09 May 2011
One Man’s Grail Is Another’s Abomination
In his essay in the May 8, 2011, New York Times, “Quest for the Unholy Grail,” John F. Burns seems to agree with David Cameron’s criticism of Pakistan for looking both ways in dealing with Al Qaeda. That characterization of Pakistan’s actions is probably true; but Al Qaeda and the U.S. have also been playing double games in dealing with each other and, for that matter, with a lot of other political entities in the region.
The West is two-faced in the eyes of fundamentalists whose reference point is ideology, not material progress. Seeing two sides of an issue is laudable and broad-minded until one assigns value to a point of view. In the world of “Realpolitik,” which is the frame of mind that demands the U.S. and the U.K. act in their own best interests, a friendly corrupt but stable government is preferable to short-run chaos in a strategically important region. America’s erstwhile allies in the fight against the order-seeking Soviets in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen and their progeny, Al Qaeda, hold a different frame of mind that demands conformity with strict Islamic doctrine even at the expense of human rights. And still, these fundamentalists accepted American support when it suited their ends.
That is the rule in international politics. Mr. Cameron is naïve not to have expected it of the Pakistanis. It appears that Bin Laden understood when it came to selecting a hiding place.
In his essay in the May 8, 2011, New York Times, “Quest for the Unholy Grail,” John F. Burns seems to agree with David Cameron’s criticism of Pakistan for looking both ways in dealing with Al Qaeda. That characterization of Pakistan’s actions is probably true; but Al Qaeda and the U.S. have also been playing double games in dealing with each other and, for that matter, with a lot of other political entities in the region.
The West is two-faced in the eyes of fundamentalists whose reference point is ideology, not material progress. Seeing two sides of an issue is laudable and broad-minded until one assigns value to a point of view. In the world of “Realpolitik,” which is the frame of mind that demands the U.S. and the U.K. act in their own best interests, a friendly corrupt but stable government is preferable to short-run chaos in a strategically important region. America’s erstwhile allies in the fight against the order-seeking Soviets in Afghanistan, the mujahedeen and their progeny, Al Qaeda, hold a different frame of mind that demands conformity with strict Islamic doctrine even at the expense of human rights. And still, these fundamentalists accepted American support when it suited their ends.
That is the rule in international politics. Mr. Cameron is naïve not to have expected it of the Pakistanis. It appears that Bin Laden understood when it came to selecting a hiding place.
Comments:
Post a Comment
