Archduke Ferdinand

First order of business ... Titus, in the mail tonight, goes out tomorrow, give it 7 days or so.

Now, as to the title. Within this group we should all know who this is and by extension, the world-wide ramifications for millions that can come of a single assassination. For those who don't know, the Archduke and his wife were on state visit to Bosnia as representatives of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While in the capital of Sarajevo a young Pan Slavic nationalist gunned them down. He was an advocate of Bosnian independence, and had sympathizers in Serbia, and more importantly, Russia. When the Austrian investigation of the murders took them into Serbia, the Serbs refused, Austria then declared war on Serbia - whom had a secret mutual defense treaty with Russia, who then declared, by obligation, war on Austria. Germany, having its own mutual defense treaty with Austria declared war on Russia. Russia had a treaty with France, and knowing they would then come to the aid of Russia, Germany simultaneously declares war on the French. France was allied by treaty with Great Britain, so the Brits declare war on Germany, and the fading Ottoman Empire, centered in Turkey, fearing Russo expansionism and having hopes of reclaiming there newly independent Slavic states (such as Romania) sides up with Germany. A single assassin had plunged all of Europe into war.

Now, it is well known that young Islamic radicals exist within the Pakistani Army, including the intelligence services, and were thought to be responsible for two previous attempts on Musharraf's life. They, in the chaotic aftermath of Bhutto's death may finally try to knock off Musharraf. You would then have Islamo-fascists in charge of nuclear weapons. This means of course that the administration's policy, along with many Democrats, of urging Musharraf to weaken himself by legitimizing Bhutto and having him relinquish control of the army may prove disastrous. If fundamentalists gain control of the army and her arsenal India will immediately go to depth-con 5. They may be forced to strike the Paks. We will be forced to aid India covertly or overtly until Western friendly forces regain control of Pakistan. In the interim, China and Russia, interested in seeing a weakened United States will aid covertly the Pakistani extremists with assurances from other state sponsors of terror, such as Iran, that Pakistan will not interfere with Chinese or Russian shipping or commerce. And presto - we will be in a proxy world war. All caused by a single assassin's bullet.

Enter Real Politk, and the left's either refusal or inability to embrace it in the here and now. Titus et al will argue that the backing of quasi-democrats (small "d") in 3rd world countries is exactly what causes animus towards the US. He 'll argue that Carter was justified in calling for democratic reforms, in opposition to the ruling style of the Shah. That such policies of propping up the occasional "thug" creates more terrorists then it suppresses. Certainly, in the past this has been true. However, I argue that much like with the Shah, in this instance to insist on democracy in a hot bed of Islamic-fascism as Pakistan has become, is naive in the extreme and will yield results much like in Palestine where Hamas now governs. The difference being those fundamentalists and terrorists don't have a nuclear arsenal at their disposal like would be the case in Pakistan. Either through a coup of a weakened democratically elected PM or through the general elections (which Carter will no doubt be on hand to certify) the probability of radicals gaining control of nuclear weapons is too great minus Musharraf. It is time to employ common sense and recognize both the the reality and lethality of the situation, rather than take an ideological stand which dictates we not support men like Musharraf, EVER, because they employ the occasional martial law. And lets bare in mind he is not of the level of a Saddam by any stretch - no rape rooms and mass graves. He is exactly the type of foreign leader we have to hold our nose in support rather than risk the devils we don't know. Is it hypocritical to our declared democratic motives in Iraq and Afghanistan - of course. But THAT is the essence of Real Politik, or "the politics of reality" which built and maintained empires in the 19th century. Men like Bismark used this approach for decades but also defended and promoted a peace process when the time was right. It is what is needed now from the West, both to ensure our national security and to out flank the Chinese, and to an extent Russia in this region of the world. National Security strategy must not be monolithic in its approach - purely ideological or purely nationally advantageous. It must be a blend with the appropriate amount of force applied when necessary. We support Musharraf, he wrests control and in return, as a thank you we launch a joint operation into the Pashtun lands of Pakistan along the border with Afghanistan and finally capture or kill Bin Laden and Al Zawahiri. Then, in a couple years we support a democratic process in Pakistan and not only avoid a proxy world war and a nuclear exchange between the Paks and India, but also get the man responsible for 9/11. That's the Ryan doctrine in the politics of reality.

FR