The New York Times* voiced a mind boggling question that some Americans have about the possibility of democracy reigning in Pakistan:

Can Pakistan Mix Well With Democracy?

TENS of thousands of pro-Western moderates took to the streets of Pakistan recently and demanded an end to military rule. Benazir Bhutto, the country’s exiled former prime minister, is offering to return and push for democracy, which she says would act as an antidote to extremism.

Interesting how those who have vociferously demanded democracy are dubbed as "pro-Western" as if democracy were a Western invention and value, and "moderate" because presumably most of Pakistan is extremist while these folks are "moderate." We don't hear this language in the US when we talk about the Bush regime (extremist) and the Democrats (slightly moderate).

Anyway:

Before the Iraq war, the United States might have welcomed such a vigorous call for democracy. But with the war faltering, Bush administration officials, and some Democratic presidential candidates as well, are reacting with caution, fearing that democracy could be a recipe for instability. While the country’s military has a mixed record, they fear change, however well-intentioned, could endanger American security. George Perkovich, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, described the state of debate in Washington this way: “People on the right and the left will say: ‘You’re just going to repeat the same mistake as Iraq. Don’t you understand that these places can’t change and that you’re much better off having someone with a heavy hand, who can have some kind of order versus disorder?’ ”

So a dictatorship promises a stability for US' interests and thus Pakistanis should just put up with a military regime? And since when does the US' interests have to be the prime concern for another nation-state like Pakistan? Shouldn't the primary concern for Pakistan's stability have to do with the well being of Pakistan's political culture?

And furthermore, the fear that democracy might could produce a government that "endangers American security" begs a clearer distinction: could democracy in Pakistan produce a government that might not figure into the US' equation of power rather than "endangering American security"?

The stakes for the United States are high. Osama bin Laden and other top leaders of Al Qaeda are believed to be hiding in remote tribal areas along the border with Afghanistan and regaining some of their ability to launch international attacks.

The stakes for the US are high? What about the stakes for Pakistan and Pakistanis, should military dictatorships continue? This is incredibly selfish.

Democracy has failed before, points out Teresita Schaffer of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In fact, in an impoverished, ethnically divided nation of 149 million people, democracy has often been linked with corruption and has been overthrown by the military four times.

Oh no she didn't. She did not just go there. You could have said the same thing about the Bush (s)elections in 2000 and 2004! Imagine if all the human beings on this planet decided that because Americans voted (sort of) for Bush, a man whose policies are severely ramming them in the behind, democracy has failed in the US. Thus, Americans should no longer have the luxury of democracy. What kind of logic is this?

Senator John Edwards was more blunt. “Given the power of radical Islam in Pakistan,” he said, “there’s absolutely no way to know what kind of government will take his place.”

Give me a fucking break. You can make the same argument here, too: "Given the power of the Neocons, Christian Right, and limp dicked Democrats in America, there's absolutely no way to know what kind of government will take his place..." so no more elections in the United States! No more democracy in the United States!

So many meretricious excuses and lies are being spewed by the rulers of the New World Order, a.k.a. leaders of the Free "the-US-to-do-Whatever the Hell it Wants" World.

It infuriates me to know that a much more powerful country basically uses another country and/or community as pawns for their own little geopolitical games. Who the hell is the United States to decide the fate of other citizens? Who the hell are they to impede, halt, dissolve, or thwart the aspirations others have for democracy and self determination? (I know, I know, they have the largest nuclear stockpile in the world, rule space, have faithful chamchas that put the US' interests first, and they have an unequaled military that can enact coup d'etats, bomb a country into smithereens, and have the ability to unleash Armaggedon. Still.)

*Thanks to Sepoy whose blog post brought my attention to this NYT article.