Pakistan, Pakistan - Phase 2

Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was recently assassinated following a political rally in Islamabad. Ms. Bhutto had recently returned to her home country from self-imposed exile to lead a political party dedicated to democratic reforms and generally opposed to the government of President and former army Chief Pervez Musharaff.

The Manifest takes special interest, as should all Westerners, in the events in Pakistan. As detailed in a former post on the situation in Pakistan, it is noted that the Islamic nation is, for all intents and purposes, the flashpoint of unrest in the world today. Pakistan is the "powder keg" of the early 21st century in the same manner as the Balkans were in the early 20th. The assassination of Bhutto could have many of the same ramifications of that of Archduke Francis Ferdinand.

A major difference, however, is that the Bhutto killing is a bit of a "whodunit." Al Qaeda has taken responsibility - at least a group claiming to be affiliated with Al Qaeda. If this is the truth, then it is the best possible scenario in terms of being beneficial to the West.

Don't misunderstand - I am not claiming that the assassination of Bhutto is a good thing. It is a major tragedy for her family, for the nation of Pakistan, and for the movement of democracy in the Muslim world. However, in the interests of peace and security in the West, most all parties agree that stability and a gradual move to democracy is preferable to radical change that could lead to a Taliban-led revolution. And nobody, save Al Qaeda, wants the Taliban with nukes.

This means that, for the time being, the best policy is to support Pervez Musharraf's hold on the presidency, and insist on orderly parliamentary elections. Musharraf, while walking a very thin tight rope in semi-opposing Islamic radicals in his country, has nonetheless been effective in preventing Pakistan's WMD from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda. Long known as an opponent of Pakistan's most influential political parties, it could be expected that all sides would jump at the chance to blame Musharraf for Bhutto's death. Any rational thinking person can understand this accusation is ludicrous. Bhutto as prime minister was not real threat to Musharraf. In fact, the Pakistani president would probably have much rather had Bhutto and her party in charge of parliament than his other chief rival, Nawaz Sharif. Sharif was originally disposed in the coup that General Musharraf staged to gain control of the government. Sharif heads an Islamic party that supports Sharia-style governance. One does not have to make a big leap from Sharif government to a Taliban government. There was no guarantee that Bhutto's party would have won a majority in parliament, and the likely outcome would have most likely have been a power-sharing arrange between Bhutto's quasi-secular party, and Sharif's Islamic party. Sure a split in parliament could have only increased Musharaff's influence in the presidency.

When I first heard news of Bhutto's assassination, my first thought was that she was killed by her own party. Dogged by corruption charges (which may have been partially true), being a female in a society with made up of at least 50% Islamic fundamentalists, and her distinctly un-democratic control of her political party could have contributed to other leadership wanting her out of the way. Perhaps killing the party leader - and then pointing fingers at the government - could produce a tidal wave of support in the upcoming elections, allowing the party to easily sweep Sharif's party.

Sharif himself was among the first and loudest to publicly decry the murder, and to point a finger at the government. This also seemed to me to be a red flag. Sharif's Islamic party would be radically opposed to a female prime minister, and strongly advocate a regime of Sharia law. By killing the leader of the opposition - an opposition which coalesced around the personality of Bhutto - then Sharif could very well remove the obstacle that would have caused a power-sharing arrangement, leaving a one-on-one battle with Musharraf.

I suspect that either of these scenarios could still be true, but at the moment it seems that we should take Al Qaeda at its word. And back to my point that this would be the best outcome. Musharraf ordering Bhutto's murder would have been a disaster. Should proof be produced, he would be chased from office, and the country would fall to Islamic radicals. Should Sharif have ordered the murder, he would have gained support of the Taliban elements in the country, even moreso that he currently has, and most likely of swept into power. Al Qaeda will definitely have support within Pakistan for what they did, but there will also be outrage among many Pakistanis who might otherwise be indifferent.

As cold-hearted as this sounds, civil war within the Islamic world (which is the kind that Al Qaeda has been waging since the invasion of Iraq) is much preferable to a united front attacking Western interests and homelands. If any good is to come from the tragedy of Mrs. Bhutto's murder, it would be a sizable portion of Pakistanis turning on Al Qaeda/Taliban in the manner that has happened in many of the provinces of Iraq. That may be the best answer to solving the problem of the Pakistani powder keg.

