We are constantly told that supporting regime opponents in Iran (or in any other anti-American dictatorship, for that matter) is the kiss of death for the opponents and just lets the regime paint their domestic opposition as tools of America.
So of course, this editorial from the Times is predictable:
Ultimately, democracy, not dictatorship, is the best hope for a stable Pakistan. Reviving General Musharraf’s back-room deal with the former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, however distasteful, may be a way back from the abyss if it includes a real commitment to elections by the general, if Ms. Bhutto insists that the eletions be open to all parties and if Mr. Bush gives her strong backing.
Support Bhutto? Strongly? And taint her opposition? Shouldn't we stand aside and let the purity of her opposition win out over guns and prisons? Won't US support just cause those anti-Musharraf protesters to rally to the government? That's what Iranian regime opponents are said to be like by our Left.
And aren't we supposed to be abandoning Iraqi democracy to put in a strongman who will be friendly to us rather than try to instill democracy in a Moslem land not ready for our concepts of liberty and rule of law? Shouldn't the Times editors insist we back Musharraf as long as he sides with us (even imperfectly)? But now a Moslem nation is ready for democracy?
Not that I disagree with the editorial's thrust that we must support democracy in Pakistan. But the Times' refusal to embrace a chance for foreign policy realism in action given our need for Pakistani support to fight in Afghanistan is a bit much to accept.
It's almost as if President Bush's foreign policy is to be opposed by our Left no matter what he does. Truly, this nuance thing is confusing to me. But not, it seems, to our Left.
