More or Less Involvement in Pakistan's Affairs?
January 17, 2008
Contact: Brad Jansen
703-470-5042
vern@mckinleyforcongress.com
Ashburn, VA—Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in late December highlights the continued heavy involvement of the U. S. in directing the affairs of governments around the world. This involvement is underwritten by the American taxpayer. In the aftermath of Bhutto’s assassination, in a country where the U.S. supported the rise of Musharraf, a self-appointed military dictator, the question is whether the U.S. should get more or less involved in Pakistan’s internal affairs.
The U.S. has spent over $10 billion in aid to Pakistan since September 11th. Congressman Frank Wolf, incumbent in the 10th District of Virginia, is a leading advocate of this spending evidenced by his successful attempt to restore $50 million in aid that House Democrats had slated for elimination in 2007.
Some commentators have argued we should pull back and become less involved in managing the affairs of Pakistan. John Bolton, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, noted immediately after the assassination: “This ought to tell us not to micromanage what goes on in a country like this. What we have now is a prescription for chaos," he explained. In a separate interview on Fox News he further noted that “in part, the United States is responsible for this.”
On the left, some have argued for more involvement in managing the internal affairs of Pakistan. For example Bill Richardson, who until recently was pursuing the Democratic Party nomination for President argued that “Musharraf must go,” referring to the current President of Pakistan. He further detailed precisely how the Pakistani government should move forward with “a temporary government of technocrats, supported externally by a coalition of the main democratic parties.”
Vern McKinley, Congressman Wolf’s Republican primary challenger, put forward a realistic approach that advances U.S. national security: “We have to put an end to this picking of winners and losers in the internal workings of sovereign countries. Who are we to tell Pakistan how to run their government?” McKinley also noted: “When the U.S. intervenes in countries like Pakistan it inures to the benefit of those in power and promotes a backlash. As a result, our interests will hold less sway, and our international reputation diminishes. Given the current uncertainties and the backlash against the United States, the $10 billion we sent to Pakistan since September 11th was not well spent.”
Return to News Page
|
