Remember Uzbekistan?

[WMS]

You know, it's been quite a while since an Uzbekistan thread. There's been changes since then, but for some reason there's been no thread about them...why could that be?

Let me get y'all up to speed. Here's the relevant information from StrategyPage.com (easier to get at than news archives): [with a few bolded parts of mine]

September 4, 2005: Uzbekistan is playing hardball in its efforts to get back political opponents of the current Uzbek dictator, who fled to Kyrgyzstan after a failed uprising last May. Uzbekistan threatens to cut of fuel shipments to Kyrgyzstan if fifteen of these refugees are not handed over. The UN and most Western nations oppose this, as the refugees face torture or death in Uzbekistan. This could get interesting, because, while Uzbekistan controls the natural gas supply for Kyrgyzstan, Kyrgyzstan controls much of the water supply for Uzbekistan. So the Kyrgyz may tell the Uzbeks to forget about getting the refugees back. Neither country is well equipped to go to war over this, and the Uzbeks know that Kyrgyzstan can call on its American ally, a military power that even Russia and China defer to.

August 19, 2005: Uzbekistan's dictatorship is reaching out for allies to Russia, China and Iran. The Uzbek government is criticized by most Western nations, so is finding friends where it can.

August 4, 2005: The U.S. apparently believes that its airbase in Kyrgyzstan is sufficient, even with the one in Uzbekistan being closed. About a thousand American and NATO troops are stationed at the Manas, Kyrgyzstan airbase, along with a dozen or so aircraft. 

July 31, 2005: The Uzbek eviction of the U.S. Air Force from one of their airbases, was in response to to threats and bribes from China and Russia. The U.S. has been critical of the dictatorship in Uzbekistan, while China and Russia has been much friendlier.

July 30, 2005: Uzbekistan has told the U.S. that it has six months to evacuate its personnel from the Uzbek airbase (Karshi-Khanabad). Offering enough money will probably get the Uzbeks to allow American transports to continue to use Uzbek airbases for refueling and emergency landings. [or not, as it looks like -WMS]

July 26, 2005: Kyrgyzstan, one of the more democratic of the Central Asian nations, has agreed to play the U.S. off against China and Russia, to get the maximum amount of money from the Americans, in order to allow the U.S. to continue using the Kyrgyz airbase at Manas. 

July 12, 2005: Newly elected president of Kyrgyzstan, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, responding to threats and bribes from China and Russia, has called for the United States to stop using the Kyrgyzstan air base America has been occupying for over three years, to support operations in Afghanistan.

July 10, 2005: Kyrgyzstan is not much better off since the dictatorship has been overthrown. The new rulers are not organized or very popular. Elections appear to be splitting voters along ethnic and tribal lines. Uzbekistan continues to keep rebels under control, although even the overthrow of the current dictator may not lead to a true democracy, but another dictator. Even though the United States has been applying diplomatic and economic pressure on the dictators of Central Asia, Russia and China have been picking up the slack (and replacing lost American economic aid).

July 6, 2005: The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan) has called on the United States to set a date when they will withdraw their bases from the region. Russia and China, which dominate the organization, believe American influence is threatening the dictators who dominate the governments of Central Asia. These despots are considered, at least by Russia and China, easier to deal with than democratically elected governments. China is still a communist dictatorship, while Russia is ruled by an elected, but very authoritarian, government.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know, I remember well all the crap the lefties gave Bush over being allied with Karimov's Uzbekistan (true, but alliance of convenience) and over not protesting the massacres there in spring (false). Well, guess what - the Bush Administration was very critical of Karimov, and now the U.S. is getting kicked out of Uzbekistan, so we're taking a significant strategic and tactical hit over a moral decision.

And where is the praise from the left for Bush over this?

Oh, also notice how Russia and China fully support Karimov in all his actions, and are working with him to try and kick the U.S. out of Central Asia.

And where is the criticism from the left for Russia and China over this?

Could it be that the left only cared about the victims of Karimov when they could be used as a club to bash Bush with? Surely they aren't that devoid of common decency? Or is the left too blinded by hatred of Bush to ever give him credit for doing something right?

BRTD, 'Dean/exnaderite/whateverthehellyournameis', I'm looking at you two in particular. Justify your silence, if you will.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Rumsfeld has a knack for shaking hands with dictators that we are friendly with at the time but later aren't.

[WMS]

Rumsfeld has a knack for shaking hands with dictators that we are friendly with at the time but later aren't.

How could I have forgotten to add your name?

And nice dodging the question.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This pattern of propping up dictators and then turning against them is not particularly new to Republican adminstrations. I don't see anything good about it.

[Jake]

Unfortunate to see such a strong ally turn on us, though the situation now is quite interesting to say the least

[WMS]

This pattern of propping up dictators and then turning against them is not particularly new to Republican adminstrations. I don't see anything good about it.

