|
9123. marjoribanks - 8/16/2008 12:03:46 PM AC,
Please read the book I cited in 9120. In light of its reportage, I'd call the odds quite impossible for "an intelligent US engagement with Pakistan." I mean, what kind of change are you expecting, even if Obama wins? Personally, I can't be that wild-eyed.
As for Kashmir, broadly, it's only one (though important) part of the Indo-Pak relationship, which is now inevitably set towards increasing openness and trade. I doubt anything is going to change that. 9124. marjoribanks - 8/16/2008 12:13:02 PM It is to be hoped that US re-engagement in multilateral institutions can prevent the future anarchy you project
The international order is pretty broken, AC. Even if an Obama administration brings new heft to the UN, the other powers - and now we talk about other powers - are not very enamoured by that highly dated early-20th century construct. And with the US, the sole military superpower, exhausted and bleeding and likely to remain so for a long time, it's a bit of a dangerous and unknown territory we're entering here. 9125. alistairconnor - 8/16/2008 12:27:54 PM Well, in a multipolar world, international institutions are useful to everybody. The Bush (rather, Rumsfeld) doctrine of deliberately breaking them, on the grounds that US interests are better served by direct bilateral relations, and build-em-up and knock-em-down ad-hoc coalitions, is a historical aberration. I think there is a lot of pent-up desire and anticipation for a return to an improved status quo. The Rumsfeld model having been so thoroughly discredited. We shall see.
(For example : Sakashvili, who clearly believed in the Rumsfeld model, expected aid from his big ally... too bad : that coalition has already been knocked down, it seems.) 9126. wonkers2 - 8/16/2008 3:46:05 PM Marjoribanks, how much money and how many lives is it worth to spend to avoid a terror attack or a few terror attacks. The biggest terror attack to date was 9-11 where 3,000 were killed--that was one of our excuses for invading Iraq as well as Afghanistan where upwards of 100,000 have died and countless billions spent. Terror attacks are unfortunate and a great nuisance, much like airlier crashes, but not a vital threat unless nuclear weapons are involved. Moreover, I'm not sure that the blunt weapon of military invasion is the most effective method of eliminating or reducing terrorism.
As soon as we start using the phrase "war on" something, an important part of our brain shuts down and we focus on narrow, military solutions that tend to bring their own costs and problems, greater than the problem they are intended to solve. The U.S. has quite a history of using our military in misguided efforts to solve alleged problems. I commend to your attention "War Made Easy" by David Solomon and the movie by the same name. 9127. wonkers2 - 8/16/2008 3:48:22 PM War Made Easy by Norman Solomon [Norman Solomon, not David] 9128. jexster - 8/16/2008 5:52:23 PM Chasing the Dragon
Rob Riggle, The Daily Show 9129. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/18/2008 5:09:44 AM 
9130. alistairconnor - 8/18/2008 11:06:51 AM Musharraf to resign, flee Pakistan
Wow. On the surface, it's a triumph of democracy and republican institutions. In practice, can they hold it together? 9131. jexster - 8/18/2008 6:32:48 PM This is unprecedented. This is historic. This is a momentous time in the history of this nation. It has successfully forced accountability - through peaceful and legal means - on its leaders. The people of Pakistan - lawyers and all - have exercised their agency.
And like every other such exercise - be it the election of 2000 or the upcoming election of 2008 in the US - the outcome is up in the air. And hence, the hope is not in the fate of this particular dictator, it is in the accountability to the Pakistani publics, of their representative. If we really want a secure ally in Pakistan, we would do our best to strengthen the people of Pakistan.
PS. If you are curious about Musharraf's speech, I live-blogged it. Well, most of it.
Agency
Manan Ahmed 9132. marjoribanks - 8/19/2008 12:23:58 PM This is unprecedented. This is historic. This is a momentous time in the history of this nation. It has successfully forced accountability - through peaceful and legal means - on its leaders. The people of Pakistan - lawyers and all - have exercised their agency.
Half-true at best.
Pakistan's civil society definitely demonstrated a powerful resilience in the last couple of years, partly due to the unleashing of the media etc by Musharraf. The backbone shown by the lawyers and judiciary, in addition, was really impressive and is enough reason to become cautiously optimistic about Pakistan's prospects in the medium term.
But the missing fact here is that this exit for Musharraf has been engineered by two thugs of the lowest order, and the future of Pakistani politics rests in the hands of possibly the two worst, most venal men in the whole country.
Both of them are unelected, just like Musharraf, which is a final irony. The whole "triumph of democracy" line is total bullshit. Pakistan has lost a benign, largely competent dictator, and reverted to a kleptocracy controlled by the two biggest goons of all. 9133. marjoribanks - 8/19/2008 1:18:18 PM Ahmed Rashid on Pakistan.
