When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?

According to reports in last week's Economist,

America called for an international probe of May's Andijan massacre, in which Uzbek police killed perhaps 1,000 unarmed demonstrators, Mr Karimov responded by banning night flights at K-2. In early July, the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation (SCO), comprising Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, demanded a deadline for the withdrawal of American troops from Central Asia.

The K2 airbase has played a vital role for US military operations into Afghanistan, but it will be replaced. In fact, there is a base in Kirgizstan that is already serving that purpose.

Donald Rumsfeld, America's defence secretary, rushed to the region last week and received assurances that America's base in Kirgizstan was safe. Indeed, Kirgizstan may now come out the winner from the K-2 closure, if it is able to resist pressure from the rest of the SCO to follow the Uzbek example. Azerbaijan may also offer America a replacement base. And, of course, America has plenty of bases in Afghanistan. So it might have been cleverer to have pulled out of Uzbekistan before being pushed.

Whether Mr Karimov will also be a winner is yet to be seen. His tilt back towards Russia and China—which has wooed him with energy deals—is unpopular with the Uzbek elite.

President Karimov has gained what he wanted from the alliance with the US, namely distancing himself from Moscow and getting American aid in crushing rebel-terrorist groups. But we have served our purpose, and he is willing to move on now in order not to be held back by our concern for human rights. As far as I am concerned, the really interesting issue will be to see what happens next. Where did that international probe lead? What will our European allies have to say about another dictator in the Middle East, killing his own people? Will the American public give a damn about 1000 dead demonstrators in Uzbekistan?

Retired US Army General Robert Scales summed up the situation during an interview on NPR:

Do you support the emergence of democracy in these bordering states, or do you take advantage of the opportunity to use their military facilities to conduct the war on terror?

I worry that the American public may prefer apathy. Be honest. Are you interested in supporting the emergence of democracy? Is your interest in the War on Terror limited to a vague curiosity about the location of Osama bin Laden, and a chuckle when a comedian uses the Homeland Security Threat Level as a punchline?