Uzbekistan is on the verge of collapse. It could wind up like Chechnya or Afghanistan, a kind of Islamist version of Road Warrior. I don't see how that would be in US interests. (cui bono? Nobody but Talibs.)
=========================
Agreed.
But surely there was a moment, not so terribly long ago, when the choice wasn't starkly between Karimov and Jihadis -- when there were genuine reformers on the scene. These people, I'm told, were jailed or otherwise neutralized leaving only the Jihadis standing.
So we can argue, without too much fear of exaggeration, that support for strongmen who efficiently grind secular challengers to powder leads, in those situations where the Islamists and Talibs are the only ones allowed some freedom of movement (since a war against the mosques would be a step too far for even these dictators), almost inexorably to the troubles we see.
Now if say, Rumsfeld and Rice believe (and I suspect we can get a fair sense of their beliefs from statements made and written positions on these matters) that there is no correlation between the near total destruction of secular challenges by their allies and the rise of the Jihadi maneuver, we can infer that their understanding of what's in the US' best interest (if you define that as the creation of conditions for long term peace, stability and prosperity in these countries) is deeply flawed.
.d.