You deal with the devil when you have to, but if you see an opportunity to do better, you go for it.

[WMS]

Unfortunate to see such a strong ally turn on us, though the situation now is quite interesting to say the least

The Great Game continues, as always.

[ilikeverin]

Unfortunate to see such a strong ally turn on us, though the situation now is quite interesting to say the least

The Great Game continues, as always.

It's like the Game of the Houses, but worse!

[2952-0-0]

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like any western government really cares about dictators. After the Andijan massacre, Bush had to apply pressure on Kamirov because the massacre was widely publicized in the US media. But what did he really do? Not much. What would people think if, after the Halabja gassings western nations only "applied pressure" on Saddam?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was never supposed to ally with Kamirov if he had any decency (though Russia and China aren't better) Surely they aren't that devoid of common decency?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll say 90% of the time he bumbles and fumbles, 5% he's okay and another 5% I approve (see the Do Not Call lists)

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The reason I don't bash Russia or China over this is it kind of goes iwithout saying. It's the same reason I don't post "Kim Jong-Il is evil." at the end of every post I make.

I have been very critical of Putin, and the Chinese, and have bashed the Chinese (who are not communist, come on WMS, you should know better than to actually think China is communist) repeatedly and said that repeatedly, saying that I oppose all trade with them. The fact that Russia and China are not behaving well is hardly a suprise. And you honestly don't think the left LIKES Russia or China, how many leftists are big fans of Putin or the current Chinese regime?

[The Duke]

Sad to see a total unwillingness to even deal with the changes on the ground by the Bush haters.  In BRTD's and Dean's posts you won't find any evidence that the situation had changed at all.  Literally no indiciation, even obliquely, of the changes that have gone on!  If you knew nothing of Uzbekistan today, you'd read their posts and thinks they could have just as easily been written six months ago.  They do not even acknowledge these changes in Uzebkistn-US relations.

And Dean, you say we've done nothing of any real worth to condemn Mr. Karimov?  Obivoulsy Mr. Karimov disagrees.

Sad is the word that comes to mind.

[2952-0-0]

And Dean, you say we've done nothing of any real worth to condemn Mr. Karimov?  Obivoulsy Mr. Karimov disagrees.

You are a partisan hack. Of course I already said Bush tried to apply pressure, but it's gesture politics. A dictator like Kamirov will only serve his own interests and look to anyone who will assist him (hence the ever-shifting pattern of alliances). What would be the response if the western world just "applied pressure" on Saddam after the Halabja gassings?

All you need is a more obedient media and:

OCEANIA IS AT WAR WITH EASTASIA (or Eurasia)
OCEANIA HAS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I'll give Bush some credit once he starts acting the same way toward Karimov as Chavez, a democratically elected president who has committed no massacres. The Adminstration continues to hound Chavez far more than Karimov.

[2952-0-0]

I'll give Bush some credit once he starts acting the same way toward Karimov as Chavez, a democratically elected president who has committed no massacres. The Adminstration continues to hound Chavez far more than Karimov.

I think you did give Bush some credit when he condemned the Andijan massacres and cut ties with Kamirov.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Might I also say that Jake's attitude toward Karimov doesn't exactly help.

[The Duke]

And Dean, you say we've done nothing of any real worth to condemn Mr. Karimov?  Obivoulsy Mr. Karimov disagrees.

You are a partisan hack. Of course I already said Bush tried to apply pressure, but it's gesture politics. A dictator like Kamirov will only serve his own interests and look to anyone who will assist him (hence the ever-shifting pattern of alliances). What would be the response if the western world just "applied pressure" on Saddam after the Halabja gassings?

All you need is a more obedient media and:

OCEANIA IS AT WAR WITH EASTASIA (or Eurasia)
OCEANIA HAS BEEN AT WAR WITH EASTASIA SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME

Name one Republican short of bullmoose who is more critical of Bush.  It is in fact you who are the hack, the ideologue, the buffoon.  Your analysis of Uzbekistan is totally ludicrous and finds no support in the actual facts on the ground.  Invoking lines from a book you've almost certianly never read (or at last, didn't understand) is NOT a rational argument.  Having anindependent avatar does not make you an independent.

Migh I also add that it was not immediately clear that Iraq was behind the Hlabaja massacre, and the CIA insisted (wrongly) until 1997 that Iran was always behind Halabja.

I'll give Bush some credit once he starts acting the same way toward Karimov as Chavez, a democratically elected president who has committed no massacres. The Adminstration continues to hound Chavez far more than Karimov.

To say Chavez is democratically elected defines the term down so greatly as to deprive it of any meaning.  Its as valid as saying Iran is a democracy.

