Redstate

This was a fight we didn't need to pick.

We needed the air base at K@.  And now, we don't have it after six months.

Islam Karimov was no angel, but the alternative, IIRC, was a bunch of Taliban wannabes.

Folks at the State Department need to be asked one question: "What is the enemy of my enemy?"  If they answer with anything other than, "my friend", they ought to be cashiered.

This is a chance to see how well the Depts. of State and Defense work together quickly to change the terrain. Given the mess that is central asian politics, from east anatolia to the uighers, the new US role can result in anything from disaster to roaring success. If nothing else, this should re-emphasize how important the work in Afghanistan is, and how it should not be so overshadowed by Iraq.

....we probably would not have picked the fight.

We're doing the right thing here.

"Folks at the State Department need to be asked one question: "What is the enemy of my enemy?"  If they answer with anything other than, "my friend", they ought to be cashiered."

What if our enemy is anyone who denies his people freedom?

Can you elaborate on your involvement in the region (or if you've done so - links please - thanks).

I have a distant contact with someone who has been to Afghanistan as an Dept. of Ag, adviser, two short trips. The comments from local bloggers, NGO or non-military types and the military reporting are distinct, but are all surprisingly hopeful.

The concern I have is to hope we succeed and leave quickly. We're projecting influence so close to China and Russia in so many places (Poland-Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Krgyzystan, India - probably Burma soon, and Vietnam and so on) that we're way far away from old-style GOP external views, and subject to a backlash from one or both.

What is your sense of the Afghan situation? Will it add to our leverage on the Uzbeks? Will we turn the influence back on them from the other side of the border?

....with "extremely."

I wrote speeches for some personnel who traveled to the region, and I had some minor (and ignored) input on travel destinations.  All from the safety of Washington, DC.  I don't claim any more than that.

Tanks!

(Or, more accurately, trevino writes something and I don't agree, as one of many), but he has this one exactly right.

As the man himself said, if we really needed K2, we wouldn't have picked the fight.  As far as I'm concerned, this has been the high point in a rather ideologically laconic second term for the Bush Administration, other smaller Republican successes notwithstanding.

I think time will show that the loss of Uzbekistan is no catastrophe for the U.S. mission in Afghanistan, and that the effectiveness of Bagram, Manas, and Quetta will turn realpolitik on its ear.

including Mubarak are undoubtedly watching this with interest to see what the proper balance is for keeping Uncle Sam happy. This is effective public diplomacy. The U. S. should be  a lot more concerned about Pakland and the Magic Kingdom than about Kazakhstan, or any other Stan.

While your analysis of the less-than-earthshaking consequences of the US being "evicted" from Uzbekistan seems to be right-on - we certainly do have other, more, useful bases in the region we can rely on - it is hard to see where this action will have much positive impact on the "human rights" situation in Uzbekistan - since (and maybe this is just the cynical realpolitik talking) without any US presence in-country, the Karimov dictatorship will have even less restraints (as if they need any) to oppress/plunder/slaughter its domestic opponents, and ignore the consequences.

Neither "human right idealism" NOR "naked self-interest" looks to be being served here. It is obviously that you look to find anything to laud the Bush Administration for, and do so copiously: but having a military based closed down (and US troops evicted) by a tinpot Central Asian dictator is a strange incident to flaunt as a "badge of pride".

It is obviously that you look to find anything to laud the Bush Administration for....

Yeah, that's me.  Lordy.

It was suggested by someone quoted in "The LA Times" that this may be a bargaining tactic on Uzbekistan's part.

If it is, I hope we tell them to "take a hike" when they come crawling back for "goodies".

In the GWOT, it's time to turn the screws to regimes like this (and the even worse one in Turkmenistan).

We don't need the base.

What we do need is to establish more democratic beachheads in Central Asia, before it's too late and the opposition gets radicalized to Islamicist Jihadis. (Not only will democratizing Uzbekistan further drain the potential Al Qaeda swamp, but as an added benefit it will put pressure on Putin's authoritarian Russia, and possibly China as well.)

Let the base go. More democracy, please!

The drawbacks of each in isolation became clear enough in the Nixon and Carter administrations; it is good to see the Bush Administration doing a fairly good job of finding a middle way. In cases like the K2 eviction, the rage of tyrants is a badge of pride.

I've said it before, but:  Bush's foreign policy team has been terrific during his second term (IMHO).  A lot of it has to do with everyone (including President Bush) growing into their roles, and some of it surely has to do with the course of the Iraq war -- which put the lie to the irrational idealism of some neoconservatives.*  But a lot of it, I think, has come from getting some persective on 9-11:  It's very tough to think straight after you've been kicked in the (non-gender, PC equivalent to) the nuts

von

*Not all neoconservatives, of course, fell prey to irrational idealism:  see, e.g., Kristol, William.

