

4.)What will become of Musharraf and who who will previal-Musharraf or the Supreme Court?

1.)What can the White House do to strengthen Pakistan's democracy while not allowing terrorists an opening to raise havoc in Pakistan?

Full-blown democracy can come later. The terrorists need to be dealt with first. I can see how that kind of puts the administration in a bind, given its trumpeting of a "global democratic revolution", but that's a hole that they (adminstrations of both parties, actually) have unwisely dug themselves into. I think a new paradigm is needed when it comes to our foreign policy. There needs to be recognized a difference between governments that are merely authoritarian and those that are downright tyrannical. It's only the latter type that really warrant our concern. It's becoming clearer and clearer that the administration's assumption that "democracy" is the cure for terrorism throughout the world has little basis in reality.

In short order I don’t know why the character card is being played here. The reality of U.S foreign relations has not always been to a good guy depending on the situation. I don’t however note if we have played for example strictly speaking to who is the good guy to everyone. I mean at one point we had involvement with Iraq on a political level that was not to the note of trying to kill him for instance with our military.

I don’t however view that losing Pakistan to teh terrorists( ) is anything of a positive option for the U.S or global stability. I don’t know how you can adequately bracket such organizations for whom they overall directly target. For instance AQ is not directly just a U.S only threat, they host problems to multiple nations.

I think this dwells back to earlier problems and rash decisions. Afghanistan VS. the U.S.S.R should have never been abandoned. Outside of cold war influence they never would have had that war historically speaking. IF they choose us over the U.S.S.R we should have tried to help them rebuild. The amount of goodwill that was squandered there I think is impossible to really think about. Families were left in little more then rubble, how can that not have a kickback to modern times?

I think the same is with Pakistan, and partly for Pakistan’s somewhat difficult to define role in the war. The U.S does not have to help aid any real problems its current interests will create, they might just stay current. Losing Pakistan though would be a leg up for AQ. Pakistan also has other issues outside of direct U.S impact. I would also go as far as to say they lack all the resources required to really combat AQ. It also may be a bit improbable for full scale U.S involvement giving the reality of Pakistan currently combined with what occupation seems to lead to in a nation that does now overall want it culturally to a large significance. We have this currently in Afghanistan, which I could only say helps anything we do there. I can only hope the U.S does not care to squander the significance again of such matters.

If Pakistan wants to align itself with U.S interests I could only see this as have being won at the hands of good diplomacy with them.