The resignation of President Pervez Musharraf yesterday after nine years in office is a major victory for Pakistan's long-battered and still fragile democratic forces. But particularly given the meltdown the country has endured in recent weeks, there are still many obstacles to effective civilian governance. Although the United States will expect things to change in a hurry, they are unlikely to do so right away.
Three of Pakistan's past four military rulers have been driven from power by popular movements, but the politicians who followed the military all failed to take advantage of the people's desire for democracy and economic development and were eventually forced out by the military on charges of corruption and incompetence.
The most pressing issues today involve the long-standing tension of Pakistan's politics and the relationship between the civilian government and the military. The government is led by the Pakistan People's Party, now run by Asif Ali Zardari, the widower of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, but his party governs through a complex coalition of parties.
The PPP's main antagonist is former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, head of the Pakistan Muslim League-N, who never misses an opportunity to try to pull down the PPP, his longtime rival, rather than working with it to consolidate the few democratic gains the country has made.
ad_icon
Overthrown by Musharraf in a 1999 coup and humiliated by the army, Sharif rejects concessions to the army and offers no support to the war against Taliban extremists. Busy pandering to his right-wing supporters, he has little time for American demands.
Sharif believes that his popularity and the parliamentary seats he controls in the majority province of Punjab will eventually regain him the prime ministership.
In the next few days, internal coalition battles will continue as key questions arise, including where Musharraf should live, whether impeachment should proceed, how the senior judges Musharraf dismissed last November should be restored to their offices and who should become president.
Sharif is taking a hard line, while Zardari wants to move slowly and not confront the army by further humiliating Musharraf, a former army chief.
These power struggles within the coalition are magnified by the enormous mistrust that exists between the army and both parties. The army's mistrust of the PPP has a nearly 40-year history, and the military dislikes Sharif.
Etc. Rashid is far more harsh that I was, above, on Musharraf. No doubt he is right.
9134. marjoribanks - 8/19/2008 1:29:19 PM This brief article by a member of the Bhutto clan gets to the main points with more style:
The one thing that is absolute when dealing with the dregs that run my country is this: nothing is ever as it seems. Nowhere is that more true than in the current scenario involving President Musharraf's likely impeachment by the ruling coalition.
"It has become imperative to move for impeachment," barked Benazir Bhutto's widower, Asif Zardari, at a press conference in Islamabad last week. Sitting beside the new head of the Pakistan People's party was Nawaz Sharif, twice formerly prime minister of Pakistan. Zardari snarled every time Musharraf's name came up, seething with political rage and righteousness, while Sharif did his best to keep up with the pace of things. He nodded sombrely and harrumphed every once in a while. The two men are acting for democracy, you see. And impeaching dictators is a good thing for democracies, you know.
But Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari are unelected. They're not just unrepresentative in that they don't hold seats in the parliament - they have absolutely no mandate in Pakistan. They head the two largest, and most corrupt, parties in the state but hold no public office. Pots and kettles. 9135. wonkers2 - 8/19/2008 11:38:43 PM Good government is a scarce commodity. 9136. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 8/20/2008 12:00:16 AM There's the rub: democracy vs. "kleptocracy"
In a a genuine democracy the cream can rise to the top, but in our new world order, the kleptocrats like Bush, Cheney, et al--shit floats! 9137. wonkers2 - 8/20/2008 12:57:43 AM HA! Very true. 9138. jexster - 8/20/2008 3:15:14 AM 9132
The ugly face of Hindu exceptionalism 9139. jexster - 8/20/2008 3:17:25 AM Oh those Bhutto's....money grubbing cricket playing plutocrats 9140. jexster - 8/23/2008 6:43:25 PM Afghanistan: US Airstrikes Kill 50 Children
How many airstrikes before these numbnuts realize that bombing is a hallmark of defeat in counterinsurgency 9141. jexster - 8/24/2008 9:01:12 AM Marji nails it
Nothin but net
Pakistain Ruling Coalition on Verge of Collapse
Guess Musharaff will have to step in and restore order or some other member of the General Staff eh? 9142. robertjayb - 9/9/2008 7:00:35 PM Is Il ill?
WASHINGTON — (AP) - Intelligence officials are watching signs that North Korea's unpredictable dictator Kim Jong Il may be gravely ill.
Incapacity of the man North Koreans call the "Dear Leader" would have serious implications for the international effort to get North Korea to abandon nuclear weapons.
There was no sign of Kim at a parade and celebration today marking the 60th anniversary of North Korea's founding, and the country's state media was silent about his absence. His last reported public appearance was in mid-August.
|
