Choosing sides

“It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” \nPresident Bush said that during his second inaugural address. Those are pretty strong words – they don’t leave a lot of room for maneuvering. Statements like those can make trouble for politicians.\nTake Pakistan as an example. In 1999, Gen. Pervez Musharraf took power in the country via a bloodless coup. In case you were wondering, military leaders and coups aren’t really all that conducive to spreading democracy in the world. Amnesty International has a laundry list of warnings and complaints about Pakistan, ranging from the unlawful killings of criminal suspects to violence against women. \nNow it appears to be getting even worse. On November 4, Musharraf declared emergency rule, which included steps such as suspending the nation’s constitution and firing its high court’s chief justice (who is now under house arrest). He’s done things like arrest members of the opposition and make it a crime to publicly oppose the government’s actions. He said this was “the simplest way to save Pakistan” from terrorist threats and destabilization – though analysts have said that his real goal is simply to save his political future and reinforce his power. \nBasically, he’s actually doing all of the things that crazy liberal conspiracy nuts like me claim our president is doing or is trying to do.\nAnd yet, although the White House did try to stop Musharraf from declaring emergency rule, President Bush continues to support him.\nIt’s fairly obvious why Bush’s support for Musharraf hasn’t dwindled. Pakistan is a key U.S. ally – really, one of very few – in the war on terrorism and its support is especially crucial, considering that Pakistan is believed to be a prime hiding spot for Taliban leaders and for Osama bin Laden (remember him?).\nEssentially what’s happening, then, is that the United States is supporting one unsavory character in order to pursue others – which, coincidentally, was exactly how we got in this whole mess to begin with. Perhaps you remember photos of Don Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, or the support we lent bin Laden to fight the Soviets in the 1980s. Will this come back to bite us, like those situations did?\nPerhaps more importantly, though, we are making a pretty big sacrifice here. In order to fight the concept of terrorism, the United States is supporting regimes that are clearly not very free. We’re supposedly fighting for the American way of life – liberty and freedom, the ideals that we hold most dear. By siding with people like Musharraf, we’re sacrificing those ideals to win a fight. We need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves: How can we fight for freedom by sacrificing that very freedom? If we lose what we are, is the fight really worth winning?