This is my first post to Flotsam and Jetsam. Thank you EricZ for the invitation to blog. Now you may be sorry that you extended me the invitation.
I am writing in response to EricZ’s December 28th posting regarding historical parallels. While I applaud EricZ’s effort in looking to history for parallels to our current world, I disagree with the one he identifies in this instance: Bhutto (2007) = Ferdinand (1914).
There are several differences in the two assassinations that prevent the drawing of parallels. First let us discuss some history.
In 1914 Austria-Hungary blamed the sovereign state of Serbia for the assassination of the Arch Duke. This led to the issuance of an ultimatum to Serbia by Austria-Hungary that, in essence, required Serbia to forgo its sovereignty. When Serbia refused to comply with one point of the ultimatum (and only one point) Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia mobilized its troops in support of Serbia. The mobilization of the Russian troops forced Germany, Austria-Hungary’s ally, to put the Schlieffen plan into operation, which called for a quick strike against and defeat of Russia’s ally France in the event of a war with Russia. The point of this was to prevent a two front war (A two front war resulted because the Fatherland’s generals charged with the execution of the plan failed to follow it to the letter, weakened its forces in the West by prematurely sending some East, and got bogged down at the Marne River. Damn you von Moltke). In executing the Schlieffen Plan, Germany crossed through Belgium whose neutrality England guaranteed as part of the treaties ending the Napoleonic Wars, thus ensuring England’s entry into the war.
The current situation is Pakistan is different in many ways. First, it appears that there is no sovereign state to blame for this assassination and hence, no forthcoming ultimatum that will lead to war. There are no Great Powers lined up in support of the assassin or the assassin’s supporters. Additionally, there is no tangled and confused system of alliances that would lead to Great Powers waging war against other Great Powers. If China or Russia were backing the assassination, my opinion on the appropriateness of an historical comparison would be different
Further, this assassination is not likely to impact the governance of Pakistan. Musharraf will not relinquish control of Pakistan – ever. Bhuto may have been a voice for change but she would never be permitted to attain power. Moreover, the U.S. would be wise to support Musharraf’s hold on power. I hope that one lesson learned in Iraq is that the best way to keep divergent religious and political factions under control is with a ruthless and cruel dictatorship. Musharraf can fit this bill nicely for years to come in Pakistan. Notwithstanding his inability to bring the “Tribal Areas” near the border of Afghanistan under control, he has been decisive in combating radical Islam in areas of his country that his military controls. The removal of a rival to Musharraf may in fact lead to more stability in Pakistan rather that result in its destabilization.
Wow … This is fun.
3 comments:
more politics and history?!?!?
this site needs more comic relief from little zahn as he contemplates how to deal with the HR nightmare of hip-hugger wearing underlings while breaking the toilets in the bathroom, only to have homeless men crap in the old bowls out by the dumpster. that's the f&j this voter wants.
and more dick jokes and potty humor. who will step up and blog dick jokes?
Let's see...where do I start with a rebuttal?
Oh yeah - you are a homo.
And this blog has no place for posts that are thoughtful and enlightening based on a thorough knowledge of facts. Only historical opinions based on half-truths, Bill O'Reilly or 10 seconds worth of research into popular opinion are valued here.
Seriously - wow. The scary thing is that you probably composed the post in 5 minutes, without having to look any of the facts up.
I was not diving too deep when I drew the parellel; I was only predicting upheaval now caused by an assassination that would be similar to the upheaval caused by an assassination 1914. Two points that you bring up that refute this:
1. No "power" is behind the assassination; not exactly true, as Al-Qaida may be behind the attack - but no great power (tm) is aligned with Al Qaida, as the case in WW I.
2. "Musharraf will not relinquish control of Pakistan – ever". True enough - but wil be removed from power if it is found he is sponsoring al-Qaida and this attack? An unlikely premise, I know - but if true, I'd think he wouldbe deposed.
This goes back to a fundamental disagreement you and I have:
"the best way to keep divergent religious and political factions under control is with a ruthless and cruel dictatorship. "
I am an idealist and disagree. People who want to be self-govered will ultimately reach that level. It may take years and decades, but it is for the human good to have people decide their fate themselves.
Practicality favors your argument, I know....but we should strive to achieve the ideal. And if that means deposing leaders who are aligned with groups that sponsor assassination attempts on their opponents.....well, if it is in our interests, then yes, we shuold help the process along.
I don't mind the politics and history. It's way better than the sports picks of the week. Boring! In Vegas, I know that I'm going to bet the opposite of Eric and see how I do.
But, I agree. We need some more stuff like Derek pissing on the toilet seat then forgetting about it when he has to take a dump later. That's classic. Or how my tenant took home a woman the other night and I wasn't sure if it was a guy or a girl.
Maybe, I'll start blogging about my stripper ex-girlfriend. Nah, you don't want to hear about that.
Wow Eric, you're delusional and that's why I love your political posts. It reminds me of what the typical Republican may be like.
Should we be tying Al-Qaida to any terrorist act. Face it. There are a lot of religious Islamic conservatives. And, what nobody in the U.S. understands is that they aren't all from the same tribe. This reminds me how some thought Iraq and Saddam were tied to Bin Laden. Just because your Muslim doesn't mean that you're best buds with every other Muslim. It's a lot more complex than that.
It really bothers me that we went to Iraq to take out Saddam for our political and oil interests. He was an awful dictator but didn't he keep the Sunnis and Shiites in line? Are the Iraqi people better off now than when they were under him? But, now we've set the precedent that if we don't like a country's leadership, we're going to go in there and set it straight. And we wonder why so many cultures in the world hate us. We're arrogant. Our history is based on 200 some odd years of events. The middle east is based on what? 8000 years of bias and hatred. What the hell do we know? Now, I'm not saying we should go back to isolationism but we need to pull back a little bit and stop sticking our nose where it doesn't belong.
Back to Musharraf. I don't believe he's tied to the terrorists but on the other hand he's not going after them. He doesn't want to be assassinated too. He's not stupid. My brother mentioned how some of his friends from Pakistan said that they love Musharraf. I'm guessing that that's because he keeps things in line. He's no angel but this isn't a garden tea party either.
Just some ramblings from Mer.
Post a Comment