The Manifest's Candidate Examination

It was not the intention of this outlet to become focused on the micro-political picture. While the ideology of those who control Congress, the White House, and the courts is important to the mission of the New Manifest Destiny, individual elections are viewed as simple snapshots in time. However, The New Manifest Destiny believes this upcoming election to be a truly pivotal point in our history. Some elections are relatively minor occurrences. Of those in recent memory, I would point to 1956, 1964, 1972, and 1996. This is not to say that significant events did not occur following these elections, but rather that the macro direction of the nation as one, and Western Civilization as a whole, did not hinge on which party or candidate was elected. On the other side of the coin, we can point the elections of 1932 and 1980 as the most historically-significant elections of modern times. The results from these two election years would have a greater impact on the direction of national history and the preservation of the West than any other in modern times. It is too early to judge if 2000 should be included as well, but it is a possibility.

Unless world events and domestic situations shift dramatically, the election of 2008 should prove highly consequential. From one standpoint, 2008, with a Democrat president and Congress, could find their last opportunity to implement policies shoring up the 1960's "Great Society" vision. From the other side, 2008 could prove the last chance for a Republican president and Congress to solidify the ideals of the Reagan Revolution. Either way, 2008 may very well be the apex of the battle between the governing ideologies that have defined the political landscape of the last half century.

All of this to say, The New Manifest Destiny - the realization of American Exceptionalism and the preservation of Western Civilization - will be effected in a major way by the outcome of 2008. Hence, I have decided to offer a candidate examination from the viewpoint of the New Manifest Destiny.

Republicans
Disclaimer - Readers understand that the New Manifest Destiny promotes small government, free markets, muscular defense, federalism, original intent, and traditional Judeo-Christian values. Hence, the Conservative ideology is typically more in line with the beliefs of the New Manifest Destiny.

Mike Huckabee
Although not a leader in national polls, it is arguable that Gov. Mike Huckabee is now the GOP frontrunner. Recent polls in Iowa have him pulling away from Mitt Romney (although Hawkeye polls are often not indicative of final results; see the Democrat 2004 caucus). Romney has by far outspent Huckabee in Iowa, and has a much better organization. However, Huckabee can almost been seen as the anti-Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is composed, organized, and a very smooth operator. Huckabee brings the magnetic personality of a southern governor, combined with the communication skills of a Baptist preacher. Much has been made of the "religious war" between Mormon Romney and Baptist Huckabee, with Huckabee seemingly winning the battle to pick up the "social conservative" voters which form an important part of the GOP base.

Without a doubt, Huckabee is a very good man. He governed Arkansas very ably, and he has a somewhat Reaganesque ability to inspire people. There has been much talk about Huckabee being a "big government" conservative, overseeing the growth of social programs and the increase in some taxes during his tenure in Arkansas. Huckabee is also hit with being somewhat "soft" on crime-and-punishment issues, issuing more pardons than any governor before him.

As I said, I believe that Huckabee is a very good man. He is full of thoughtfulness, moral character, and is very uplifting (a quality that is valuable and at times underrated for a national leader). I do believe that Huckabee is, generally speaking, a fiscal conservative. The approach to running and funding state government and services is much different than that of the national government. We often forget that Governors must uphold their own state constitutions, many of which call for much more government intervention than the original intent of the national Constitution. While I believe that generally less government is better government, I also believe in rule of law and the principle of federalism. A president Huckabee would no doubt govern in a more fiscally conservative manner than Governor Huckabee.

