The American Spectator

/p>

Mr. Orlet asks an interesting question in his article. Should a different word be applied to those nations with which we work in a given circumstance? I would suggest, sir, that the word ally is quite sufficient for the purpose of describing our relations with nations like Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Turkey, or Saudi Arabia, etc. One must only contemplate WWII to find a situation where one of our “allies” was cutting our throats behind our backs. Do you not know or remember the history of the relationship between Joseph Stalin and FDR, the U.S. and the Soviet Union? Winston Churchill was certainly under no illusions regarding brother Stalin.

p>My point is simply that an “ally” has always referred to nations that temporarily find a confluence of interests on the world stage at a given moment in history. When the national interests diverge, the allied relationship dissolves or is significantly altered. History shows that international relationships have never been permanent, and “ally” has never meant allied in regards to all things, at all times, forever. As Saint Ronald of Reagan might say, “Trust, but verify.”… br> — Ken Shreve /p> p> Of course this sort of double-crossing on the part of Musharraf and the Pakistanis (and for that matter, virtually all Arab nations) has been and is occurring. Such behavior is not only consistent with their religion, culture, and ethics; it is laudable according to them! Just look it up in their literature or ask any one of them. From our standpoint, conducting business, executing contracts of any kind, relying on them as allies: All are futile. This is not meant as hyperbole, but stone cold truth…. br> — Francis Dillon /p>

Excellent article. “Who are our real allies?” I concur with you list at the end… with one glaring exception: Japan.

p>And who knows..with the recent nuclear activities in North Korea, we may see the Japanese develop into a military world power again. br> — Jim Cadden br> Endicott, New York