Damned if We Do, Damned if We Don't
Whether or not America can actually accomplish anything by intervening in Pakistan is questionable -- after all, who are we to say what is for the good of the people of Pakistan – or the world, for that matter? Do Americans really know?
America's attempts to 'liberate' Iraq may have succeeded in doing away with Saddam Hussein, but are the Iraqis better off now than they were then? Certainly there are many who think so. Hans Blix is not one of them. The former UN weapons inspector was quoted last year as calling the Iraq war a 'pure failure' adding that it left the country worse off than it was under Hussein's dictatorial rule.
Ultimately it's the old argument of intervention versus isolationism. With regard to intervention – are we intervening in the right places? Certain situations require American involvement, but is Pakistan one of them? Has President Musharraf earned America's confidence (not to mention its dollars)? In this case, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Without a doubt, alliances with dictators reflect poorly on America, but many argue that Musharraf's dictatorial rule, harsh crackdowns and – now – martial law may be the only realistic way to prevent a radical (read: Taliban/Al-Qaeda) takeover of this nuclear-armed state.

