I agree with you, Pakistan should become democratic only if it wants to. I think that is what disturbs me the most about the way that we go about establishing economic control first, and then social/governmental change. There is something insidious about it. At least with war your target knows what is happening and can try to defend themselves against it. The economic way is “under the radar” until it is too late to do much of anything to stop it.

//if we want it to be a democratic nation, then it will eventually be so//
That’s what I’m concerned about. Pakistan should be free to be democratic if *it* wants to be, not only if America wants it to be.

I agree convincing the American public of another war will be very difficult. Let’s hope it doesn’t happen.

No need of apologizing for grammar – none of us are journalists here!

While the data that I gave is accurate and discouraging, I think that it might end up ‘not horrible’. I happen to hate the idea of a world where all cultures are westernized without acknowledging and trying to fix the problems with the culture that is assimilating you. And because all of the financial imperialism (which is working to make countries democratic) is taking place in the background, countries who become targets are falling victim to the worst parts of capitalism. I am not saying that democratic capitalism is the worst way that a country could go, but there are major problems with the underlying philosophy that can lead to things like the medical trial issues we were talking about on Nita’s blog last week. Those issues are the product of unchecked capitalistic greed taking advantage of a society that does not know what to watch out for. Things like that happened frequently in the US until we realized that there are problems with allowing democratic capitalism free rein and created laws to protect citizens.

Again, it is discouraging, not because democratic capitalism is horrible, but because the ‘imperialism’ conversations surrounding America are focused on war. And that is not the way we are doing it.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, if we want it to be a democratic nation, then it will eventually be so (at least the way things are going now). Whether that happens via force (war) or economic/diplomatic relations is largely a matter of how patient American leaders want to be and whether they will be able to make us believe that Pakistan is a very real threat. Given the public outrage over the lies that Bush told and the war in Iraq, convincing the American public that Pakistan is a terrorist threat worthy of war will be difficult.

Pr3na: It was Obama’s campaign team that created the disparaging memo of Hillary. Once it was made public, Obama has publicly apologized profusely, calling it a stupid mistake.

All: while I agree with the political ‘posturing’, remember that unlike India, in the US, people and politicians remember major proclamations and policy standpoints during campaigning and do live by them if they’re elected. Now, Bush has already invaded Iraq. Hillary is for invading Iran. Obama is for invading Pakistan. Given this scenario – isn’t it becoming more and more likely that the next President is going to continue war? Are we heading to a worse situation that today? That’s what bothers me, even if I agree it is posturing.

Finally, my post was not just about Obama. Look at the shockingly wide canvass of people doubtful of democracy in Pakistan. So all this talk of democracy is a lot of hot air?

Aikaterene: you answer the questions I raised in my post, and paint a pretty bleak picture. Sigh (again).

The fact that we are not really secular should scare the hell out of you. Christianity does not have a great track record of tolerance.

Rambodoc -

America will never go back to isolationism. American corporations have too much invested in foreign interests. And I agree with Krishashoks response.

“I don’t think Bush got elected again only because of his Iraq policy”

A few statistics taken from the exit polls (questionnaires filled out after people vote)from the 2004 elections

1. The vast majority (I think somewhere around 60%) of people who voted FOR, yes FOR, Bush did not believe that he could handle foreign policy and economic policy as well as the other candidates. In fact, they did not think he could handle them well at all – period.

2. The vast majority (I think around 55%) of people who voted FOR Bush felt that his stance on abortion, prayer in schools, and other religious issues were in line with their own.

Bush was elected for religious reasons. Do not let anyone tell you that America is a secular country. We are on paper, but not in practice.

And Oemar is right, stopping aid is not a reasonable choice.

I think Obama is posturing. Nita is right, politicians posture. My dad is a politician and he has made posturing into an artform.

Is America imperialist, you bet we are. We are trying to make as many countries as we can democratic capitalist nations. But we are not doing it, primarily, through war. We use other methods. First, American companies buy as much land and property as possible in foreign countries that we are interested in. American companies own a few small countries. If we cannot buy property, then we start businesses there, we employ laborers and support the economy. The more that a government is reliable on American business for tax revenue, the more control we have over them. Second, we push “western media” down the throats of youngsters in other countries. If we can make the young value western culture over their own, then it is going to be easier to buy more land or start more businesses in their countries when they are old enough to run things. Finally, America controls the European Union. It is a dirty little secret, but it is largely true. Want money from the EU? Guess what your government has to do – whatever America tells it to.

We are not taking things over through war, at least not primarily. We only do that when we cannot do any of the things listed above in a country we are interested in. The wars are a useful diversion from the economic imperialism that we are very good at. While the world is focused on Iraq, American businesses have bought two more countries. We control the governments because we control most of the money that flows into the economy.

Believe me, we are imperialists, but not the way you think. We are subtle, greedy, patient capitalists. We are succeeding and I hate it.

http://oemar.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/is-pashtun-the-new-world-enemy/

The writer is soft on the Pashtun, but at least gives a very good view of the problem in the region.