www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-12-30-1.html
Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC By Orson Scott Card December 30, 2007 Bhutto's Death Shows Who Our Candidates Really Are The death of Benazir Bhutto is a very sad thing for her family, a tragedy for her political party, and a historical complication that might well have far-reaching -- and devastating -- effects on Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the overall war against Fascist Islam. Because as we enter 2008, we're going to get into the presidential campaign in a big way. And the responses of the various candidates to Benazir Bhutto's death tells us an enormous amount of valuable information about how they would do as president of the United States. After all, the only aspect of the government that the president absolutely controls is our foreign policy, ranging from diplomacy to warfare. Congress can meddle, mostly by giving mixed or negative signals to foreign powers -- but governments of other countries are very much aware of the difference between the president and Congress when it comes to international relations. Unfortunately, most of the candidates still on the auction block have no clue. The day of Bhutto's murder, here's how the candidates scored: Excellent Rudy Giuliani and John McCain both responded admirably. They showed a clear grasp of both military and diplomatic necessities. If either had been president that day, their responses would have been exactly right. Lightweight Barak Obama and Mitt Romney had the right demeanor -- let's face it, both these guys look like we'd like our presidents to look, and they had the right voice and attitude. Their words were so carefully chosen that they didn't actually say anything. Wretched Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee left me gasping with the ignorance and recklessness of their answers. If either of them had been president, their responses would have had our diplomats scrambling for weeks to undo the damage. If it could be undone -- because if they actually acted as their statements implied, there would be no saving the situation. By the next day, Hillary had made her position even worse. And Obama began to slide himself over into the Wretched category, as previous statements of his and new statements by his top strategist began to come forward. Let me be more specific: Mitt Romney merely offered a brief statement that Bhutto's death pointed out again the reality of violent global radical jihadism. This type of loss of life pointed out the need for our nation and other civilized nations to come together and support moderate Islamic leaders to help them reject violence. Except that the real problem is extremist governments that support and provide safe harbor for terrorists, or governments that are not in control of their own territory. Meetings of moderate Muslims would do, essentially, nothing at all. Romney sounded moderate and judicious, but it's clear he didn't have a clue. Still, as president he would have access to advice from experts, and at least he didn't run off half-cocked. Shocked and saddened, he stands with the people of Pakistan and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world. Wisely, Obama said he'd find out more information as the week unfolded, but he wanted it to be clear that Americans stand for democracy, and we'll be steadfast in our desire to end the terrorist acts that have blighted Pakistan and other parts of the world. Of course, the cynic in me immediately said, Well, Mr Obama, that's all well and good -- but since you now claim you always opposed the war that is actually doing the only thing that's effective against these terrorists, what would you actually do? Still, moderate sounding, and, like Romney, he might not do any harm before his advisers could weigh in. John McCain spoke at greater length -- and with infinitely better understanding of what the role of US President is in such a situation. He stated his hope that once the unrest subsided, we would see a commitment again from Musharraf for free elections. But for now, he recognized that law and order must be maintained in Pakistan. He went on to say that he wished he could wave a magic wand or have an elixir that would cure the problem, but all we can do is recognize that this is a tense and unsteady time for Pakistan, and the US cares very much that it have a peaceful and democratic outcome, in the long run. McCain reminded us that he knows all the players in this situation, and if he were president he'd be in contact with Musharraf by telephone, and would be meeting with the National Security Council to see what, if anything, the US could do to help restore order. In fact, that's all the President could do in such a situation -- watch from a distance, listen to Musharraf if he asks for anything, not push him to do anything like try to hold an election when the main opposition candidate has just been killed and people are rioting. He specifically said we should not second guess our own administration or anyone else. The objective of the United States, he said, has to be to help Pakistan find out who did this and catch the conspirators, and to help Pakistan remain stable and keep terrorists from getting control of Pakistan. We should be working closely with the government of Pakistan, said Giuliani, but exactly how to do that is up to President Bush. But we have to remain on the offensive against Islamic terrorists. Above all, we have to remember that Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and so there's an even greater need to maintain stability there. Only then do you work on the longterm goal of making Pakistan "even more of a democracy." Giuliani has a folksy style, but every word he said was smart. He didn't try to sell us on himself as president, or claim to be an insider; he showed respect for the current President (a policy that has been sorely lacking in both parties during Bush's presidency). He hit the nub of the matter: Pakistan's nukes, and the need to keep them from terrorists at all costs. He spoke as if he knew his words would be heard or read in Pakistan. That's why he called for Pakistan to become even more of a democracy -- because most Pakistanis would be insulted if our president implied that they had no elements of democracy there. Nobody but McCain was even in Giuliani's league, and even McCain played at the "I know more than the other candidates." But none of these first four were as awful as the last two. Mike Huckabee began by praising Bhutto for her courage in going back to Pakistan "because of her desire for leadership." Huckabee expressed his sympathy for her family and "our outrage" for this horrible act of violence. Then he said something that, if it were said by a US President, would severely damage our relations with Pakistan. He said that he thought it was "important" to ask of the Musharraf government what steps for security were taken, as well as to make sure there was no involvement from anyone in the existing government. Now, of course we're all wondering who actually headed up the plot. So many groups and individuals might think Bhutto's death would benefit them. But when I speculate about such things -- or anyone in the press -- we're just the normal talking heads in a free press. When a president speaks, however, it's a very different matter; The world watches and listens to our candidates, because one of them will almost certainly be president in a little over a year. Well, just imagine if, right after Robert Kennedy was murdered during the 1968 presidential primaries, the Charles DeGaulle had said, "We must ask the US government what steps for security were taken, and we must make sure there was no involvement from anyone in the existing government." That would have made headlines around the world, because it amounts to an accusation. The answer of almost everyone in America would have been, "Mind your own business! If Huckabee, as president, said such a thing, the whole world would see it as a declaration that the US thought it had the right to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. It would certainly unite the people of Pakistan in their resentment of the United States. And thus it would seriously weaken Musharraf's ability...
|
http://csua.com/feed/