I’ve often wondered that, honestly. The only reason that makes sense to me is that the current Pakistani government is acting less in opposition to U.S. interests that would the most likely alternative, which is the (apparently) growing Islamist movement in Pakistan. Mabye the thought is that by supporting the more moderate Musharraf, it will undermine support for the more extreme faction(s).
I suspect something similar is going on with Jordan. In media accounts, reporters often depict the Lebanese government as being unable to curb the violence of Hezbollah, not that they are unwilling to do so if they had the means.
All that’s purely speculative, though. I don’t pretend to understand the nuances of foreign policy well enough to explain adequately.
Yes, that’s probably it. I was only half-kidding in my earlier post. Pakistan fitts the criteria of a “rogue” state that “shelters terrorists”, except that any other government they might have would probably be worse.
It explains why we attacked Iraq and not them, despite labelling them both as part of the mythical “Axis of Evil”; a fact not missed by the rest of the world. As well, we simply don’t want them as an ally, and I doubt they’d accept the offer. We do want Pakistan as an ally, and it’s been foolish enough to accept. We’ll betray them sooner or later, being America, but at least we won’t try to conquer them; those nukes again.
Well, it seems to me that Bush has been very careful to try and lay out clear guidelines for identifying our enemies. Based on his words, it would seem that the Lebanese government should fall under the “enemy” column. Yet, when Israeli forces entered Lebanon, it seemed that both Olmert and Bush went to great lengths to declare that the Lebanese government was not being faulted for the actions of Hezbollah, despite the fact that the organization is enmeshed in the governmental structure.
As for Cuba, I wasn’t talking about the so-called “axis of evil”; I included Cuba because it is one of the five countries designated as “state sponsors of terrorism” in the newly released National Strategy Document (I forgot to include Sudan, the other country so designated). These state sponsors of terrorism, as well as other countries that “harbor and assist terrorists,” go under the “enemy” column.
So, I should ignore the rhetoric, then? How about the National Strategy For Combating Terrorism? Should I ignore that as well?
I don’t wish to pat myself on the back. If you truly think Bush is full of shit about the War on Terrorism, just say so. Don’t just say it because you think that’s what I want to hear. I just want to know why the actions of our government with regard to Lebanon are apparently at odds with the things they say about foreign policy in general and terrorism specifically? Is there a reason, or not? If there is, I would appreciate it if someone would explain it to me. Maybe it’s all random, but I hope not.
Don’t understand the question. Where are we at odds? Israel is our ally. Israel was attacked by terrorists. We supported Israel in the ensuing war. It was a win/win for the United States because we didn’t have to send troops in this time.