It's one thing to accept a hand up from the Devil to get out of a pit.  It's another thing entirely to keep holding hands when you've made it out.

We used Islam Karimov for what we needed; cast him out.    

"Another example in another region of the Administration acting as a lonely voice of human rights."

This is a joke right?

<U.S. Opposed Calls at NATO for Probe of Uzbek Killings<br>
Officials Feared Losing Air Base Access

By R. Jeffrey Smith and Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, June 14, 2005; A15>

Has a policy, even if they reverse it, it's still their policy?

That's a joke, right?

Might try reading the stories you cite before assuming they support whatever point you're trying to make.

This guy only killed Muslim Terrorists who tried to overthrow his Government. Those Human Rights Organizations are the same ones who accused the US of torturing Terrorists in Abu Graib and Guantanamo. Are you going to trust Amnesty International NOW?

I say we support this guy. The accusations against him are obviously nothing more than Liberal Propaganda.

"Another example in another region of the Administration acting as a lonely voice of human rights"

are you trying to make me physically ill with this? You know quite well that we've rendered prisoners to Uzbekistan. I know you know it. Realpolitik has its place and sometimes requires handshakes with nasty dictators--though probably less often than we convince ourselves--but it does not require that. And it rather undermines your calls to improve human rights, when the dictators you're calling on know quite well the number of interrogations you've contracted out.

I am glad our relationship with Uzbekistan seems to have changed, and I am reasonably pleased with what Rice's doing at State. To a limited extent--a very limited extent, as Cheney and Rumsfeld seem to overrule her as often as not--it may be that what started out as a pretty lie about the administration's motivations was pretty enough that they made it true rather than abandoning it. It wouldn't be the first time that happened--that's the great thing about American history: the promise isn't true when it's made, but it's so lovely that we make it come true.

For that to work, though, there has to be an honest recognition of the gap between the words and deeds, and some embarrassment about it. Most of the administration and its supporters seem to have no such embarrassment. You used to, though.

Banned once, banned again.

And how is this going to convince other folks to lend us a hand when we need one?

Did the geniuses at Foggy Bottom think of that practical question?  What bugs me the most is that this is not the first time.

Anyone remember Pablo Escobar?  One of the guys who took a very high-risk role in taking him down was a person named Carlos Castano.  He was part of a group called Perseguedo por Pablo Escobar (the People Persecuted by Pablo Escobar), or Los Pepes.  This group went toe-to-toe with the Medellin drug cartel (which Escobar ran), and did so on the cartel's turf and the cartel's terms.  This was pretty high-risk stuff, but they not only emerged alive, they had successfully eviscerated the Medellin cartel's infrastructure.

Castano them formed the United Self-Defense forces of Colombia, and turned his attention to FARC, and was doing pretty well until the State Department puts him on the same list as al-Qaeda and FARC.

There's something that is just as important as principle - loyalty to friends who take risks on our behalf.  All too often, the State Department has tossed friends overboard when Amnesty International throws a big enough fit.  Maybe, just maybe, we ought to be a little more loyal to friends like Karimov and Castano.

We're using him, and he's using us.

....the same relentless obsession with rendition as you.  Given that, I like to think that I may have slightly more of an objective view: namely, that whatever evils are attendant to renditions are massively outweighed by the goods attendant to public support of dissent in autocracies.

As for the specific line you cite, if you dispute that particular characterization, by all means elaborate if you don't feel too ill.

Who knew we had Henry Kissinger posting at RS?

I'm always amazed at the profusion of lifeless freaks who have the time and energy to register and re-register here after multiple bannings.  They make the Klingon dress-up crowd seem well-adjusted.

But I do have a problem when I see folks who help us out get tossed overboard.

And, as an earlier Redstate article points out, his "democratic opposition" seem to be in the mold of the Taliban.  He might be a thug, but he's not a hostile thug.

The other, broader question still remains unanswered: How do we expect to get help from people with checkered pasts when we need it (and that time will come) when we're kicking folks like Karimov and Castano to the curb?

. . . Trekkies and Trekkers who take umbrage at the swipe against the "Klingon dress-up crowd."

This banned user's return here.  However, I think he has a point.  

The groups after him (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) are the same ones who have called Guantanamo Bay a gulag, and who have dumped on us more than they've dumped on other, more deserving, governments.

....he's kicking us to the side, not vice versa.  Unless you think our not returning those refugees to certain death constitutes "kicking him to the side" -- in which case I would argue that friends are usually more expendible than basic principles.