I don't usually write much about foreign affairs (other than Iraq)--in part because that's not an area of politics that I ever studied in any significant measure, and in part because I'm kind of a "live and let live" person when it comes to other countries. While sure, I'd like to see everyone living in peace and harmony in democratic systems, I'm not sure that forcing that is a good idea--for either the United States or these other countries. Different areas of the world--by virtue of their history, culture and tradition, may need very different forms of governance than we do, so I guess I'd say it would be better in some ways if we just sort of let things follow their natural course of political revolution.
That being said, it is certainly a tragedy that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated earlier today. Rudy Giuliani called her death by terrorists and said:
"We must redouble our efforts to win the terrorists' war on us."
Mitt Romney's take:
"This points out again the extraordinary reality of global violent radical jihadism. We don't know who is responsible for this attack but there is no question that the violence we see throughout the world is violence which is not limited to Iran, excuse me, Iraq, and Afghanistan -- but is more global in nature. And this type of loss of life points out again the need for our nation and other civilized nations of the West and of the civilized world to come together to support moderate Islamic leaders, moderate Islamic people -- to help them in their effort to reject the violent and the extreme. The world is very much at risk by virtue of these radical violent extremists, and we must come together in an effort in great haste and with grat earnestness to help overcome the threat of the spread of radical, violent Jihad."
First Read has updates on what other candidates have said, as well. The only one that really makes sense so far (and one which I would think Ron Paul will essentially agree with), is Dennis Kucinich.
"This is a very dangerous moment for the world. Benazir Bhutto represented a courageous effort to bring principles of liberty to Pakistan. She was truly dedicated to the people of Pakistan. The United States must change its policy direction in the region. It must stop adding fuel to the fire. Kucinich met with Bhutto several times over the years in both Washington, D.C. and New York City."
I'm not an expert on Pakistani politics. What I understand, however, is that Bhutto has been something of an ally to the United States, and in some ways has been our "chosen one" for a number of years. She recently returned to Pakistan after a period of exile as a leader of an opposition party.
Why, I wonder, is it so tough for most of the Republicans--and Democrats--in the government to understand how incredibly dangerous it is for us to be trying to pull the strings of other countries? Why is it so tough to understand that by annointing our "chosen ones", we have placed a target on their bodies which makes them the focus of extremists? We say we believe in self-determination--let's let people self-determine. Let's leave other countries alone, engage in peaceful dialogue with them, trade with them if that's what they want, and let them figure out for themselves if they want a different type of government. We are--it seems to me--on a fool's errand if we think that we can impose "freedom" on people who aren't ready for it. But when they're ready, they'll rise up--just as our ancestors did 240 years ago.
We didn't shoot the gun, or ignite the bomb, but in some ways, the blood of Benazir Bhutto is on American hands, every bit as much as it is on the hands of those extremists who have been rebelling against American involvement in their countries.
LLE
Comments