Pakistan is the problem???

Or so says Hitchens. The most telling part of this column is the tacit endorsement that Obama has it right with regard to the need to leave on the table NATO's right to impinge on Pakistan's territory if need be. Also of note is the explanation of the name "Pakistan" itself, which is quite interesting.

I'm not sure that the U.S. is in the best position to argue for the need/right to impinge on Pakistan's turf, but if you accept that the war in Afghanistan is good, just, neccessary, or what have you - I think you would have to recognize that a primary reason the problems are escalating has to do with the Pakistani tribal areas. Of course, another issue in our protracted war in Afghanistan is highlighted in this month's Atlantic by Johnson and Mason. They point out that the counterinsurgency is thriving due to the NATO/American forces failure to properly address the local groups/clans as the primary arbiter of control in Afghanistan. They may just be on to something here.

It's all so complicated...

The Bhutto assassination undoubtedly throws some uncertainty into the Pakistani situation and my comrade Mel-Anon hits home with a great post on the situation.

It is difficult to decipher what this will mean for Pakistan in the long term, but the likely short term implications are Sharif and the opposition parties boycott the January 8th elections -- leading to a status quo government ran by Musharraf. With the US pushing for the election to stay on track to keep the "bad guys" from winning -- we will probably see an "election" that changes little other than giving a new rallying cry for unrest. Overall winner -- whoever likes a destabilized nuclear power situated between Iran, Afghanistan, India and China.

I saw Charlie Wilson's War over the weekend, and have to say that it is pertinent to this topic. Understanding the Soviet-Afghan experience is a must for understanding the current geopolitical situation in Southern/Central Asia.

As apolitical as it gets...

Former Pakistani Prime Minister and current opposition leader Benazir Bhutto
was assassinated on Thursday in Rawalpindi. It is disheartening to see such apolitical actions in a situation that is in desperate need of politics. Somewhere today, Bernard Crick weeps... As do all of us who hold out hope for conciliation, compromise and relatively peaceful transitions of power. I hope that this isn't the spark that sets off an already combustible situation.

The only thing that is constant... Change

One of the most important values espoused in liberal democracies is the rule of law, which in arguably its’ most important role regulates change within a nation. These changes include how new laws are made through an inclusive legislative process, a fair schedule of elections, smooth transitions of power, and any other significant shift that may inherently seem unstable. This stability of a nation-state during times of change is an important part of global security, because it is a truism to say that nations will at some point change – when they do so, it is preferable that these changes do not result in a power struggle between various factions. If this were to happen, progress would be a very difficult sell, since when something changes the nation would devolve into a power vacuum where all advances in the rule of law are lost to the rule of force.

Unfortunately, this is the instant case in Pakistan today. A general, who six months ago was talked of as a modernizing friend, has gone on a power grabbing spree - banning the supreme court, exercising martial law, and "delaying elections". This is all in the name of stability of course, but the end result of this current action will not be a long term viable and stable Pakistan. There are now far too many disenchanted parties. The religious fundamentalists think the government is held up by the Western infidels. The opposition parties see the cancellation of elections as a sure fire method of keeping them out of government. Perhaps the most disturbing, is the intellectual elites (e.g. lawyers, doctors) abandoning any tacit support previously given to the administration.

With these groups opposed to the current administration, a change is undeniable. The question is what will the change be, how long will it take, and from a very chauvinistic point of view - how will the new leaders view America? I would have said 2 months ago that change was coming, but that there was a greater than 60% chance that it would work out well for America. Today, the odds of getting a stable and friendly regime/administration in Pakistan have fallen to less than 50/50... maybe even to 40%. Once again the realpolitik rationale of "an enemy of an enemy is a friend" may have made a bigger and scarier new enemy. We shall see, but keep your eyes on this area -- It is going to be huge.