That being said, The New Manifest Destiny cannot outright endorse Governor Huckabee for the nomination. President Huckabee would be far-and-away better for the national interest than any President Democrat. However, I do not believe that now is the time to trust our national security with a man who has demonstrated a pattern of, for lack of a better description, always believing in the best in his fellow man. Hard-hearted, maybe. I don't mean to be a misanthrope. I believe strongly in the power of the human spirit and the inherent goodness within the human heart, but I also believe in absolute evil, and evil manifest in our world. George W. Bush is a born-again evangelical the same as Huckabee, but with Bush, we also get the cowboy mentality. Many see this as a fault, but when you're facing down an enemy with guns blazing, would you rather have a cowboy, or a counselor? I think we'll take the cowboy every time. I wonder about Mr. Huckabee's willingness to act unilaterally if necessary, or to take the lead in coalition building against Islamic fascism bent on our destruction. Reagan formed a coalition with the Vatican, the Thacher Tories, and the West Germans. This de-legitimized the Soviet System, freed hundreds of millions of people from oppression, and brought down the evil empire. Reagan was a cowboy. Bush formed a coalition with the Brits, the Aussies, and those recently freed peoples of Eastern Europe. Together, the coalition freed tens of millions of people from brutal regimes, planted the seeds of democracy deeper in Middle Eastern soil than ever before, and severely crippled the great enemy of our times. Bush is a cowboy. Huckabee could prove just as muscular in foreign policy, but I have my doubts. And 2008 is no time for doubts.

Mitt Romney
Governor Romney is not a frontrunner in national polls, but has a relatively comfortable lead in New Hampshire polls, and may or may not be ahead in Iowa. The front man by-far in Iowa for a long time, the recent surge of Gov. Huckabee has been a blow to the Romney campaign, and a sub-second finish in Iowa, or not winning in New Hampshire, will likely prove the end of his presidential aspirations.

Mr. Romney is a highly accomplished executive, both at the business and bureaucratic levels. As governor of one of the most liberal states in the Union, he managed to uphold generally conservative social principals (at least from the governor's office), and fund the state's overreaching social programs without raising taxes. Romney proves very polished professional, and rehearsed is his personal presentation. Sometimes this has proven an asset. As Huckabee has surged, however, his presentation has presented an authenticity problem with some voters.

Much has been made of Mr. Romney's Mormon religion. Despite stating point blank that he believes "Jesus Christ is my personal savior" (which was what I was taught was the only real prerequisite to being a Christian), the media makes much of his beliefs as an issue. I believe that, while some voters may be put-off by this aspect, the impact it will have on the overall race is very overblown. I think what hurts Governor Romney more are his perceived flip-flops on other socially conservative issues, particularly abortion. In a 1994 bid to unseat Ted Kennedy, Romney ran as a pro-choice Republican. He has since switched his position, and is very in line with the positions of President Bush regarding abortion and stem cell research. While some view his shift in positions as a convenient "flip-flop," I must take the man at his word that he has come to respect the culture of life. Yes, in our cynical, say-anything world of today, genuine conversions of belief do occur. I would remind Republicans that as Governor of California, Ronald Reagan signed the most liberal abortion bill then in the country. I don't think anyone now would question Reagan's commitment to Right to Life by the time he was elected president.

All told, Romney has the presence, executive mindset, and overarching policy philosophy to make a good president. It can be determined from the positions he has taken in this campaign that he would be a strong supporter of free market principles, fiscal responsibility, smaller government, and muscular foreign policy. The only area that is a risk at this point is judicial appointments. However, if Governor Romney's other conservative positions do indeed form a pattern, it is reasonable to assume that his appointments would focus on judges who practice judicial restraint, if not those concerned with strict constructionism.

This is not an endorsement of Governor Romney for the Republican nomination, but is a very positive review of the man based on his record and candidacy to date.

Fred Thompson
Former Senator Fred Thompson has, at least until recently, garnered more excitement for his candidacy prior to actually entering the race. Since formerly declaring on The Tonight Show, pundits have repeatedly labeled the campaign as "flat," and say the candidate has no "fire in the belly." Although the campaign (and the candidate) seem to have picked up some steam in Iowa lately, accusations of "lazy" still dog his overall effort.

An examination of both the records and policies the Republicans have put forth this season reveals that, in actuality, Thompson is the most consistent with Reagan-style conservatism, the most impressive with new initiatives (such as his restructuring of the federal tax system), and among the strongest on national defense and boarder security. Perhaps more impressive is that Thompson seems, by far, to have the greatest understanding and appreciation of the system of federalism and original intent.

