Three more Irans?

The New York Times gets my vote for capturing the understatement of the week. To wit:

On Saturday, President Pervez Musharraf told Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns that the Jan. 13 strike "must not be repeated."

I admit to having at first not grasped the gravity of our (the United States') rocket attack on a Pakistani building last week. In case you haven't either, let me put it in the starkest terms: we purposefully carried out an attack on one of our allies' soil without their say-so and killed (at last count) 13 of their civilians, including women and children.

If you still can't fathom why this was a terrible mistake, read my post below. I think fellow blogger Vache Folle says it better than I can.

In the 1950's-1970's, in Iran, the U.S. and Britain helped support a dictator who so kept a lid on his people's democratic urges for so long that the country eventually exploded into horrific revolution.

In Saudi Arabia, we are supporting an oligarchy that has kept the lid on its people's democratic urges for so long that they are turning to Wahabbiite clerics for answers. Many predict the monarchy's days are numbered.

In Pakistan, . . . not only are we supporting a dictator, but we are bombing his people. Say what you will of our intentions, this is the way the U.S.'s activities are percieved in that country. (Free registration required for foregoing link.)

Assuming we pull out of Iraq before that nation's government has full control (i.e., anytime in the next 90 years), we may be setting the stage for it to go all fundy on us as well, thus making conditions ripe for three more fundamentalist revolutions in the Middle East on par with that in Iran.

Only in Bin Ladin's wildest dreams. And he's hardly had to lift a finger since 9/11.