In
The Week magazine, this column prompted me to want to put it here on the IBA and see what kind of conversation it created. What do you think of this, Pastorius? AOW? Christine? WC? Epaminondas? Talk to me, Goose!
Radical Islam takes a beating from voters
Amir Taheri
New York Post
President Pervez Musharraf was not the only loser in Pakistan’s elections, said Amir Taheri. After millions of Pakistanis voted last week, the most significant development was the trouncing of the militant Islamists. Prior to the election, al Qaida and its Taliban allies waged a campaign of intimidation, killing dozens of candidates and election officers and destroying at least 12 polling stations. But Pakistanis voted nonetheless—and the extremist Islamic coalition saw its vote share drop to just 3 percent from 11 percent five years ago. The Islamists also lost control of the only province they’d governed. In short, the Pakistani people faced down extremism and embraced “pluralism and the rule of law.” This could provide a tremendous boost to the war on terror. Musharraf’s military-backed government had never enjoyed broad popular support, so out of fear of alienating Islamic extremists, it “largely restricted itself to shadow-boxing” the jihadists who had established a new base of operations near the Afghan border. If the U.S. continues to provide the new, democratically elected government with strong economic and military support, we might finally persuade Pakistan to conduct its own war on terrorism.
In The Week magazine, this column prompted me to want to put it here on the IBA and see what kind of conversation it created. What do you think of this, Pastorius? AOW? Christine? WC? Epaminondas? Talk to me, Goose!
7 comments:
The radicals' extremism is one thing that definitely works against them. People want freedom, even people who are infected with the Islamic mind-virus.
I believe Bhutto's death may have helped influence the vote. People are tired of the violence.
I have no opinion. I don't understand Pakistani politics. However, if I'm not mistaken, what will happen from here is a new coalitional government will be formed based upon the new Parliament. Then, they will elect a new Prime Minister. The form that coalition takes will determine the future of Pakistan. The less extremists the better, I guess.
:)
Wow, there's an opinion.
they need to unifiy the kurds, sunni and shite, just a though on Iraq and the Taliban, they killing 2 birds with one stone
All well and good. But here's my question.
When the Taliban in Pakistan start their offensive in response to a new moderate government will the moderates take the beating and pull back or raise the anty and go after them, their family, their friends and their villages and allow our troops in Afghanistan to, paraphrase Patton, "Hold them by the nose while the Pakistanis kick them in the ass".
Sorry be so grumpy but I'm in a pissed off mood.
WC
Ell, well, well. It didn't take long for my words above to ring true.
Words, not guns, to be used on Islamic militants - http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080227.PAKISTAN27/TPStory/TPInternational/Asia/
PESHAWAR, PAKISTAN -- The party expected to lead the new government of Pakistan's terrorism-racked North West Frontier Province plans to follow a radical new policy: opening up peace talks with Islamic militants linked to al-Qaeda.
"The war on terror has failed," said Haji Mohammad Adeel, secretary-general of the ANP, in an interview at the party headquarters. "There should be no war. In world history, not a single war against guerrillas was successful. Only dialogue can solve these problems."
That light at the end of the tunnel in Pakistan looks like a train to me.
WC
It seems to me a guarantee that someone doesn't understand what they're dealing with when they want "dialog."
Dialog with Islamists is a sign of weakness that will be exploited. If someone had rabies and wanted to bite you, would you ever think of dialog as a solution?
Post a Comment