[2952-0-0]

Name one Republican short of bullmoose who is more critical of Bush.

Point? Okay, for the heck of answering the question, on this forum, DarthKosh

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that's intellectually stimulating.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Umm?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're taking it out of context. A government always tries to cover its tracks, and whether its population falls for it depends on whether the media is complacent. In the case of 1984 the media is the government and vice-versa, so the population is duped.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Point?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? It was already known by that time that Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator.

[The Duke]

My point in asking you to try and come up with Republicans more critical of the President than me is to prove that you're an idiot for calling me a "partisan hack".  Given my record, this accusation doesn't pass the smell test, and that you're only able to name Darth Kosh, who probably isn't even a real Republican, only helps proves that you're wrong.

I've not taken you're quote out of context at all, and I defy you to show me how I have.  You're position is that the US government has changed its position and behaved as if its current position is the position it always held, and that there will always be those tha parrot the government's lies.  I pointed out that this is not a valid analogy to the current circumstances, because the government has not pretended to be unattached to Karimov, and I have never defended Karimov personally, I've only said it was a partnership of convenience and that our strategic aims sometimes require swallowing our pride and making pragmatic decisions as other nation states have done in the past.

Asfr Halabja.  You said we should have condemned Iraq after Halabja.  I point out that it was not certain until much later who was responsible for that massacre.  You apparently do not understand that your entire point has been invalidated, replying that "Saddam was an evil dictator" regardless.  You can't accuse the west of letting Halabja slide when western intelligence agencies are unable to determine who was behind Halabja!  If we can't determine culpability, how do we assign blame?

[WMS]

Unfortunate to see such a strong ally turn on us, though the situation now is quite interesting to say the least

The Great Game continues, as always.

It's like the Game of the Houses, but worse!

Played on a global scale...

[WMS]

The reason I don't bash Russia or China over this is it kind of goes iwithout saying. It's the same reason I don't post "Kim Jong-Il is evil." at the end of every post I make.

Fair enough, for your case (not for anyone else's, however ).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

To be fair, yes, you have been critical of Russia and China in the past (and China says they're Communists so they are ( ) but o/c in reality they're quasi-Communist, in that it kept the totalitarianism but dropped - to an extent, not entirely (SOE's, anyone?) - the economic side). As for the left in general, well, actually, I consider a chunk of them to be so anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War that they'll cheer on the likes of Russia and China - although that may be more of a European/Canadian left thing - just because they stand against Bush.

But my point is that I think you should give credit where credit is due (since you certainly gave debits where they were due ) and admit that Bush did the right thing, at a considerable cost. You can do it, BRTD! Type it out!
..B..u..s..h..d..i...d..t..h..e..r..i..g..h..t..t..h..i..n..g..i..n..U..z..b..e..k..i..s..t..a..n...come on, I know your keyboard works.

[WMS]

YOU, on the other hand, are far too typical...

Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like any western government really cares about dictators. After the Andijan massacre, Bush had to apply pressure on Kamirov because the massacre was widely publicized in the US media. But what did he really do? Not much. What would people think if, after the Halabja gassings western nations only "applied pressure" on Saddam?

Ah yes, of course. First you say that Bush didn't care about the massacre, then you minimize his response. Given that neither Uzbekistan nor the U.S. are in the mood for a shooting war with each other at the moment, I fail to see what else Bush could've been done other than the severing of relations and quietly supporting the Uzbek opposition, both of which are occurring. Oh, wait, did you want more? Wouldn't that require military action not sanctioned by the U.N.?! And here I thought that, judging by your past bitching about Iraq, you were opposed to that sort of thing. So did you change your mind or are you just a hypocrite?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Bush was never supposed to ally with Kamirov if he had any decency (though Russia and China aren't better) Surely they aren't that devoid of common decency?[/quote]

Alliance of necessity to overthrow the Taliban, dumbass. Or would you prefer that the U.S. have left Afghanistan alone under the sweet, gentle, peaceful rule of the Taliban? Or to throw Godwin's Rule in your face, was the U.S. immoral to ally with the Stalinist U.S.S.R. in World War II to bring down Nazi Germany? Oh yes, the U.S. does actually support the opposition in Uzbekistan (well, the non-nutcase-Islamist opposition), just quietly at first since we were, you know, still using their airbases for actions in Afghanistan. And I see you missed the point that we turned against Karimov over his atrocities whereas China and Russia supported him over them, yet you fail to condemn them - and unlike BRTD, you do NOT have a track record of opposing Russia and China.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll say 90% of the time he bumbles and fumbles, 5% he's okay and another 5% I approve (see the Do Not Call lists)
[/quote]

So, in your case, that's a 'yes'? Thanks for clearing that up. I see you also failed to grasp the fact that I was challenging you to admit Bush did something right in Uzbekistan, and should be given credit for it, at least as much credit as the amount of crap you talked about him earlier this year - I notice YOU started no new threads on Uzbekistan since the situation changed, although you were sure eager to do so to attack Bush this spring! But according to you, the Bush Administration is apparently on the level of Oceania from 1984 and never tells the truth about anything.

