Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan are drawing a line in the sand and putting Pakistani Dictadent Pervez Musharraf on the other side.

This is certainly not the first time that many have targetted Musharraf and there are certainly reasons to believe that he has not been entirely forthright and, at times, obstructive. He's currently embrattled in what could (but I don't believe will) become a nuclear war with India. Certainly, we would like someone more cooperative and less dangerous at the helm over there.

But in a way we're acting like the feminists who ask why we didn't support "pro-women" leaders in Afghanistan, instead perpetually lending our support to what we saw as the "lesser of two evils..." What they overlooked then, and what Safire et al are overlooking now, is that the distinction between bad and terribly evil is signifigant. The saying "one in the hand is worth two in the bush" is particularly applicable here. The current Afghani regime and Dictadent Musharraf are not perfect, or even good for that matter, but they are better than the alternatives!

Musharraf, even if he had the purest of motives, would be forced to walk a tightrope of self-interest. If he angers us too much, we'll certainly side with India in that conflict and, if necessary, invade Pakistan to round up al-Qaeda. If he follows us too much, he runs the serious risk of being overthrown and replaced by someone who would reinvoke the image of the United States as "The Great Satan."

Right now Pakistan is being led by someone praising western values (even if not living by them). We need to make due with that. There are bigger fish to fry right now.

American Kaiser Teddy Sherrill has a similar point of view.