While all of the major GOP candidates receive a basic "thumbs-up" on the position of national defense, Mr. Thompson does not disguise or sugar-coat the threat America and the West face from enemies abroad, and also offers straight talk in regard to the tough, authoritative stance the United States must take to defeat these enemies.

Much has been made that Mr. Thompson's two terms in the Senate are void of significant accomplishment. It is obvious from the Senator's record that he acted directly when he thought it necessary, but it is also obvious that he believed government was often too intrusive. As many political humorists have noted, it is much better to have a government that does too little than does too much. Mr. Thompson's understanding of and belief in limited government and federalism are apparent and consistent.

On the big issues - national security, economic prosperity, free markets, and judicial appointments, Senator Thompson scores an "A." While we recognize many good men in the race for president, and believe any of the GOP would be a far better option than what is offered by the other side, The Manifest throws support behind Fred Thompson at this time.

John McCain
Senator John McCain is a certified war hero, and a great American patriot. As a Senator, he is one of the most respected individuals in government today. His bipartisan appeal is attractive to many, but damages him with many conservatives. For what it is worth, I believe the Senator's reputation in conservative circles is somewhat unfair. His support of campaign finance reform is a blow to first amendment free speech rights, and should the truth be told, I believe that McCain would not do it over again. His support of the immigration bill this summer also hurt his standing with the conservative base. Many Republicans, including a president still relatively popular with the core conservative base, supported the bill. While the New Manifest did not believe the bill to be beneficial to America's interests, McCain was hurt proportionally worse than other Republicans due to his presidential aspirations and the active nature of his support for the measure. To his credit, McCain's new stance is "I heard you, I'm now for enforcement first." And no, I don't consider this a flip-flop (see commentary above on Mitt Romney).

Senator McCain may indeed be the most "electable" candidate if you use the pundit's scale. His strong and unwaivering support of the military and muscular foreign policy, particularly toward Iran, wins support and is his strongest point. However, I am not convinced the Senator has the philosophical grounding to stay true to free market principles of free trade and low taxes. Additionally, I'm not sure his Supreme Court picks would produce another Roberts or Alito. They very well could, but could also produce another David Souter.

All told, Senator John McCain is a great American and a great patriot. I trust him running the Pentagon, but not the nation. McCain seems more the heir to George H. W. Bush and the "Rockfeller Republicans" than to the Reagan Revolution.

Rudy Giuliani
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani would be the ideal Republican candidate save for a handful (but major) social issues on which his beliefs differ substantially from the conservative base. Mayor Giuliani has been the front runner, nationally, for most the active campaign season. Although he clings to a lead in national polls, a likelihood exists that he could lose the first four major causes/primaries, and therefore be irrelevant before Florida (his firewall) votes.

Giuliani has many, many strengths which fall in line with conservative causes:

• Nation Security: Rudy has always been a law-and-order guy. And you don't have the city you love attacked by Islamic fascists and it not leave a scar. As relentlessly as George W. Bush has attacked terrorist organizations across the globe, Giuliani would likely be even more aggressive. A bit more charismatic than Bush, Giuliani would likely have the Reaganesque quality of taking his case straight to the people.
• Rule of Law: Giuliani's entire career has been based around law and order, from prosecutor to Mayor.
• Leadership: No one would argue his ability to be an effective executive.
• Free Markets: Rudy is a tax-cutter, and a free-trade guy. He supports economic policies which shrink government, hold down the tax burden, and spur development.

All red-meat conservative issues. But then come the liabilities:

• Social Issues: First and foremost, for all his great points, Giuliani is pro-choice, and doesn't oppose gay marriage. He has stated his personal beliefs will not get in the way of his execution of the office. I'm willing to take the man at his word, but when it comes to appointment of judges, it is tough sell on faith alone.
• Gun Rights: I think this is an overblown liability. Yes, strict gun laws in NYC. But as he's said, NYC is not the rest of America. As previously stated, as a Mayor (or governor), you're acting in the best interest of your city/state. As president, you act in the best interest of the Constitution.
• Personal Issues: I don't want to go into this. The man's private life is private, but a liability nonetheless.