[2952-0-0]

Ah yes, of course. First you say that Bush didn't care about the massacre, then you minimize his response.

For the third time, it's called GESTURE politics. Given that, at the time, Bush's second term was going on to be a less-than-excellent start, he would like to look strong and promoting freedom.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have a favourable opinion of any major power or the UN. Because of the old adage "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The least anyone could do is to suspend Uzbekistan from the UN (along with a dozen or so other countries, anyone for Belarus?)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Necessity? http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/ENGEUR620162001 Now, my friend, don't tell me Amnesty International is a lefties stooge becuase in the runup to the war in Iraq the Bush Administration used AI reports on Iraq to justify their operations.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually, I DO have a record of criticizing Russia and China. What do you expect me to do, add "Fidel Castro is an oppressive dictator" at the end of every third post I make?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above: even BRTD, who is probably even more hostile to Bush than I am, said it was a rare positive step. I am not one of those jfern types and people like him are becoming just plain annoying.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So? We had other things to talk about. Like North Korea's secret army.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's what every government does. How successful they are depends on how inquisitive the media in their countries are. A week after releasing 1984 George Orwell warned the public that it was up to them to stop the novel from happening.

[WMS]

I had a wonderful, cogent, thoughtful reply, but my damn work computer crashed in the middle of it. So you get the hack and slash job.

For the third time, it's called GESTURE politics. Given that, at the time, Bush's second term was going on to be a less-than-excellent start, he would like to look strong and promoting freedom.

Actually, Bush started out as a realpolitique president, like his dad. Then, as was mentioned in an article on neoconservatism that John Ford linked to some time back, they were 'mugged by 9/11' and realized that in order to prevent a continual resupply of terrorists, they needed to improve the conditions people lived under. That's the pragmatic approach. I also think that they would really like to see this work out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And here I thought you were pro-China and pro-UN. Guess not. And I'd happily suspend Uzbekistan and Belarus and Turkmenistan and Cuba and Myanmar and so on, but if you got rid of the tyrannies the UN would collapse...wait, not a bad idea in many respects...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, technically AI does lean left although they try to be fair most of the time, but they are subject to sporadic anti-American spasms. Nowhere on the level of the leftists at Human Rights Watch, though. The bigger problem is that it's hard to compare across countries because AI needs information to report on stuff, so open-source places like the U.S. get 5 pages while closed societies get a third of a page because no information is coming out of it. That's one reason I prefer Freedom House - I can compare across countries.

As for Iraq, I've never claimed democratizing Iraq was the primary reason for the U.S. invasion. Number four or five, but not number one. That doesn't mean removing Saddam's regime wasn't looked forward to by the Bush Administration, though - the book America's Secret War by the founder of Stratfor mentions that there was moral repugnance against Saddam's regime, but that it was not the primary reason behind the war.

Yes, necessity. The U.S. needed those bases and supply lines to attack the Taliban...the Uzbeks even sent ground forces (to back their boy Dostum o/c). And once the Taliban retreated, those bases and supply lines were needed to keep the U.S. and NATO forces resupplied. So that's why when Bush broke with Karimov over the massacres it was a significant thing - the U.S. took a hit, and is scrambling to keep the Kyrgyz on its side and not get completely thrown out of Central Asia as the Chinese and Russians want.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, I haven't seen that - I've seen a lot of Bush-bashing, but not much else - although that doesn't mean the criticisms aren't there, somewhere on the Forum. I thought you were pro-China, as I mentioned above. And yes, the Castro bit would be a good start.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above; I hadn't caught you praising Bush. We can agree on jfern - I wonder how long before he arrives in this thread.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, you talked a lot about Uzbekistan when Bush had the alliance of convenience with them, so I figured you should mention it when Bush broke it. And I'll have to dig and find that NK Secret Army bit, because I don't recall that one...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Oh, they're not that bad. I do not think that the Bush Administration outright lied about the WMD. Overemphasized it as a reason for war while not mentioning the real geopolitical reasons for it, sure - a stupid decision IMHO and an illustration of how the entire American political elite, of any ideology or party, underestimates the pragmatism and common sense of the American public (another rant for another day) - and stubbornly refused to admit that they might have been even a little mistaken, sure. But not lied. I think they were honestly expecting to find WMD in Iraq, just like the rest of the planet.

And for the media to do their job right, they're going to have to be much less sensationalistic, less biased, and more informed about things. I'm not holding my breath.