Wednesday
In Pakistan they are having 'interesting times', in the Chinese sense of the term. Violent protests in Karachi have killed dozens of people as the authority of President Musharraf has been challenged by the Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court.
Sooner or later, the rule of General Musharraf will come to an end, regardless of how much help the Americans give to prop up his regime. It is anyone's guess who takes over when he does leave the scene - it could be a weak democratic government, another Army commander, or a more sinister Islamic style government. Whatever sort takes over, they
will have a hard time keeping the country in one piece.
These musings on the future of Pakistan would be idle chatter though except that Pakistan is right on the fault line of many of the conflicts in the world today, and it also happens to have nuclear weapons. Quietly, India must be watching with some concern as General Musharraf loses his grip on power. The fastest way for a new regime in Islamabad to gain some legitimacy is to ratchet the tension with India. Given that both are now nuclear armed, it could be interesting times all round.
You describe yourselves as with critically rational individualist perspective BUT everything I read today is a rehash of what anyone can read at NY times, Wash Post, FT, and on and on.
So let me give you a really critical and rational perspective on you current subject. Protests by democratic entities that might turn violent is not necessarily a bad thing. It ended the Vietnam war and perhaps will be what ends the current war on terror. Now I am not condoning violence but I think the general by witholding his powerful military from preventing it made a statement to Pakistanis and the World. Regardless of what happens; I predict the General/President will outlast the Judge. Next year you wont even remember it. The General does benefit form American and Aussie help BUT his raison d'etre is his usefulness to his parent organization i.e. the Army.
Your next prediction is also wrong. If forced out he will be replaced by a General who can do more for the Army and what the Army thinks is in the interest of "disenfranchised classes of Pakistanis"!
Your bogey of an "Islamic" regime can only come forth if US or India were to intervene and disable the military. You see the irony? Then you use the oft-repeated scenario of a break up. Once again, if that happens Afghanistan, Inida, US and Australian Special forces in Kandahar will be sorry it happened as it would be IraqX10000
I applaud you worrying for poor India but if they were as smart as they try to be then they would really ally themselves with the US and sign the nuclear treaty, offer their forces to stabilize Afghanistan and Iraq so that other democratic armies are not so stretched!!!!
Or the least throw the General a bone by withdrawing from Siachen or some understanding on Kashmir BUT, BUT they keep dragging their feet expecting some divine intervention form Ram as their neighborhood burns. I mean what are they doing to help Si Lanka, Nepal? Instead they are romancing Burma while deploring lack of democracy in Pakistan? what a croc? Pun Intended.
As your top honcho Howard said when he called the general up "Please take care of my boys in Kandahar"; the general may be more than just a nuisance for US and its allies in Central Asia. For your next critical blog keep an eye on the deal Putin made with Turkmenistan for gas pipeline and connect the dots Buddy! Cheers Mate!
Posted by Marc at May 16, 2007 04:30 PM
The only good thing to come from a sudden breakup of Pakistan is that NATO will no longer need to pay attention to the Afghan/Pak "border". Of course those same results could have been achieved with a bit of backbone being shown by the US about 4 years ago. Pakinstan's major source of destabilization would have been swept away by NATO and Musharaff would have had the perfect scapegoat to point to and use to hold on to power.
Now? Now Pervez is beset by Jihadi's on one side and pro-democray forces on the other. It might sound distasteful to leave a dictator in power, but the alternative is that now the two factions will fight it out. I don't have a problem with civil war being used to install democratic rule, but much like Iraq I haven't seen any indication that the liberal side will win that battle without signifigant outside help.
I wouldn't expect any outside help for Pakistani liberals. India would be the only one capable of providing that help but will they? If they did, would the Pakistanis even accept it? The Jihadi faction, however, has plenty of nearby friends willing to help.
The long war is about to get longer.
Posted by Quenton at May 16, 2007 05:41 PM
once again, the brilliant strategists at the NSC have put all their eggs in some incompetent dictators basket and are about to have egg on their face. Unfortunately, it is the people of Pakistan who will pay a bigger price. No one in washington will be held accountable for "losing" pakistan. The last american viceroy in Pakistan has already been sent to Iraq to much things up there, now that his "freedom and democracy via army rule" strategy is unraveling in pakistan....
Posted by qamar at May 16, 2007 10:02 PM
Pakistan is a chaotic and ungovernable mess, like many other countries.
Civil, democratic governments they had in the past were also deeply corrupt, incompetent, nationalistic and war mongering.
Musharraf seems to be the best bet at the moment, but there is little the US or Australia or anybody else can do about developments in Pakistan.
Posted by Jacob at May 17, 2007 01:24 AM