Giuliani is a great leader, and a great patriot. He is a true fiscal conservative, and would implement an aggressive, muscular foreign policy. Some of his liabilities are genuine, some should not be as much of a consideration as they are. Overall, I'm not sure the Mayor has the understanding of conservative philosophy, original intent, or Federalism to the level of a Fred Thompson. Giuliani would make a good president, although not the best among those in this year's field.

Contrary to popular belief, the Iran report is a vindication

The National Intelligence Estimate has stated that Iran dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 2003. And somehow this is viewed by pundits as damaging to Bush. Opponents of the president are saying that the NIE is evidence that the Bush strategy should be changed. Am I missing something here? If the NIE is correct (which some other nations have disagreed with), then it means that Iran had an active nuclear weapons program prior to 2003, but then ended the program that year. Seriously, am I missing something? When George W. Bush came to office, Iran had a nuclear weapons program. Close to the end of George W. Bush's administration, Iran has discontinued its nuclear weapons program. How is this an indictment of Bush's policies? Shouldn't it be proof that his policies work? Now if the estimate said that Iran had no program prior to 2003, but has recently been engaging in nuclear weapons development, would the story be that we need more of Bush's policies? If that was the case, I might be inclined to argue that our current strategy is not working. But that is not the case, apparently.

Consider This
Anybody care to remember what happened in 2003? I mean other than the fact that Iran apparently discontinued its nuclear weapons program. Yes, the United States, under the "war monger" Bush invaded Iraq. The purpose was to get rid of weapons of mass destruction programs. As it turns out, Saddam had duped the entire world about the status of his WMD, although personal testimony from the man later indicated that he fully intended to restart WMD efforts after sanctions against Iraq were lifted. But that is a digression. Remember, the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get rid of WMD. In 2003, Iran discontinued its nuclear WMD program. Does anyone seriously think that having U.S. and allied troops along both borders had nothing to do with this decision? Was it just coincidence that the Ayatollahs awoke one morning in 2003 and decided that now would be the time to stop their pursuit of the bomb?

Unless you're a Democrat Senator, you must see that the U.S. presence in Iraq, and the aggressive action the Bush administration has taken against terror groups and rouge states, led to Iran giving up WMD. That really is accomplishing a mission.

Don't Back Down
Now we hear calls that, because of an NIE (that some nations dispute), we must change our strategy toward Iran. Cowboy George should back down. Well, as it so happens, the Cowboys have the best record in the NFC this year, and Bush's strategy seems to have been working quite well. Obviously all the more reason to change it, right?

Excuse the football allusions today, but this situation is like having a championship team playing a pesky competitor. The competitor has hung around all day, kept it close, willing to grind it out, but them their efforts at the short end of the scoreboard. With four minutes left in the 4th quarter, and a four-point lead, would the championship team be content to suddenly let-up? To go three-and-out and give the ball up? To change their tactics from what has been working to something else? If that happened, and the champions lost the big game, the coach might be fired. Yet is exactly what Bush opponents are suggesting.

For all of you who need a legend to follow the above scenario, please see as follows:
Championship Team = United States
Pesky Competitor = Iran
Bush opponents = crazy

Now, of all times, when we might actually have Iran on the ropes (there's a boxing metaphor for you), when their crazy little president is experiencing ever-increasing unpopularity, when we have heads of state in Europe that might actually back up international pressures, when some major international players even have their doubts about a country that has sped-up its uranium enrichment, why would it be a good idea to change course now?

Legacy - Averting WWIII
A headline on the Drudge Report today stated "WWIII on hold?" A few weeks ago, President Bush stated that should Iran acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons, the likely outcome would be World War III. And who is to argue that point? So if the policies pursued by the Bush administration - sometimes near-unilaterally - resulted in the suspension of activities that could have led to geopolitical cataclysm, should this not be the stuff that legacies are made of? The great war monger may have actually have prevented the great war. The strategy of security through strength hasn't looked this good since the Iron Curtain fell.