Back To The Issue - Can We Avoid A Quagmire In South Asia?
There is something about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the question of Zionist influence in American politics that, if you bring it up, dominates the discussion ever after. I stand by my theory of an unprecedented alliance of the Cheney oil interests with the Neoconservatives in getting up the Iraq War. I wonder if Lee Raymond being at the American Enterprise Institute isn't part of a similar phenomenon. But anyway, it is a couple of pages in the book. Doubters should please read the footnotes carefully.
So, mine is a book of nearly 300 pages, and while it does advert to such issues, it isn't about that but rather NATO (including US) engagement with the Muslim world. In fact, one rationale for not spending so much time on Israel/Palestine is that they are not a NATO sphere of operation.
So I hope I can bring the discussion back to the meat of the book. And, one of the advantages of writing about current affairs is that they often remain current. We've had a lot of news in the past week, about the Obama administration planning to widen its bombing campaign on Pakistan, and rethinking how to do counter-insurgency in Afghanistan. But we've also seen that the political issue that most exercises the Pakistani public is not the neo-Taliban in the small tribal agencies of the northwest, but rather issues in presidential power being too overweening, or in injuries to the rule of law by a military dictatorship, which they want repaired now that the country has returned to civilian democracy.
How well do the commentators feel I have explained the background to these crises, and can we avoid a quagmire in South Asia?
I'll buy the book... today.
However, at the moment I don't know enough about it to comment. Sorry! I love your blog.
March 19, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the whole Democracy deal in Pakistan is a mirage. Benazhar Butto willed her party to her family. That isn't Democracy. There are certain things the US can do which are consistent with US Democracy that at the same time assist Pakistan and those things should be done. Encouraging a widespread populism basically a mobocracy is to be avoided. The US has to work with elites in countries, such as Pakistan. Of course, there are elites and there are elites and the US should work with 'aristocrats' rather than 'oligarchs'. Of course, the far goal is Democracy with regular elections etc but that is a far away goal and the only way to get there is by a slow and steady course. The US shouldn't take the side of the mob against the beleagured forces that barely hold the country together as is. Pakistan is on the verge of becoming a failed state. On the other side of the coin of course the US shouldn't support a tyrant 'because he is our tyrant' either.
March 19, 2009 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tend to agree.
Democracy in Pakistan is a red herring. While it might be desirable (pure democracy is not) what is desirable is an ally with political and economic stability. The US adventures in Latin America supporting right-wing dictatorships should teach us a lesson (not to follow in such footsteps but the larger lessons including the consequences).
Political and economic stability are important in Pakistan (for us) because of P's nuclear and other strategic powers, as well as from a human conditions point of view. We don't want to create/foster more breeding grounds for radical extremism of the violent sort.
March 19, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
The difficulty with the plan I propose is that the State Department has to know what it is doing. People at the State Department have to be able to make decisions about members of the various elites whether an individual is a potential tyrant and looter or whether an individual is making the best of a terrible situation and is at least in fits and starts doing what right for Pakistan and the people of Pakistan. The plan I propose which eschews an uncontrolled populism and supports individuals who are building institutions on which Pakistan can rely upon in the future depends on the ability of the State Department to pick the wheat from the chaff vis-a-vis elites. The devil is the details. Such a plan would have been unworkable under the Bush administration.
March 20, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Zed and eds are right about Pakistan, but not completely. I think Pakistan has a problem with democracy, in that the opposing factions are fully mature while the institutions we'd expect them to employ are not.
I am surprised every day that south Asia didn't erupt overnight, but then I realize the futility of eruption. If I lived there, would my main concern be the ... thing? Or something else?
It's a ragtag democracy. Bhutto, et al are symbols of the kinder, gentler Pakistan. And it's good they booted the authoritarian. But when Perv was Prez, it laid out a plan, a plot.
The future may be determined by how well the anti-intellectual movements spread. When Pakistan is run by their equivalent of rednecks, central rule will probably fall apart.
That vacuum will be a big stinky problem, but they don't have any oil. They have nuclear weapons trained on our ally. India is an ally, right?
Knowing as much as I do about Pakistan, and about India, Sri Lanka and a few of the other 'stans, I believe despite the potential contagion of English-style civilization from India that these people will come to represent more of the backward than the progressive. It is ripe for populist overthrow.
March 19, 2009 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who is ripe for a populist overthrow?
March 20, 2009 2:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe I'm stuck in the 1970s, but I find it difficult to take Pakistani civilian politics, seriously.
The ultimate power in Pakistan is the military -- always has been and for the foreseeable future, always will be. Include the ISI which extends the military's tentacles beyond the barracks and into civil society, and there's not much left for civilian government to do.
World recession and its deleterious effect upon the Pakistani military budget should give the U.S. significant influence. On the other hand we have a war going on in Afghanistan which must be supplied with materiel coming through Pakistan. And we need the Pakistani military to secure our supply lines through "Pashtunistan."
For now, it looks like we'll have to give Pakistan's Generals most of what they want. But what do they want?
March 19, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think is it's a good thing that PM Gilani has reinstated Iftikhar Chaudhury, although I would be happier with this if he -- Chief Justice Chaudhury -- had opposed Musharraf's dictatorship earlier.
Nevertheless, it can only be good that SoS Hillary Clinton was successful in her intervention with Zardari or behalf of the Chief Justice. However, if the Punjab police have more or less mutinied, then the problem is an ongoing and growing one for Islamabad.
How will Obama handle Pakistan's America Anxiety, specially if Obama sends in more troops/footprint expanding counter-insurgency into neighboring Afghanistan and also begins bombing particular areas within Pakistan? That is the question I have too. I'm hoping he will ask you, Prof. Cole. :)
With the global economy in tremors, shaking markets and finances to bits, what can be done for Pakistan to feel that they are players in their own destiny and not pawns in our Excellent Adventure? I have no idea. I was hoping you would tell us.
March 20, 2009 2:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
p.s, I saw you on the Colbert Show and you were fab!
March 20, 2009 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink